Advocates:
['RENU KOCHAR', '', 'DISHANT KARNAWAT', 'Kulesh Kumar Sahu', 'RAHIL ARUN KOCHAR', 'ARUN KUMAR KOCHAR', 'ASSTT S G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2567 of 2022

Md. Abdul Wahab Azad S/o Shri Sheikh Goush Ali Aged About 40 Years R/o Cb-

4, A, Camp-1 Steel Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Department, New Of

Home Department, New Delhi.

2. Director General Cisf, Central Industrial Security Force, Headquarter, 13 Cgo

Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pin 110003

3. Deputy Inspector General, Unit Commander Authority, Central Industrial

Security Force Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

4. Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Bhilai Steel, Bhilai, District

Durg Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar with

Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocates

For Respondent/s

:

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, ASG

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

12/04/2022

1.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the charge sheet dated

15.12.2021 issued by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner under Rule 36 of the

Central Industrial Security force Regulations, 2001.

2.

The primary contention of the petitioner in assailing the impugned charge sheet

is the fact that respondent Authorities have not taken into consideration the

2

complaint which the petitioner has lodged in the department to the Higher

Authorities along with the representation for the same with repeated reminders.

3.

Further contention of the petitioner is that for the same incident the petitioner

has first lodged the complaint before the Police Station at Sakri in respect of the

incident that occurred on 10.11.2021. All these facts according to the petitioner

would clearly reflect that it was not the petitioner who was the person who had

assaulted the authorities at the check post but it was the other way round where

the petitioner was assaulted by the Security Guards and others and for which

the petitioner has already intimated the Higher Authorities in the department

and these facts have not been taken into consideration deliberately by the

Authorities in a premeditated manner and on the other hand have implicated the

petitioner by issuance of charge sheet on false and baseless allegations.

4.

Learned ASG on the other hand submits that it is only an issuance of the charge

sheet which is under challenge and that it is by now a well settled proposition of

law that charge sheet and show cause notices are not to be interfered with by

the High Court in exercise of their powers under Article 226 as a matter of

routine.

5.

According to the learned ASG since it is only a charge sheet that has been

issued the petitioner would get all the right to respond to the charge sheet by

submitting detailed reply and the Authorities shall duly consider the reply that

petitioner would be submitting to the charge sheet before proceeding further on

the disciplinary front and for all these reasons ASG prayed for rejection of the

petition holding it to be premature at this stage.

6.

Plain perusal of the charge sheet and charges levelled in the charge sheet

agianst the petitioner, there seems to be serious allegations made by the

respondents against the petitioner. Now, if the charges as is reflected in the

charge sheet are false and baseless according to the petitioner he would have

to rebut the same by filing the reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter it is for the

Disciplinary Authority to appreciate the contents of the reply and then take an

appropriate decision whether there is a need to conduct disciplinary enquiry or

3

not? Even if the Disciplinary Authority at that point of time decides to conduct an

enquiry even then it cannot be said to be perse bad in law for the reason that

even then the petitioner would be given reasonable opportunity of defense

along with all relevant materials which the department would rely upon in the

course of proving the charges leveled against the petitioner and petitioner

would get all the opportuni