Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Pramod Kumar Shukla And Another – Appellants
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
Writ A No.4183 of 2022
Decided on : 01-04-2022
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 145 - Quashing impugned orders - Petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 was selected as Sub-Inspector in year 1998 and thereafter was promoted as Inspector on - Petitioner no.2 was selected as Constable in year and thereafter was promoted as Sub-Inspector in year - Both petitioners have been performing their duties up to satisfaction of their superior - He further submits that petitioner nos.1&2 were posted as Inspector and Sub-Inspector in P.S. at time when incident in question took place - One moved an application before Additional City Magistrate-II on with respect to removal of certain articles like cattle etc and animals lying in their property - Pursuant to which ACM-II directed Revenue Inspector to conduct an inquiry with help of concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and do needful – On said direction of area submitted a report on basis of which moved another application on which the ACM-II passed an order directing Inspector to provide security force for removal of illegal encroachment upon property in question in order to maintain peace – Para 24,25.
Finding of the Court:
Court that even by way of final order departmental enquiry or charge-sheet could not have been quashed - law on this point is that Courts are therefore not to grant stay/quash disciplinary proceedings nor they should go into correctness or otherwise of charges leveled in charge-sheet and departmental inquiry should be allowed to continue uninterrupted to come to its natural conclusion - In case of charges framed in a disciplinary enquiry tribunal or Court can interfere only if on charges framed no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or charges framed are contrary to any law - Tribunal or Court cannot take over functions of disciplinary authority - Truth or otherwise of charge is a matter for disciplinary authority to go into - Indeed even after conclusion of their disciplinary proceedings if matter comes to court or tribunal they have no jurisdiction to look into truth of charges or into correctness of findings recorded by disciplinary authority or appellate authority as case may be.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The High Court generally refrains from interfering with disciplinary proceedings, including charge-sheets, unless they are wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. Such exceptional interference is rare and only justified in clear cases of illegality (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that disciplinary inquiries and charge-sheets are part of a process that should be allowed to proceed without judicial interference, except where the charges are fundamentally unlawful or lack jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The authority of the Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta is primarily to recommend punishment; their orders are not final or binding on the disciplinary authority, and their recommendations do not warrant judicial review unless issued without jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes that the order passed by the Lokayukta is a recommendation and cannot be challenged in a court of law unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The Court notes that a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, by itself, does not usually give rise to a cause of action for a writ petition unless it results in an adverse order affecting the rights of a party or is issued without jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The Court has dismissed the writ petition challenging the charge-sheet, finding no illegality or infirmity in the order, and emphasizing that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to continue and be concluded in accordance with law (!) (!) .
The Court underscores that judicial review is limited to examining whether proceedings are conducted within the scope of jurisdiction and legality, and not on the correctness of the charges or the merits of the case (!) (!) .
It is also clarified that disciplinary proceedings, including the issuance of charge-sheets, are to be maintained unless they are wholly illegal or without jurisdiction, and courts should not interfere prematurely or based on the merits of the charges (!) (!) .
The Court directs that the departmental inquiry against the petitioners should be initiated and concluded within a reasonable period, preferably within three months, ensuring adherence to legal procedures (!) .
These points collectively reflect the legal principles governing the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings and the limited role courts should play in intervening in such matters unless fundamental illegality is established.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Satyam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Mr. Aseem Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-
(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing for restraining the respondent not to proceed in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 22.01.2022 issued on the basis of the order of the Lokayukt dated 2.09.2021.
(C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authority to not interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1, namely, Pramod Kumar Shukla was selected as Sub-Inspector in the year 1998 and, thereafter, was promoted as Inspector on 26.01.2015. The petitioner no.2, namely, Pramod Kumar Yadav was selected as Constable in the year 1998 and, thereafter, was promoted as Sub-Inspector in the year 2013. Both the petitioners have been performing their duties up to the satisfaction of their superior. He further submits that the petitioner nos.1&2 were posted as Inspector and Sub-Inspector in P.S.-Chakeri at the time when the incident in question took place. One Mr. Samar Singh moved an application before the Additional City Magistrate-II (hereinafter referred as ACM-II) on Tehsil Diwas on 03.04.2018 with respect to removal of certain articles like cattle etc. and animals lying in their property. Pursuant to which, the ACM-II directed Revenue Inspector to conduct an inquiry with the help of concerned Station House Officer (SHO) and do the needful. On the said direction, the Lekhpal of the area submitted a report dated 05.04.2018, on the basis of which Mr. Samar Singh moved another application on 10.04.2018, on which the ACM-II passed an order directing Inspector Chakeri to provide security force for removal of the illegal encroachment upon the property in question, in order to maintain peace. The Lekhpal as well as complainant Mr. Samer Singh went to the Inspector, i.e. petitioner no.1, who in turn directed to petitioner no.2 to provide necessary force. On the aforesaid direction, the petitioner no.2 visited at the spot with the requisite force and found that there was no disturbance, therefore, the petitioners did not do anything for removing the encroachment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was the duty of the Revenue Officer to perform the duty of removing the illegal encroachment upon the property in question and the petitioners have nothing to do with the aforesaid task. The petitioners were responsible for maintaining peace over the area and since no incident took place, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners had not performed their duty.
5. Subsequently, the complainant/opposite party approached this Court by means of filing a writ petition bearing Writ-C No.15753 of 2018, which was dismissed by order dated 01.05.2018 with a direction to the petitioner therein to approach the Civil Court where the litigation in respect to the matter is already pending or move an application under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. In stead of proceeding as directed by the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2018, the opposite party moved an application before the Lokayukt, Lucknow, who proceeded as per the provision of Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred as "the Act 1975").
6. Thereafter, on the complaint of Mr.
It is clear that in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it i....
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.
Point of law : Report of the Upa-lokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of th....
Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice....
Charge-sheets should not be quashed at the initial stage and suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or routine manner. The competent authority should examine the charge-sheets and take a deci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, including giving the delinquent officer an opportunity t....
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
