Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 314 (HP)

Geeta Singh v. State Of HP

2013-04-12

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.B.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT : A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is essentially to quash the charge sheet issued against the petitioner dated 16th July, 2012. 2. The first grievance of the petitioner, is that, the charge sheet is the product of influence exercised by respondent No.2. To buttress this submission, reliance is placed on paragraph (D) at page 6 of the petition, which reads thus: "That from a perusal of aforesaid notings it would be clear that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation, Annexure P-4 pointing out the biased attitude of respondent No.2 towards her, as a result of detailed report, Annexure P-2, submitted by her with respect to alleged illegalities being committed by Sh. G.D. Thakur, ETO. Despite this fact having been brought to the notice of respondent No.1 and despite there being already a proposal to call for the comments of respondent No.2 on the representation of petitioner against the proposed chargesheet, respondent No.1 did not at all consider the representation of petitioner and acted in a mechanical manner by ordering to issue chargesheet against the petitioner. Thus, it would be clear that the impugned chargesheet has been issued without due application of mind, and is unsustainable." 3. Even on a fair reading of this paragraph, we are not impressed with the argument under consideration. For, the substance of the grievance of the petitioner in this paragraph is about the approach of the respondent No.1 in not considering the representation of the petitioner in proper perspective and disposing of the same in a mechanical manner, and instead ordering issuing charge sheet against the petitioner. The ground is about the non application of mind by the respondent No. 1. 4. Reverting to the charge sheet, the argument, is that, the charge sheet has been prepared on the basis of the document prepared by respondent No.2. Reference is made, in particular, to Article-I, which reads thus: "That Smt. Geeta Singh, DETC while posted in the office of the Dy. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, (Flying Squad) South Zone, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. has been arrested on 14.2.2012 by Dy. Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan, District Solan, H.P. vide FIR No.4/2012 dated 14.2.2012 under section 7,13 (2) read with section 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Excise & Taxation Commissioner, (Flying Squad) South Zone, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. has been arrested on 14.2.2012 by Dy. Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan, District Solan, H.P. vide FIR No.4/2012 dated 14.2.2012 under section 7,13 (2) read with section 13 (1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This act on the part of said Smt. Geeta Singh, DETC is highly objectionable, unbecoming of a Govt. servant and in violation of the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i) to (iii) of the Central Services (Conduct) Rule, 1964." Even this argument does not commend to us. The Article is in respect of acts of commission and omission of the petitioner, which has the effect of her conduct being unbecoming of a Government servant and in violation of the provisions of Rule 3 (1)(i) to (iii) of the Central Services (Conduct) Rule, 1964. The fact that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the bribery case by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 14th February, 2012 is not in dispute at all. Thus understood, assuming that the charge sheet has been drawn on the basis of the document prepared by respondent No.2, we fail to understand as to how the charge sheet can be said to be vitiated or influenced by any one. Whether the bribery case ends in acquittal of the petitioner or otherwise is a separate matter, but certainly is a tangible ground to proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental inquiry. 5. To overcome this difficulty, the argument proceeds that respondent No.1 has not applied his mind and has failed to consider the representation made by the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and others, (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 330 in paragraph 34 thereof, which reads thus: "34. . It is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority concerned has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or show-cause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative the inquiry follows but not otherwise and it is this part of service jurisprudence on which reliance was placed by Mr. Subramanium and on that score, strongly criticised the conduct of the respondents (sic appellants) herein and accused them of being biased. We do find some justification in such a criticism upon consideration of the materials on record." 6. The observation of the Apex Court will have to be understood in the context of the fact situation of that case. In the present case, as noticed earlier, since it is indisputable that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the bribery case on 14th February, 2012, the charge as framed (Article-I), by respondent No.1, cannot be said to be inappropriate. Merely because the petitioner has made representation and has raised certain issues therein cannot be the basis to ignore that factual position, which is indisputable and would warrant a departmental inquiry. In our opinion, the Supreme Courts decision, pressed into service, is inapplicable to the fact situation of the present case. 7. Since no other contention has been raised before us, we proceed to dismiss this writ petition. Ordered accordingly. 8. Needless to observe that dismissal of this petition will not preclude the petitioner from raising all available defences in the departmental proceedings, which will have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 9. All the pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.