IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Kamlesh Goud – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 2517 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2021
charge-sheet - judicial review - 64(3), 64(2), 719(d), 47@20, 234@20 - The court discussed the limited grounds for interference at the stage of charge-sheet, emphasizing that correctness of allegations cannot be examined at this stage. The court referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court to establish that a writ petition is generally not maintainable against a charge-sheet, unless it is issued by an incompetent authority. The court highlighted that charge-sheet cannot be quashed at the initial stage on merits and that the veracity of the charges is the domain of the disciplinary authority, not the court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interference at the stage of charge-sheet, arguing that the allegations did not constitute misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined interference, stating that necessary ingredients for interference at the charge-sheet stage were absent.
Issues: Interference at the stage of charge-sheet, grounds for judicial review, veracity of charges
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition is generally not maintainable against a charge-sheet, and interference at the charge-sheet stage is declined unless the charge-sheet is issued by an incompetent authority.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with the observation that the respondents should conduct the enquiry in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. Learned counsel for petitioner at the outset fairly submits that this matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WP No. 2027/2021. Thus, petitioner deserves same fate.
2. Shri Aditya Garg, learned G.A. has no objection.
3. This Court in WP No. 2027/2021 opined as under:-
^^1- fcuk ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks voxr djk, Lo;a ds inLFkkiuk okys Fkkus ls nhxj Fkkuk c/kkuk {ks= esa tkdj ,uMhih,l dh dk;Zokgh dj lacaf/kr Fkkuk ÁHkkjh dks lwfpr u dj e/;Áns'k iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk Øa- 64 ¼3½ mYya?ku djuk ,oa iSjk Øa- 719 ¼d½ esa fu/kkZfjr Áko/kkuksa dk ikyu ugha djukA
2- mijksDr lwpuk ij iwNrkN gsrq v{k; xks;y dks lacf/kr Fkkuk c?kkuk ;k inLFkkiuk okys Fkkuk tkon u ys tkrs gq, lq;qDr dCts okys ¼fdjk;s ij½ galk ekyoh; ds edku esa j[k lansgkLin vkpj.k dk Án'kZu dj e/;Áns'k iqfyl jsX;qysn'ku ds iSjk Øa- 64 ¼2½ dk mYya?ku djukA
3- mijksDr ,uMhih,l ,DV esa iwNrkN gsrq v{k; xks;y dks ys tkus ds mijkar v{k; xks;y ds ifjtuksa }kjk vigj.k dh vk'kadk ds pyrs Fkkuk uhep dsaV esa ntZ xqebZlku Ø- 47@20 ds lanHkZ esa Fkkuk ÁHkkjh uhep dsaV Jh vt; lkjoku }kjk bl laca/k esa iwNs tkus ij v{k; xks;y ds laca/k esa dksbZ lwpuk ugha nsdj ofj"B vf/kdkfj;ksa dks xqejkg djus dk Á;'k dj e/;Áns'k jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk Ø- 64¼3½ dks mYya?ku djukA
4- mijksDr ,uMhih, ,DV ds varxZr mfu deys'k xkSM+ }kjk ntZ nsgkrh ukylh Ø- 0@20 /kkjk 8@18 ,uMhih,l ,DV ls Fkkuk c?kkuk esa ntZ vly dk;eh Øa- 234@20 /kkjk 8@18 ,uMhih,l ,DV esa 09 ?kaVs dk foyac dj lansgkLin vkpj.k dk Án'kZu dj e/;Áns'k iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk Øa- 64¼2½ dk mYya?ku djukA
5- bl Ádkj mijksDr leLr iqfyldehZ iqjkuh lsok vof/k ds Áf'kf{kr vf/k-@deZpkjh gksdj iqfyl lsok dh lkekU; 'krksZa ,oa fu;eksa ls Hkyh&Hkkafr ifjfpr gksus ds i'pkr Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj xaHkhj d`R; dj Lo;a dks iqfyl lsok ds vk;ksX; Ánf'kZr djukA**
8. This is trite law that interference at the stage of charge-sheet can be made on limited grounds. If allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet are accepted on its face value and even then, no misconduct is made out, interference can be made. Interference can also be made if charge-sheet is issued belatedly and such delay in issuing the charge-sheet has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority is unable to assign justifiable reasons for issuing the charge-sheet with inordinate delay. The charge-sheet can also be subject-matter of judicial review if it is issued by incompetent authority. Correctness of allegations cannot be gone into at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet. Charge-sheet is not an order indeed it is only a notice pursuant to which an enquiry can be conducted. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of M.P. & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) M.P.L.J. 172 considered various judgments of Supreme Court on the question of judicial review of charge-sheet and opined as under:-
6. Before we consider the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it would be appropriate to consider the scope and extent of judicial review and interference in charge-sheets permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as specified and laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions. In the case of Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Supreme Court 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, (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, (2001) 10 SCC 639, State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma, (1987) 2 SCC 179, 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 n
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh
Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of M.P. & Ors.
Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha
Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse
State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra
State of U.P v. Brahm Datt Sharma
Ulagappa v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore
Ulagappa v. Divn. Commr., Mysore
Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana
Union of India v. Upendra Singh
Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 388
The veracity of charges in a charge-sheet is the domain of the disciplinary authority, and a writ petition is generally not maintainable against a charge-sheet.
Limited scope of interference in departmental charge-sheet cases under Article 226.
Disciplinary actions against employees are permissible for misconduct during duties, and such actions require careful scrutiny but should not be quashed without significant justification.
A writ petition cannot challenge a show cause notice or charge-sheet unless issued by an incompetent authority or with mala fide intent, as they do not constitute adverse orders.
A charge-sheet does not provide cause of action for a writ unless it is wholly without jurisdiction or illegal; principles of natural justice do not apply at this stage.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.