ORDER

1. Heard on admission.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the charge sheet dated 16.2.2023 (Annexure-P/1). Petitioner has already filed reply to the said charge sheet.

3. Criticising the charge sheet, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following submissions :-

(i) a preliminary/fact finding enquiry was conducted by the Department in which charges were not found proved against the petitioner, and therefore, issuance of charge sheet is bad in law in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand, (2012) 3 SCC 580.

(ii) Charges are vague and ambiguous.

(iii) the other persons also committed misconduct but petitioner alone is picked up and chosen for disciplinary action which is discriminatory in nature.

(iv) the documents listed alongwith the charge sheet are not supplied to the petitioner enabling the petitioner to file the effective reply.

4. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate opposed the admission.

5. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. This is trite that scope of interference at the stage of issuance of charge sheet in exercise of power under A