JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. (through video conferencing) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 05.11.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2. 2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not filed his reply to the charge-sheet issued by the respondent No. 2 and has approached this Court directly. 3. However, it is submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner do not make out a departmental misconduct, therefore, he cannot be proceeded in a departmental enquiry. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. As per the charge-sheet dated 05.11.2020, an allegation has been made that during his posting, the petitioner has shown negligent and irresponsible working, as a result of which, the number of failure of transformers at the distribution centres has increased. Although, the concerning Officer during the review meeting as well as the Executive Engineer had issued instructions to check the increasing number of failure of transformers, but the petitioner did not improve his working style, as a result, financial loss has been caused to the company making themselves liable for departmental action. 6. By referring to the judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh Bhadoria Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. in W.A. No. 1673/2018, it is submitted that increase in number of failure of transformers cannot be said to be a departmental misconduct. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. The petitioner has approached this Court directly against the charge-sheet. The petitioner in support of his contentions has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chiarman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Limited & Others vs. Ananta Shah and Others decided vide order dated 06.04.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2958/2011 and in the case of Union of India & Others vs. J. Ahmad reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022 . It is submitted that the failure to come up to the highest expectations of an Officer holding a responsible post or lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership would not constitute failure to maintain devotion to duty. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is submitted that the failure to come up to the highest expectations of an Officer holding a responsible post or lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership would not constitute failure to maintain devotion to duty. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Before considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court thinks it apposite to consider the scope of interference in the cases where the departmental charge-sheet has been challenged. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has 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 lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. 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. 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." 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565 has held as under:- "8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia, Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy.) 9. In Forest Deptt. v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (SCC p. 310, para 16) this Court dealt with the issue and observed that delay in concluding the domestic enquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not (sic) be permitted to continue. 10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not (sic) be permitted to continue. 10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.) 11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh.) 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." 13. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." 13. If the charges levelled against the petitioner are considered in the light of scope of interference by this Court, then it is clear that it has been alleged that since the petitioner was negligent in his duties, therefore, the number of failure of transformers has increased and in spite of repeated instructions given by the Review Committee and by the Senior Officers, the petitioner did not improve his working. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the charges levelled against the petitioner would not prima facie make a case for proceeding against him in a departmental enquiry. 14. So far as the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh Bhadoria (supra) is concerned, it has been observed as under:- "We have pointed out herein above that the gravamen of the charge was that the failure rate of the transformers under the distribution centre had gone up and the appellant had failed to submit any proposal or estimate for increase of load bearing capacity of the transformers or for installation of additional transformers thereby the appellant committed misconduct. After going through the punishment order we have found that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the extra comments made by the Assistant Engineer that the appellant did not stay in the headquarter and used to do up and down daily from Gwalior to Datia. It seems to us that the appellant incurred the displeasure of Assistant Engineer because former did not stay in the headquarter i.e. Datia and used to do daily up and down from Gwalior to Datia. This resulted in punishment. On this aspect of matter there is not a whisper in the show cause notice." 15. In this judgment the Division Bench of this Court has not held that the negligence in discharging the duty which resulted in increase of number of failure of transformers would not be a misconduct. This resulted in punishment. On this aspect of matter there is not a whisper in the show cause notice." 15. In this judgment the Division Bench of this Court has not held that the negligence in discharging the duty which resulted in increase of number of failure of transformers would not be a misconduct. However, this Court has considered that the finding in the said case was recorded after taking into consideration the extra comments made by an officer that the delinquent Officer did not stay in the head quarter and used to do daily up and down from Gwalior to Datia and this aspect of the matter was not the part of the show-cause notice. Therefore, the petitioner would not get any help from the decision passed by this Court by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh Bhadoria (supra). 16. So far as the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) and J. Ahmad (supra) are concerned, they are distinguishable on the ground that those cases were being considered against the punishment order, whereas in the present case the petitioner has approached this Court against the charge-sheet itself even without filing his response. 17. Further, this Court cannot consider and appreciate the defence of the delinquent officer, and it is for the disciplinary officer to consider the defence of the delinquent officer. 18. In the light of the limited scope of interference, this Court is of the considered opinion that as no cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner and the competency of the authority who has issued the charge-sheet is not in question, no case is made out for interference. 19. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.