A charge-sheet cannot be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution at the initial stage, as it does not infringe upon any legal right; the veracity of the charges is to be determined by the disciplinary authority during the regular departmental inquiry process.

Order

1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer:

1. Quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 06.08.2025 (Annx. 1), issued against the Petitioner, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by bias, malice, and in violation of principles of natural justice;

2. Declare that the appointment of respondent no. 4-Prof. J.P. Sharma as enquiry Officer is bad in law, being tainted with bias, and quash the enquiry Report dated 21.06.2025 (Annx. 2) prepared by him in purported exercise of such appointment;

3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this hon'ble court deems just, and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. Award costs of the present writ petition in favour of the Petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has challenged the impugned charge sheet dated 6/8/2025 issued against the petitioner on the grounds of being malafide, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violative of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 both were working in the same department and respondent No. 1 is having a soft corner with Dr. Anshu Bharadwaj and, just to harass and vindictively punish the petitioner, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 was a member of a nine-member selection committee which considered promotion of the petitioner, which was effected after approval of the Syndicate, but after taking over the charge as "Vice-Chancellor" by respondent No. 1, one J.P. Sharma (retired Professor), having close proximity with respondent No. 1, was appointed as enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the complaints made by Dr. Anshu Bharadwaj, who is also a close associate of respondent No.

1. He further referred to several documents, complaints, and reminders, as well as authority and response, to question the enquiry conducted against her by Professor J.P. Sharma (Retired). He also submitted that the respondent No. 1, being a member of the selection committee, has neither questioned her promotion nor supplemented the minutes with a dissenting note, has no right or authority to conduct an enquiry on the basis of which the petitioner was promoted. He also referred to the issue pertaining to removal of the petitioner from the post of NITI Aayog Chair and submitted that the appointment of Dr. Anshu Bharadwaj is a classic example of favoritism. He further submitted that the petitioner was malafidely removed from the Chair and a non-qualified Dr. Anshu Bharadwaj was appointed as Chair and was continued despite objection by NITI Aayog.

3. Learned counsel also submitted that the documents which were considered at the time of consideration of promotion of the petitioner can never be revisited by a person who remained a member of the selection committee, on the basis of said documents, considered for promotion. He referred the instances on the basis of material on record and submitted that it is a case of witch-hunting wherein, just to damage the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 has initiated action and accordingly the petitioner was targeted and the impugned charge sheet was issued. He further submitted that when there is no case of misconduct, as defined under the Ordinance, then a charge sheet cannot be issued under