ORDER

1. The pleadings are complete. Pinpointing the urgency in the matter, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that although an interim order was passed by this Court and pursuant thereto, proceedings of departmental enquiry were made standstill, but now DPC is to be convened for promotions and the case of petitioner for promotion will be deferred on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceeding. Ergo, looking to the urgency and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter has been finally heard.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking for solitary relief that the charge-sheet dated 24.2.2021 (Annexure-P/2) issued to the petitioner by the respondents be quashed.

3. Mala fide is made sole basis for issuance of charge-sheet, which has given rise to this petition assailing such charge-sheet. It is averred in the petition that on the fulcrum of fallacious and fictitious allegations, the charges framed are entirely based upon appraisal report of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in the context of one Shri Prateek Joshi, who was subjected to search-operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the petitioner is a police officer and he was never subjected to any such search. In the search drive of the Income Tax Department against Shri Prateek Joshi, some loose papers containing alleged unaccounted cash transaction was found and only on the basis of such entries, an undue inference was drawn that the petitioner had handed over an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi and on that foundation, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. A charge-sheet was issued on 24.2.2021 labeling a charge against that in the search against Shri Prateek Joshi some entries were detected in loose paper showing an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore and as such it was presumed that the petitioner paid Rs.7.5 Crore in cash and such conduct falls within the misconduct and is violative to the provisions of section 3(1)(i), (iii) and 5(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that such entry runs short of any evidentiary value and nothing substantial can be inferred or brought out to the surface. He submitted that a bare look to those entries – there contains a name of one ‘Arun Mishra’ and another column i.e. of debit shows ‘750’ is written, therefore, it was presumed that it was nobody but the petitioner who had given Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi and that entry was made foundation for issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioner.

5. Shri Nema further submitted that issuance of charge-sheet on the basis of such casual entries in a loose paper, that too without making any final assessment of Shri Prateek Joshi is very early subject of the respondents-authorities. He also submitted that in view of section 153C of Income Tax Act, unless assessment of income of a person (other than person in whose case search has been initiated) is called or noticed, such entry cannot be used against any person. The petitioner against whom said entry has been used and abrupt charge was made on the basis of said entry, the petitioner was never noticed or heard neither by the Income Tax Department nor EOW. As such, it is also not clear as to on what basis, the figure ‘750’ is considered to be an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore and that was a transaction made between the petitioner and Shri Prateek Joshi. Shri Nema further submitted that income of Shri Prateek Joshi has been assessed and in the said assessment, the respective entry was neither considered nor was taken note of showing Rs.7.5 Crore as the income of Shri Prateek Joshi and as such when the assessment has been done treating there being no income of Rs.7.5 Crore then such entry cannot be made basis for levelling a charge or considered it to be a misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Such charge, according to the petitioner,