Limited scope of interference in departmental charge-sheet cases under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

(through video conferencing)

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 05.11.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2.

2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not filed his reply to the charge-sheet issued by the respondent No. 2 and has approached this Court directly.

3. However, it is submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner do not make out a departmental misconduct, therefore, he cannot be proceeded in a departmental enquiry.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. As per the charge-sheet dated 05.11.2020, an allegation has been made that during his posting, the petitioner has shown negligent and irresponsible working, as a result of which, the number of failure of transformers at the distribution centres has increased. Although, the concerning Officer during the review meeting as well as the Executive Engineer had issued instructions to check the increasing number of failure of transformers, but the petitioner did not improve his working style, as a result, financial loss has been caused to the company making themselves liable for departmental action.

6. By referring to the judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh Bhadoria Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. in W.A. No. 1673/2018, it is submitted that increase in number of failure of transformers cannot be said to be a departmental misconduct.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. The petitioner has approached this Court directly against the charge-sheet. The petitioner in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chiarman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Limited & Others vs. Ananta Shah and Others decided vide order dated 06.04.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2958/2011 and in the case of Union of India & Others vs. J. Ahmad reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022. It is submitted that the failure to come up to the highest expectations of an Officer holding a responsible post or lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership would not constitute failure to maintain devotion to duty.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. Before considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court thinks it apposite to consider the scope of interference in the cases where the departmental charge-sheet has been challenged.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has held as under :-

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence s