A court cannot determine innocence in disciplinary proceedings under Article 226, but must ensure access to relevant documents for the defense.

Order

28/11/2024

1. These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet(s) so also raising a grievance that the respondents are not providing the copies of the documents which were sought by her in a bid to defend her case.

2. Mr. Ambalal, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that charge-sheet(s) have been issued to the petitioner vindictively simply because the petitioner has preferred the writ petitions and this Court has been pleased to stay the proceedings.

3. During the course of argument, learned counsel submitted that since the respondents are not providing copies of the documents which the petitioner had asked for, she is unable to put-forth her defence.

4. Ms. Apeksha Chhangani, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documents that have been asked for by the petitioner by way of her representations - Annexure-6 in Writ Petition No.1465/2024, Annexure-5 in Writ Petition No.1475/2024 and Annexure-4 in Writ Petition No.1500/2024 are not germane to her defence and most of the documents that have been asked by the petitioner, are of no relevance to the inquiry. She added that the same have been asked in order to buy time and prolong the inquiry.

5. She further submitted that charge-sheet issued to the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or without jurisdication and therefore, no interference is warranted.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as the charges levelled against the petitioner are concerned, the petitioner might have a valid defence but this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot record a finding about her innocence or otherwise.

8. Charges levelled against the petitioner are subservient to evidence and scrutiny of relevant record; no interference is thus, warranted in the disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated against her.

9. So far as petitioner’s contention that she is atleast entitled to get copies of the relevant documents for her defence is concerned, the same requires consideration, to the extent of providing copies of relevant documents.

10. On perusal of Annexure-6 in Writ Petition No.1465/2024, Annexure-5 in Writ Petition No.1475/2024 and Annexure-4 in Writ Petition No.1500/2024 pointed out by Mr. Ambalal, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that most of the documents demanded by the petitioner are irrelevant and not germane to her defence.

11. While not interfering in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents are directed to provide copies of the documents to the petitioner which are relevant for her defence.

12. The petitioner is however, given a liberty to move fresh application before the disciplinary authority for providing copies of the documents, which are relevant for her defence.

13. If the representation is so addressed, the disciplinary authority shall consider the requirement of such documents, having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner and co-ordinate with the Chief General Manager to provide only such copies, which he deems necessary.

14. The petitioner shall file her reply/response within 15 days from the date of receiving the documents, whereafter the disciplinary authority shall consider the reply and proceed in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the factum of dismissal of the writ petition and/or pendency of the writ petition, which has already been filed by the petitioner.

15. The present writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

16. Stay applications also stand dismissed accordingly.