A charge-sheet cannot be quashed merely because it is based on the same facts as an FIR; the validity of the charge-sheet is determined by the disciplinary authority.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the charge-sheet issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for brevity, "the Rules of 1958") vide memorandum dated 02.09.2021.

2. The facts in brief are that an FIR No.383/2019 dated 19.12.2019 came to be registered against the petitioner, a Head Constable, under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Vide memo dated 02.09.2021, the petitioner has been served upon with the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 containing seven charges against him, which is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the FIR as well as charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 are based on same set of facts, the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed and set aside. Drawing attention of this Court towards the contents of FIR and the charge-sheet especially, charge No.6, learned counsel submitted that the same are based on same set of facts and hence, the writ petition be allowed and the charge-sheet be quashed. He relied upon some interim orders of this Court in cases of Satyanarayan Malav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9376/2021 dated 21.09.2021, Munnu Lal Maurya v. Food Corporation of India & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11894/2021 dated 15.11.2021 & Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12658/2021 dated 20.11.2021, in support of his submission.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The allegation in the FIR against the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant Jagdish Suman for taking action in the FIR No.403/2019 lodged by the complainant and for not taking action against the complainant and his family in the FIR lodged against them by the other party whereas, the charges against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 pertain to dereliction in discharge of his duty. For example, the statement of allegations qua charge No.1 says that investigation in FIR No.389/2019 lodged by the complainant Smt. Kanya Bai on 27.11.2019 was entrusted to the petitioner but, in violation of the provisions of Section 161 (3) CrPC, neither her statement was got recorded through a lady police officer nor, videography of her statement was conducted. As per statement of allegations qua charge No.2, despite recording a note in the daily diary on 09.12.2019 that offences under Sections 323, 504 & 34 of IPC were found to be established and offences under Sections 354 & 354 (k) IPC were not established during the course of investigation in FIR No.398/2019, the file was not handed over to the SHO, Police Station Khanpur for obtaining necessary permission and was kept, without any reasons, with him only. The other charges also pertain to similar allegations against the petitioner, i.e. of committing dereliction in discharge of duty totally unconcerned with the allegations in the FIR. Insofar as charge No.6 is concerned, although, it contains averment that for obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from Shri Jagdish Suman, he did not conduct any investigation but, it also refers dereliction in discharge of duty for not conducting any investigation in the FIR No.403/2019 from 12.12.2019 to 17.12.2019 which is quite distinct from the allegation of bribe.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to quash the charge-sheet at the threshold accepting the contention of the learned counsel that it being based on the same facts on which FIR has been lodged against him, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Even otherwise also, it is settled legal proposition that the charge-sheet cannot normally be quashed at the threshold.

8. The Hon'ble Suprme Court has, in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayan: (2006) 12 SCC 28, held as under:

"11. Instead of rep