Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1110 (MP)

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF M P

2008-09-05

R.S.JHA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition against the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 25-10-2007, It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been transferred from Panna to Chhatarpur vide order dated 10-7-2007. He had filed petitions before this Court wherein it had been directed that his representation against the order of transfer as well as the application for grant of interim relief be decided by the concerned authority in accordance with the policy of the State. ( 2. ) IT is submitted that though the petitioner had taken up proceedings before this Court against the impugned order of transfer, the respondent-authorities have issued a charge sheet to the petitioner in respect of retaining records and public money in his possession and not handing it over to the person who took over charge from the petitioner. ( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned charge sheet could not have been issued as the petitioner was proceedings with his case before this Court during the interim period and in spite of directions from this Court the respondent-authorities did not decide the petitioners representation expeditiously in accordance with law and in such circumstances, the impugned charge sheet deserves to be quashed. ( 4. ) FROM a perusal of record it is evident that no interim order of stay in respect of the transfer order of the petitioner was granted by this Court and, therefore, there is prima facie material on record on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. It is also evident that the petitioner had been served with a charge sheet dated 25-10-2007 pursuant to which he has filed a reply and after considering the same the respondent-authorities have instituted a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner by order dated 26-2-2008 which order has not been assailed by the petitioner in this petition. It is apparent from the aforesaid that the petitioner shall be given full opportunity in the departmental proceedings to establish his innocence. ( 5. It is apparent from the aforesaid that the petitioner shall be given full opportunity in the departmental proceedings to establish his innocence. ( 5. ) THE law relating to the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review, into the merits or validity of a charge-sheet, has been settled and laid down by the Supreme Court in a series of cases wherein it has been held that the discretionary-jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a charge-sheet nor should a writ petition be entertained against a mere charge-sheet as at that stage the writ petition is premature as issuance of a charge-sheet does not amount to an adverse order effecting the rights of any party or giving rise to a cause of action except in some very rare exceptional case where the charge-sheet is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. In the case of union of India and Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 12 SCC 28 , it has been held as under: - "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse,ulagappa v. Divisional Commr. , Mysore, State of U. P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet 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 writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. " ( 6. ) IN the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Ajit Singh, (1997) 11 SCC 368 , the Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court, wherein it had quashed the charge-sheet, has gone on to observe that the High Court cannot go into the merits of the allegations on the basis of which the charge-sheet has been issued and record a finding that there is no merit in the charges levelled against the person specifically in cases where the allegations are based on admitted facts or documents which have to be produced as evidence to establish the charges in the disciplinary proceedings and has held as under:- "3. . . . . We are, however, of the view that the High Court was in error in setting aside the charge-sheet that was served on the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings. In doing so the High court has gone into the merits of the allegations on which the charge-sheet was based and even though the charges had yet to be proved by evidence to be adduced in the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, accepting the explanation offered by the respondent, has proceeded on the basis that there was no merit in the charges levelled against the respondent. We are unable to uphold this approach of the High Court. The allegations are based on documents which would have been produced as evidence to prove the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, accepting the explanation offered by the respondent, has proceeded on the basis that there was no merit in the charges levelled against the respondent. We are unable to uphold this approach of the High Court. The allegations are based on documents which would have been produced as evidence to prove the charges in the disciplinary proceedings. Till such evidence was produced it could not be said that the charges contained in the charge-sheet were without any basis whatsoever. " ( 7. ) SIMILAR view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Dy. Inspector General of Police vs. K. S. Swaminathan, 1996 11 SCC 498 and union of India and Another vs. Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180. ( 8. ) IN the present case it has not been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet has been issued by an incompetent authority, is without jurisdiction or is illegal. That apart, the present case is also not one where no charge is made out on the basis of admitted facts or documents and, therefore, the charges cannot be said to be wholly illegal. Additionally, the petitioner has already filed his reply to the charge-sheet and after considering it, the authorities have instituted a regular departmental proceedings in which the correctness of the charges would be decided after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. ( 9. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere in the charge-sheet at this stage in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases. The petition being merit less is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.