Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Anil Bali - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1159/2020 & CM Appl.3856/2020 & 30188/2022
Decided On : 24-08-2022
CISF - Disciplinary Action - CCS Conduct Rules, 1964 - Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes-Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997 - The court discussed the petitioner's duty to follow the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner (1994) 6 SCC 241, Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes-Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997, and Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338. The court also considered the Guidelines of the DOP&T Office Memorandum dated 10.01.2013 and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Commandant in CISF, sought to quash a charge memorandum against him for not taking disciplinary action against a constable who submitted a false caste certificate. The court found the petition to be premature as the petitioner did not exhaust the proper remedy available under the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's writ petition was premature and not maintainable as he did not await the appointment of a competent authority or participate in any proceedings before such authority. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not raise his defenses before the competent authority and had not alleged any error, violation, or mala fide on the part of the respondents.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the writ petition, the petitioner's failure to exhaust the proper remedy, and the premature nature of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's writ petition was premature and not maintainable as he did not exhaust the proper remedy available under the law. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not raise his defenses before the competent authority and had not alleged any error, violation, or mala fide on the part of the respondents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as premature and not maintainable, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim order dated 31.01.2020 was vacated.
Key Points: - A writ petition may be premature and not maintainable if the petitioner fails to exhaust the proper remedy available under the law (!) . - The petition is premature where the petitioner has not awaited the appointment of a competent authority or participated in any proceedings before such authority (!) . - The petitioner must first raise defenses or grievances before the competent authority and cannot pre-judge the outcome by directly approaching the High Court (!) . - Ordinarily, no writ petition against a mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice is maintainable, as it does not infringe any right until a final adverse order is passed (!) . - The High Court should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary proceedings via writ jurisdiction at the stage of a charge-sheet (!) .
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J. - The petitioner before us submits that since his appointment as Assistant Commandant in CISF and promotion as Senior Commandant, he was being deputed at different places from time to time. While posted as Sr. Commandant at Kochi Port Trust, an anonymous complaint qua a false caste certificate submitted by one Lola Ramanayya, CISF No.942290688, constable, Unit CPT Cochin, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as 'Constable') at the time of his recruitment, was received on 22.10.2013. The said caste certificate was found to be false by the Tehsildar on 16.06.2014 and by the Collector on 05.09.2014. Thus, respondents vide letter dated 24.09.2014 requested the then Senior Commandant, i.e. petitioner to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the said Constable.
2. A perusal of records of the said Constable by petitioner revealed a false caste certificate dated 09.02.1993 and its verification report dated 05.09.2007. This prompted the petitioner to, in the light of re.: Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner (1994) 6 SCC 241, ask the District Collector qua the authenticity of the said documents vide letter dated 07.10.2014.
3. In the interregnum, in another parallel proceeding, as the Constable was absconding from his duties and was OSL (Over Stayed Leave) since January, 2014 despite several unanswered Lookout Notices issued in February, 2014, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 01.09.2014 to him. Though the Constable replied thereto on 21.09.2014 but chose not to appear before the competent authority. The competent authority thus proceeded ex-parte and issued a final order dated 06.03.2014 finding him guilty of overstay of leave and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with 10% cut in his monthly pension. The said order, after review by the Appellate Authority, was held to be valid.
4. The petitioner was then posted out of Kochi Port Trust on 31.03.2016. Later on the District Collector on 03.12.2016 responded to the letter dated 07.10.2014 of petitioner.
5. However, vide letter dated 18.08.2017 the respondents sought an explanation from petitioner as to why the said Constable was dealt for OSL only and not for submitting a false caste certificate. After receiving the response dated 01.11.2017 from the petitioner, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 13.12.2019 to him. The petitioner responded thereto also vide his reply dated 15.01.2020.
6. Being aggrieved and prior to commencement of any proceedings there under, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Charge Memorandum dated 13.12.2019 as well as quashing any other proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the above said charge-sheet.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, vide order 31.01.2020 this Court issued notice to the respondents and directed that no further proceedings shall take place pursuant to the charge memorandum dated 13.12.2019 till the next date of hearing. The said order is subsisting as on date.
8. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the act of the petitioner was bona fide and as Senior Commandant he was duty bound to follow the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and that the respondents have issued the impugned charge sheet without examining the reply dated 01.11.2017 of the petitioner which specifically mentioned Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes-Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the impugned charge-sheet is violative of the law laid down in Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 and Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and that vide the impugned charge-sheet he has wrongly been held violating Rule 3(1)(i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964.
10. After putting in their appearance,
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition may be premature and not maintainable if the petitioner fails to exhaust the proper remedy available under the law before appr....
Writ petitions against charge-sheets are generally not maintainable if no disciplinary proceedings have commenced, as parties must first exhaust available remedies.
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.
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
Charge memorandum quashed at issuance stage for lacking witness list, violating prior judicial stay, using sub-judice material prejudicing criminal defence, and evidencing malice/retaliation amid lit....
The punishment imposed must be commensurate with the conduct and charges leveled against the petitioner.
Neighborhood disputes, especially involving family members, do not constitute official misconduct, and disciplinary proceedings initiated on such grounds without substantial evidence violate principl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
