The petitioner is before this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of

certiorari to quash charge memo dated 09.01.2013

issued under Rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services

[Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957 [for

short the Rules].

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Chandan for

Sri. H.S.Prashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner

and

learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

Sri.M.V.Ramesh Jois for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused

the writ petition papers.

3

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that even though the charge memo was issued

on 09.01.2013 and appointed fourth respondent as

Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer has not commenced

the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner is

being harassed and posted from one place to another

place. The enquiry is not yet started, hence it is prayed

that enquiry needs to be set aside. It is also submitted

that the respondents have not taken into consideration

the entire material facts before issuing the charge memo

at Annexure-B dated 19.01.2013.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner would not

be entitled for the prayer as sought. The charge memo

could be challenged at the initial stage only on the

ground of incompetency or proved malafides. It is not

the case of the petitioner that the Chief Executive

Officer who has issued charge memo dated 09.01.2013

at Annexure-B has no jurisdiction. The charge or

misconduct alleged against the petitioner is non-

4

providing of passwords to different projects under the

Pancyahat; not taking any action to disburse the sites to

the beneficiaries under Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme

and totally there are 11 charges. The charges are

serious in nature. The charge memo would not

adversely affect the rights of the petitioner and it would

not give rise to any cause of action to challenge.

Issuance of charge memo would not amount to an

adverse order until punishment is imposed based on

such charge memo. The Hon9ble Apex Court was

considering the circumstances under which charge

memo could be challenged in SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF

DEFENCE AND ORS. VS. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA

reported in [(2012) 11 SCC 565] and at paragraphs 10 to

12, it is held as follows:

<10. Ordinarily a writ application does not

lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice

for the reason that it does not give rise to any

cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse

order which affects the right of any party unless

the same has been issued by a person having no

jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when

5

some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-

sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is

only when a final order imposing the punishment

or otherwise adversely affecting a party is

passed, it may have a grievance and cause of

action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show cause notice

in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily

be quashed by the Court. (Vide : State of U.P. v.

Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board

v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v.. Commr.,

Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and

Union of India. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana).

11.

In State of Orissa v. Sangram

Keshari Misra (SCC PP. 315 -16, para 10) this

Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not

quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on

the ground that the facts stated in the charge are

erroneous for the reason that to determine

correctness or truth of the charge is the function

of the disciplinary authority (See also Union of

India v. Upendra Singh).

12.

Thus, the law on the issue can be

summarized to the effect that the charge-sheet

cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge

as it does not adversely affect the rights of the

delinquent unless it is established that the same

has been issued by an authority not competent to

6

initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the

disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be

quashed at an initial stage as it would b