Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Singh Siroliya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 30024 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
DEVENDRA SINGH SIROLIYA S/O LATE SHRI
SOHANLAL SIROLIYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: TATKALIN PRABHARI SAINANI 17TH
VAHINI VISABAL BHIND HAL SAHAYAK POLICE
MAHANIRIKSHAK POLICE MUKHYALAYA BHOPAL F.H.
466, F- SECTOR KOTHARI HOUSE CHOURAHE KE PASS,
DINDAYAL NAGAR GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MD. AYUB KHAN - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THROUGH ATIRIKT MUKHYA SACHIV THE STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COM M ANDANT 17 V VAHINI, BISBAL BHIND
BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
has been directed against the issuance of charge-sheet vide Annexure P/4 by
invoking the provisions of Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal), 1966 alleging that no charges as framed are being made
out against the present petitioner and therefore, the said charge-sheet deserves
to be quashed.
2. At the outset, Shri S.S. Kushwah - Government Advocate appearing
for the State on advance copy has raised a preliminary objection that in view of
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of
India (UOI) and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006)
12 SCC 28, the present writ petition is not maintainable as it has been filed
challenging the charge-sheet and therefore, it was prayed that the present
petition be dismissed being not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner encountered with the aforesaid
objection has submitted that the charges which have been framed against the
petitioner by the respondent department are not made out, as the violation of
provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act which is alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner is not made out in the circumstances, as the
said provisions are not applicable to the Cooperative Societies and the
petitioner who was working as the Officiating Commandant of 17th Battalion,
SAF, Bisbal, Bhind, has been levelled the aforesaid allegation, therefore, the
present charge-sheet issued against the petitioner is frivolous and not
maintainable therefore, deserves to be quashed. No other has been argued
before this Court by counsel for the petitioner.
4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this
Court finds it necessary to narrate the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution
of India in the matter of issuance of charge-sheet. It is a trite law that the scope
of interference at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet in exercise of the powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited. The charge sheet is not an
order. If allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are admitted in totality and
yet no misconduct is made out, interference can be made. Interference can also
be made if it is issued by an incompetent authority, if it is highly belated and
there exists no justifiable explanation of delay.
5. In the matter of Union of India (UOI) and another Vs. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana (supra) as cited by the counsel for the respondents/State, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as under:-
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge- sheet or show-
cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore,
State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc.
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be
entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge-sheet
is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be
premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does
not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not
amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any
party unless the same has been issued by a person having no
jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after 5
considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after
holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the
proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established.
It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of
any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-
sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a
final order imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can
be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence
such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be
exercised by quashing a show- cause notice or charge-
sheet."
6. So far as the argument that the charge-sheet is vague or ambiguous or
the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner are not made out,
learned counsel for the petitioner except for placing reliance on Section 269SS
of the Income Tax Act could not point out that such an objection has been
raised before the Disciplinary Authority regarding ambiguity of the charges.
This Court is not sitting as an appellate Court to examine these aspects. Had it
been a case of vagueness of charge, the minimum expectation from the
delinquent employees would be that he will raise such ground in his reply. In
absence thereof, no interference on this aspect is warranted.
7. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in catgorical terms settled the
legal position that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge- sheet as mere issuance
of charge-sheeet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not
amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the
same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so, it is quite
possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after
holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or
hold that the charges as not established and it is well settled that a writ lies only
when some right of any party is infringed.
8. Since no right at present has been infringed of the present petitioner,
the petition against issuance of charge-sheet is not maintainable.
9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the
Officer conducting the inquiry.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
