[2025:RJ-JD:53339]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6036/2014 Mohini Devi W/o Shri Khiya Nath Sidh, aged about 72 years, resident of Village and Post Bikamsara, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu, (Raj.), presently elected Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bikamsara, Panchayat Samiti Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Secretary, (Inquiry) Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The District Collector, Churu.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.

5. The Progarmme Coordinator, Panchayat Samiti, Sardarshahar, District Churu.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mohan Choudhary Mr. Sarthak Asopa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nilesh Choudhary for Mr. Manish Patel, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

09/12/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to the show cause notice and so also the charge-sheet dated 08.08.2014 issued to the petitioner by Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Vibhag, Government of Rajasthan so as to conduct inquiry into the charges against him.

2. It is a settled law as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge the charge-sheet is pre-mature and not maintainable.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Versus Vicco Laboratories, (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 270 held as below:-

“31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom the show-cause notices have been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause-notice. The interference at the show-cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would interference is ruled out.”

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 28 held as below:

“13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or showcause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore 2001 (10) SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or chargesheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge sheet or show- cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a