ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2014 passed in W.P.No.8841/2013(S). 2. The appellant filed a petition before the writ Court for quashment of charge sheet. Writ Court refused to quash the charge sheet, however, disposed of the writ petition with direction that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant be concluded within a period of six months and Excise Commissioner shall pass fresh order of appointment of Enquiry Officer by name. 3. Vide memo of charge sheet, following three charges were levelled against the appellant :- **vkjksi Øeakd&1 fnuakd 3-5-2011 dks vkids }kjk mrjk esa eq[kfcj dh lwpuk nfc’k nsdj 50 yhVj ls vfèkd voSèk efnjk èkkj.k dk izdj.k dk;e fd;k x;k FkkA ;g izdj.k vfuy f’kogjs firk Jh ‘kadj yky f’kogjs mez 18 o”kZ ds fo:) iathc) fd;k x;k gSA izdj.k iathc) djrs le; ftl Hkou ls efnjk tIr gqbZ gS] mlds ekfyd ,oa vkjksih vfuy f’kogjs ds firk Jh ‘kadj f’kogjs dks lg&vkjksih ugha cuk;k x;k gS] vkSj u gh bl rF; dh foospuk dh xbZ gS fd mDr voSèk efnjk dk okLrfod L=ksr D;k gS \ vkjksi dzeakd&2 vkids }kjk fnuakd 8-6-2011 dks egkjktiqj o x<+h eygjk Nrjiqj jksM ij pkSjfl;k <kcs ds lkeus ih-8 Øeakd 24 fnuakd 8-5-2011 ls 50 iko fons’kh efnjk èkkj.k dk izdj.k iathc) fd;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa fouksn pkSjfl;k dks vkjksih cuk;k x;k gS] bl izdj.k esa Hkh voSèk fons’kh efnjk ds L=ksr ,oa mDr voSèk fons’kh efnjk <kcs ds lkeus fdl lkèku dk mi;ksx dj dCts esa j[kh x;h Fkh] bl rF; dh tkap ugha dh x;hA vkjksi dzeakd&3 vkids }kjk vius vpy laifRr i=d o”kZ 2009&10 esa dksbZ Hkh vpy laifRr u gksus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] ysfdu vkids LokfeRo dh ,d lsojysV dkj Øeakd ,e-ih- 07 lh-lh- 0654 ds vkj-Vh-vks- jftLVªs’ku esa vkids fuokl ds irs esa edku ua-527&Mh] Lusg uxj FkkVhiqj] Xokfy;j ¼tks Jh ,p-;w- [kku ds LokfeRo dk crk;k x;k gS½ vafdr gS rFkk vkidks tks Hkh iathÑr dk;kZy;hu i=kfn Hksts x, gS] os Hkh vkids }kjk blh irs ij izkIr fd, x;s gSaA vr% mDr Hkou ls vkidk vijks{k :i ls lacaèk laHkkfor gSA 4. In the imputation of charges, it was alleged that on 3.5.2011, the appellant conducted a raid and registered a case under section 34 (2) of Excise Act against one Anil Shivhare s/o Shankarlal Shivhare, however, the appellant did not array the owner of the shop and also Shankarlal Shivhare neither he conducted proper investigation. Similarly, another raid was conducted on 8.5.2011 at Chaurasiya Dhaba and it was found that foreign liquor was being served, however, the appellant did not make proper investigation. Third charge is that he purchased a Chevrolet Car No.MP0 7 CC 0654, which is registered in his residential address, however, he did not mention about his residence in the information submitted by him in regard to immovable property. 5. The charges of misconduct levelled against the appellant are self explanatory. In support of charges, statements of witnesses and documents were also supplied. 6. It is well settled principle of law that charge sheet could only be quashed if after perusal of charge sheet no misconduct is made out or it is issued by an incompetent authority. 7. The law in regard to quashment of charge sheet is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, however, under special circumstances, the charge sheet can be quashed if no charge is made out against the person taking into consideration the charges levelled against the person as true or it is issued by an incompetent authority (See : Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse – (2004) 3 SCC 440 , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr. (2001) 10 SCC 639 , Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma – (1987) 2 SCC 179 . 8. In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, in our opinion, the writ Court has rightly refused to quash the charge sheet because it has been issued by a competent authority and prima facie misconduct is made out against the appellant. 9. Counsel for the appellant has also raised other objections. Those have been considered by the writ Court in the impugned order. Hence, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.