01. 31.07.2025 Court No.08.

(Pritam)

MAT 1923 of 2023.

Samaresh Das.

-Vs.-

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tapan Kr. Mahapatra.

…..for the appellant.

Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Mr. K.P. Chatterjee.

....for the respondents/UoI.

1. Mr. Soumya Majumer, learned senior counsel appears for the appellant.

2. Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, learned counsel appears for the respondent/Union of India.

3. This intra-court appeal takes exception to an order dated September 19, 2023 passed in WPA 20338 of 2023, whereby learned Single Judge has declined to stay the charge-sheet/Dept. enquiry.

4. Briefly stated, the singular point raised by Mr.

Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant is based on the language employed in the charge-sheet dated July 9, 2023. By reading the charge-sheet, it was canvassed that the charge is framed in such a manner which shows that it is issued with a closed mind by the competent authority. The averments of the charge- sheet show that a conclusion about the guilt of the appellant has already been drawn and the averments are not in the shape of “allegations”. Thus, such a charge-sheet is bad in law and runs contrary to the judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1956 Cal 662 (A.R.S. Choudhury vs. The Union of India & Ors)

5. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Parthasarathi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1974) 3 SCC 459 is relied on to contend that in the said case, bias is found against the Inquiry Officer. As per the ratio of the said case, the biased attitude of disciplinary authority can be seen if the litmus test laid down in S. Parthasarathi (Supra) is applied on the language employed in the charge-sheet.

6. The last reliance is on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Ors. reported in (2001) 2 SCC 330. By placing reliance on paragraph 33, it is submitted that the charge-sheet issued in a biased manner cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

7. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition needs to be heard and till such time, it is heard and decided by the writ court if the petitioner is not protected, the disciplinary authority may inflict the punishment and the writ petition may render infructuous.

8. In addition, learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a minute reading of the charge-sheet shows that the criminal offences are alleged in the charge-sheet, which is unknown to law.

9. In the departmental enquiry, the allegations can be made for violation of the relevant conduct rules but not based on the offence, which falls within the ambit of criminal law.

10. The counsel for employer, on the other hand, submits that after receiving the charge-sheet, petitioner filed reply. He also raised objection about the Inquiry Officer and for providing a suitable defence assistant. The request of the petitioner was duly accepted and the Inquiry Officer was changed and he was also provided a Defence Assistant.

11. Learned counsel for department further submits that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, 11 have already entered the witness box and deposed their statements.

The petitioner has already participated in the enquiry.

12. The Petitioner has not challenged the authority/competence of the issuing authority/disciplinary authority. In absence thereof and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha in Civil Appeal No.2333 of 2007, the interference must be declined.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents also places reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

& Ors. vs. Sarvesh Berry reported in AIR 2005 SC 1406 and also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court in FMA 839 of 2021 (Manoj Kumar Singh vs. Union of India) dated August 25, 2022.

14. In addition, he placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this court in WPA 3060 of 2021 (Mridul Kumar vs. Union of India) to subm