SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(All) 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Nidhi Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 3583 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nripendra Kumar Dwivedi, Prasanna Dwivedi.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

Point of Law: 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.

Headnote:

POCSO Act - Sections 7/8 - Arms Act - Section 3/25 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 363, 366 - Quashing charge-sheet - Suspension pending departmental inquiry - Offence punishable - Petitioner that when petitioner was posted at Police Station District a first information report has been lodged by one which has been registered as Crime under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act at Police Station District investigation of said case was handed over to one Sub-Inspector - After recording statements of informant and witnesses submitted charge sheet - Only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law - 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 is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. – Para 16,17.

Finding of the Court:

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 levelled 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.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily should not be exercised to quash a show-cause notice or charge-sheet (!) (!) - Courts should not stay or quash disciplinary proceedings nor examine the correctness of charges; departmental inquiry must proceed uninterrupted (!) (!) (!) - Interference by tribunal or court is permissible only if charges are wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal (!) (!) (!) - Suspension pending enquiry is a procedural measure and not punishment; courts have emphasized adherence to service procedures (!) (!) (!) - Judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and cannot assess correctness or truth of charges, which are for the disciplinary authority (!) (!) (!) - Even at the final stage, departmental enquiry or charge-sheet cannot be quashed; interim relief is not available (!) (!) - The court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned charge-sheet and dismissed the writ petition (!)

What is the scope of High Court's writ jurisdiction regarding quashing a charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings?

How should courts handle suspension orders pending departmental inquiry?

What are the limits of judicial review over charges framed in departmental inquiries?


JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Nripendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Asim Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the charge-sheet dated 24th August, 2021 issued by respondent no.4 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) and the order dated 31st October, 2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure No.7 to this writ petition), whereby he has been placed under suspension pending departmental inquiry. Further the petitioner has prayed that a direction be issued to respondents not to proceed with the departmental proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 24th August, 2021 issued by respondent no.4.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was posted at Police Station-Adampur, District Amroha, a first information report has been lodged by one Roop Kishore, which has been registered as Crime No. 0051 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, at Police Station-Adampur, District Jyotibaphuley Nagar. The investigation of the said case was handed over to one Arif Mohammad, Sub-Inspector. Mr. Arif after recording the statements of the informant and witnesses submitted charge sheet no. 107 of 2029 dated 15th May, 2019 against Horam and Harphool under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act. The aforesaid case committed to the Court of Special Judge, POCSO ACT, III, Amroha, which was numbered as Session Trial No. 21 of 2019. The investigation of aforesaid Crime No. 0051 of 2019 was transferred to one Ashok Sharma, Inspector on 28th May, 2019, who submitted the charge sheet no. 107A of 2020 on 19th March, 2020. against Roop Kishor, Suresh and Devendra under Sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to one Pankaj Sharma, Inspector who submitted his report on 12th August, 2020 thereafter the case was converted under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act after deleting Sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. After framing the charge and examination of witnesses, the trial court has acquitted the persons, namely, Horam and Harphool against whom charge sheet no.107 of 2019 was submitted, in Session trial no. 21 of 2019 vide order dated 19th January, 2021. On the basis of charge-sheet no.107A of 2020 dated 19th March, 2020, the case was committed to court of Sessions Judge, Amroha, which has been numbered as Sessions Trial No. 354 of 2020 and charges were framed against Roop Kishore, Suresh and Devendra for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. and further a Session Trial being Session Trial No. 403 of 2020 was registered in which charges were framed against one Suresh for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 Arms Act. Both the Sessions Trial being Sessions Trial No. 354 of 2020 and Session Trial No. 403 of 2020 have been tried together and the session trial no. 354 of 2020 was treated to be the leading case.

4. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that after considering the facts and evidences adduced during trial, the Sessions Court has acquitted all the accused persons from all the charges vide judgment and order dated 31st March, 2021 and further the Sessions Judge, Amroha forwarded a letter dated 31st March, 2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Amroha, Additional Director General of Police, Bareilly Region, Bareilly and Director General of Police, U.P. at Lucknow to initiate departmental proceedings against Inspector Ashok Sharma and those police personnel whose signatures were found over the Fard Baramdagi.

5. Pursuant to the above letter of the Sessions Judge, Amroha, Inspector Ashok Sharma was suspended vide order dated 7th August, 2020 and proceedings under Rule 14 (1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 was initiated and vide order dated 21st November, 2020, the enquiry was allotted to Mr. Vijay Kumar Rana, Circle Officer, Amroha, who

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top