IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Satish Singh Kushwah – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 2027 of 2021
Decided On : 22-02-2021
Preliminary Enquiry - Disciplinary Proceedings - AIR 1982 SC 937(State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through LRs. and AIR 1986 SC 995(Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) - Art. 226 - 64(3), 64(2), 47@20, 234@20 - The court declined interference with the charge-sheet as the allegations did not constitute misconduct and the charge-sheet did not lack necessary particulars. The respondents were directed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought various reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the preliminary enquiry, second enquiry report, and charge sheet issued against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined interference with the charge-sheet, stating that the allegations did not constitute misconduct and the charge-sheet did not lack necessary particulars. However, the respondents were directed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the initiation of a preliminary enquiry without a complaint, the validity of the charge-sheet, and the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interference with the charge-sheet can only be made on limited grounds, such as if the allegations do not constitute misconduct or if the charge-sheet is issued belatedly and causes prejudice. The court also emphasized that the correctness of the charges cannot be examined at the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the respondents were directed to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Sujoy Paul, J.
Heard on admission.
1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(a) An appropriate writ order or direction quashing P.rR report dated 21/11/2020.
(b) An appropriate writ order or direction quashing Second Enquiry Report dt. 02/12/2020.
(c) An appropriate writ order or direction quashing charge sheet dt. 03/01/2021 so far as it relates to petitioner.
(d) An appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent concern to put on hold the departmental enquiry till the final completion of the trial pending before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) Act.
(e) An appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent concern to pass reasoned order on the reply filed by the petitioner.
(f) An appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent concern to pass reasoned and speaking order on the reply dt. 08/01/2021 filed by petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fault submissions:-
Firstly, the Superintendent of Police initiated a suo moto preliminary enquiry without there being any complaint and thereafter put the petitioner to notice. The petitioner filed his reply to the showcase notice but without assigning any reason as to why said defence was not found trustworthy, issued the impugned charge-sheet dated 03/01/2021(Annexure-P/5) which is bad in law. Secondly as per the allegations in the charge-sheet, the petitioner visited certain places which were beyond his territorial jurisdiction and were with other Police officials. If he obeyed the senior officials who is also charge-sheeted, it cannot be said that petitioner has committed a misconduct. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings be set aside.
3. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on AIR 1982 SC 937(State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through LRs. and AIR 1986 SC 995(Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan). No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.
5. For the purpose of conducting a preliminary enquiry or fact finding enquiry, it is not necessary that such enquiry can be instituted only when there exists a complaint. This is the discretion of disciplinary authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The preliminary enquiry is being conducted for the subjective satisfaction of disciplinary authority. The said enquiry is being conducted to ascertain whether there exists any prima facie material to proceed against the delinquent employee. It is not mandatory or obligatory on the part of disciplinary authority to conduct preliminary enquiry in each and every case. The question of interfering with preliminary enquiry report does not arise.
6. The petitioner was put to notice and he submitted his reply. At the stage of issuance of charge-sheet, the disciplinary authority was under no obligation to assign reasons and detailed reasons why he intends to issue a charge-sheet. Thus, first contention of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves rejection.
7. The following allegations are made against the petitioner:-
^^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 lacaf/kr Fkkuk c?kkuk ;k inLFkkiuk okys Fkkuk tkon u ys tkrs gq, lq;qDr dCts ¼fdjk;s ij½ galk ekyoh; ds edku esa j[k lansgkLin vkpj.k dk Án'kZu dj e/;Áns'k iqfyl jsX;qys'ku ds iSjk Øa- 64¼2½ 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
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh
Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of M.P. & Ors.
Sawai Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
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
State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through LRs.
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
AI
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.
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.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear, specific, and definite charges in disciplinary proceedings, the duty of a superior officer to control and supervise s....
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority do not violate Article 311; the standard for punishment must align with proven misconduct.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules and acts, and the penalty imposed must be commensura....
Limited scope of interference in departmental charge-sheet cases under Article 226.
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.