Chandra Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 722 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000256]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7692/2022

Chandra Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Murari Lal Sharma, Aged
About 66 Years, R/o Plot No. 215, Madhav Nagar, Behind
Durgapura Railway Station, Jaipur. Group -B Service.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
         Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2.       Commissioner              Of    Central       Excise,       Central    Excise
         Commissionerate,               117/5,     P.W.D.        Colony,    Ratanada,
         Jodhopur (Raj). Presently Having Office At 105-G, New
         Jodhopur Industrial Area, Behind Aims, Jodhopur (Raj).
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma petitioner in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain with Mr. Sorabh Jain & Mr. Jay Upadhyay

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

23/01/2023

1. Heard Mr. C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Kinshuk Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition so as to

challenge the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal')

dismissing Original Application No.344/2017 of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was working on the post of Superintendent

and had retired on 31.08.2015. Just 10 days before his

retirement, he was submitted with a charge-sheet dated

20/21.08.2015 in accordance with Rule 14 of the Central Civil

[2023/RJJP/000256] (2 of 6) [CW-7692/2022]

Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1965 for

alleged misconduct on his part during the period 01.05.2008 to

30.06.2009.

4. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet before the

Tribunal on the ground that it had been served highly belatedly

after almost six years of the alleged misconduct and just before

his retirement. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application

with the finding that no doubt there is delay of six years in

between the alleged event and the charge-sheet, but the delay in

submitting the charge-sheet is not entirely unexplained. The

respondents have given a detailed timeline in their affidavit and

have brought on record the correspondence amongst its various

internal wings and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that

the delay in submitting the charge-sheet had went unexplained.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

four judgments, three of the Supreme Court and one of the

Rajasthan High Court in support of his argument that a charge-

sheet issued and served after such a long distance of time from

the alleged incident of misconduct cannot be sustained in law and

as such has been set aside by the Courts. All the aforesaid

decisions have been considered by the Tribunal and have been

distinguished on the ground that no doubt a charge-sheet can be

quashed on account of inordinate delay, provided the delay goes

unexplained.

6. In the case at hand, it cannot be said that the delay in

submitting the charge-sheet is willful or deliberate, rather has

been explained on affidavit, with which the Tribunal had

concurred. In such circumstances, mere delay in submitting the

[2023/RJJP/000256] (3 of 6) [CW-7692/2022]

charge-sheet would not warrant interference by the High Court

when according to the directions of the Tribunal the disciplinary

enquiry was completed and an order of punishment had already

been inflicted upon the petitioner on 27.12.2022. It is open for the

petitioner to challenge the said order departmentally or otherwise.

Once an order of punishment has been passed, the charge-sheet

loses its independent existence and stands virtually merged in the

order of punishment. In such circumstances, it is not the stage for

interfering with the charge-sheet.

7. It may be relevant to refer to certain decisions of the

Supreme Court viz Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kunisetty

Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein it has been

categorically laid down that ordinarily a writ petition should not be

entertained against a mere show cause notice or a charge-sheet

as it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount

to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless it

is shown to have been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to

do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the

charge-sheet and holding an enquiry, the proceedings may be

dropped. It is well settled that the writ lies only when some right

of any party is infringed and such a show cause notice or a

charge-sheet does not infringe upon any right of any person. It is

only when a final order imposing punishment is passed, that the

party can raise his grievance before the appropriate forum.

Therefore, the writ jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature

ought not to be exercised ordinarily for quashing of a show cause

notice or a charge-sheet.

[2023/RJJP/000256] (4 of 6) [CW-7692/2022]

8. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the

case of The Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors. Vs.

Prabhash Chanda Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, wherein in

paragraphs 11 and 13 it has been held as under:-

"11. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, chargesheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court.(Vide :State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr., AIR 2004SC 1467; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906).

13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."

9. In a case where the High Court had quashed the show cause

notice, the Supreme Court held that the Court was not justified in

[2023/RJJP/000256] (5 of 6) [CW-7692/2022]

quashing the same. It was the case of State of Uttar Pradesh

Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr., (1987) 2 SCC 179, wherein in

paragraph 9 it has been observed as under:-

"9. The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When as how cause notice is issued to a Govt. servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Govt. servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Govt. servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Govt. to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Govt. servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice."

10 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we refuse

to exercise our discretionary/supervisory jurisdiction in the matter

for the simple reason that ordinarily a writ petition against the

charge-sheet is not to be entertained; secondly, it is inappropriate

to interfere with the charge-sheet when the final order of

punishment has been passed which can be assailed

departmentally or otherwise; and thirdly for the reason that the

delay in furnishing the charge-sheet stand virtually explained and

the Tribunal as such has refused to quash it.

11. Thus, we find no error or illegality in the order impugned

passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

12. However, the petitioner is set at liberty to challenge the

punishment order, wherein he may take the ground of inordinate

delay in filing the charge-sheet as well, which may be considered

[2023/RJJP/000256] (6 of 6) [CW-7692/2022]

independently without being influenced by the observations of this

Court and the Tribunal.

                                   (SHUBHA MEHTA),J                                                 (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

                                   KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/32









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)