ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the issuance of charge-sheet dated 16.1.2020 and supplementary charge-sheets dated 15.5.2020 and 14.1.2021 to the petitioner by the authority, not competent to do so.

2. The main thrust of challenge to the charge-sheets is about its issuance by the authority, not having competence to do so. Further, the issuance of charge-sheets is assailed on the ground that the charges levelled therein are vague and insufficient to constitute any misconduct against the petitioner.

3. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for main contesting respondents No.2 and 3, on the basis of reply submitted on behalf of these respondents alongwith the documents tried to convince this Court about the competence of the authority justifying that the chargesheets have been issued by the competent authority.

4. Focusing on the charge-sheet originally issued on 16.1.2020 (Annexure-P/1) levelling as many as six charges against the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is issued by the Chief General Manager. However, since the petitioner is holding the post of Superintending Engineer, therefore, according to the petitioner, the Managing Director is the competent authority to issue the charge-sheet. To reinforce his contention, the petitioner has filed a document demonstrating that it is the Managing Director, who could issue the charge-sheet to the petitioner.

5. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 did not dispute that it is the Managing Director who is competent authority to issue the charge-sheet to the petitioner, but he tried to justify that the charge-sheet has been issued by the competent authority by referring to the documents filed alongwith the application for taking documents on record i.e. I.A.No.8640/2021 wherein it is depicted in note-sheet dated 28.12.2019 that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.2019, which was replied by him on 21.12.2019 and after perusal of reply submitted by the petitioner, since it was not found satisfactory, therefore, following opinion was given by the Managing Director :--

“Answer not satisfactory. To initiate DE of Shri T.K. Mishra.”

Thereafter, there is another note-sheet dated 15.1.2020, which indicates that the charge-sheet was prepared and placed before the Managing Director for its approval, although that note-sheet does not contain the signature of the Managing Director.

6. For ready reference, the contents of note-sheet dated 15.1.2020 are reproduced hereinbelow :--

ß8 dafMdk Ø- 7@,u eas fn;s x;s funsZ'kkuqlkj Jh Vh- ds- feJk] v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark ¼fuy½ ds fo:) tkjh fd;s tkus okys vkjksi i= dh LoPN Vafdr izfr;ka gLrk{kjkFkZ izLrqr gS A^

7. Taking strength from the aforesaid note-sheet, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a decision for initiating departmental enquiry was taken by the competent authority, but the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner levelling as many as six charges has never been approved or signed by the competent authority and therefore as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge- sheet dated 16.1.2020 (Annexure-P/1) is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside.

8. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 drew attention of this Court towards the provisions of section 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity “Rules, 1966”), in that, sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 makes it clear that it is for the disciplinary authority to form an opinion on the basis of material placed before him as to whether departmental enquiry has to be initiated or not. He emphasized that once opinion by the competent authority i.e. Disciplinary Authority/Managing Director has been given for initiation of departmental enquiry, it virtually suffices the purpose of fulfilling the requirement envisaged in rule 14 and in suc