ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of the charge-sheet dated 24.08.2004 (Exhibit.5) vide which two charges of misconduct have been framed against the petitioner. 2. The grounds as stated in the writ petition are as under: It has been averred by the petitioner that in pursuance to the directions dated 11.06.2004 of the Executive Engineer, the size of the pipes of water supply was reduced because of which there was displeasure amongst the agriculturalists. When the petitioner went on the site to reduce the size of the pipes, protest was made by certain agriculturalists including the son of the then Minister (Surendra Pal Singh) and manhandling was also done by them. To report the said incident, the petitioner went to the police station for lodging of an FIR but the same was refused by the police authorities and therefore, a complaint was filed before the Criminal Court and on the directions of the Criminal Court, FIR was registered on 24.07.2004 against the accused who happened to be the son of the then Minister. 3. Just two days after the registration of the said FIR, the water was flown in the canal and on the night of the same day when the water was flown, it was found that certain people had broken the canal. The said incident was reported by the petitioner to the Assistant Engineer Harneek Singh on the same night and an FIR was lodged by Harneek Singh on the next day, i.e. 29.07.2004. 4. After the said incident, the petitioner was suspended on 31.07.2004 on the premise that he had been negligent in his duties of patrolling the water flow and because of this negligence only, the agriculturalists took the undue benefit and broke the canal. Although no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner till that date, he was kept under suspension. 5. Against the said suspension order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3316/2004 before this Court and further, a Special Appeal being D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 617/2004 against the order of learned Single Judge was preferred. Vide order dated 10.09.2004, the suspension order dated 31.07.2004 of the petitioner was stayed by the Division Bench. 6. Vide order dated 10.09.2004, the suspension order dated 31.07.2004 of the petitioner was stayed by the Division Bench. 6. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the charge-sheet dated 24.08.2004 was served on the petitioner in the Court only through the counsel. The said charge-sheet is under challenge in the present writ petition. It is further relevant to note that the petitioner has since retired and superannuated in the year 2017. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present charge-sheet is an outcome of the FIR registered by him against the son of the then Minister because of the personal vengeance only. Secondly, he submitted that even if it is assumed that there was some supervisory negligence on his part, the same cannot be a ground of initiation of any disciplinary proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. Counsel further submitted that the mala-fide is clear from the fact that he was placed under suspension even before the serving of the charge-sheet. It has further been submitted that the charges as framed are totally contrary to the record of the case. It was only at the instance of the petitioner that the incident of breaking of the canal was reported to the Executive Engineer and an FIR qua the same was also lodged on the very next day. The charges as framed do not show that there was any charge against the petitioner of not being available at district headquarters or on the site on the date of incident which has been tried to be portrayed in the reply to the writ petition. Counsel further submitted that no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever had been initiated against the petitioner in his entire service career and the present charge-sheet is nothing but an action arising out of FIR against the son of the then Minister. 8. Counsel relied upon the following judgments: 1. Union of India and Others vs. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 (Civil Appeal No. 2152/1969) 2. Dr. B.K. Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1992 (1) RLR 210 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5785/1991, decided on 10.06.1992) 3. Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1994 (2) WLC 632 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6654/1993, decided on 01.04.1994) 9. Dr. B.K. Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1992 (1) RLR 210 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5785/1991, decided on 10.06.1992) 3. Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1994 (2) WLC 632 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6654/1993, decided on 01.04.1994) 9. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the issuance of the charge-sheet itself would not amount to a punishment and therefore, the Court should be slow in interfering with the same. She submitted that the charge-sheet is a mere fact finding enquiry and the same can itself not be concluded to be a punishment. It has been submitted that in the present matter, the negligence of the petitioner was writ large as in terms of the orders dated 08.06.2004 and 30.06.2004 issued by the Department, the petitioner ought to have remained present on the site whenever the flow of the water commenced at the tail wherever it ended. She submitted that the petitioner was not present on the site on the date of the incident and therefore, the agriculturalists got opportunity to break the canal. The said incident is sufficient to prove that the petitioner was negligent in his duties in keeping a watch over the canal. She submitted that the charges were based on cogent facts and the same deserves to be concluded by means of an enquiry and a report thereupon. Counsel further submitted that no factum of bias can be imputed in the present proceedings and the charges as framed are a consequence of the incident as it happened. Therefore, the charge-sheet dated 24.04.2008 being perfectly valid deserves not to be interfered with. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906 (Civil Appeal No. 5145/2006). 10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Therefore, the charge-sheet dated 24.04.2008 being perfectly valid deserves not to be interfered with. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906 (Civil Appeal No. 5145/2006). 10. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The charges as framed against the petitioner were as follows: ^^vkjksi i= la[;k ,d%& xtflagiqj vuqHkkx esa inklhu vof/k fnukad 28-7-2004 dks jkf= vof/k esa ,QŒ,QŒ ugj esa dVk gqvk & blh fo"k; ij ,d ÁkFkfedh Fkkuk iqfyl esa lgk;d vfHk;Urk] }kjk ntZ djokbZ xbZ gSa] mijksDr ,QŒ,QŒ ugj dh cqthZ la[;k 18800 ckbZ rjQ gq;s dV ds le;] vki ugj ds ikuh ds cgko ds lkFk&lkFk] tSls fd ugj esa ikuh Áokg ds le;] lkFk&lkFk pyus@fuxjkuh djus ds vkns'k fn;s x;s Fks] dh vuqikyuk ugha dhA v/kh{k.k vfHk;Urk] flapkbZ xaxkuxj ds vkns'kkuqlkj] ÁR;sd ugj ftlesa cUnh ds ckn ikuh] Áokg gks] Áokg vof/k esa dfu"B vfHk;Urk dks ikuh ds lkFk&lkFk] x'r@Hkze.k djus ds vkns'k Álkfjr gS] mudh ikyuk ugha gqbZA vkidks Hkze.k ugha djus ds dkj.k] vijkf/k;ksa dks ftUgksaus dV fd;k] mUgsa bldk lqvolj ÁkIr gks x;kA vkidk ;g nkf;Roghurk ,oa ykijokgh dk |ksrd gSA vkidk mijksDr d`R; jktLFkku flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1971¼3½¼a,d½¼nks½ ds vUrxZr nks"kk;qDr d`R; gSA bldk fooj.k Ái= 5 esa of.kZr gSA vkjksi la[;k nks%& xtflagiqj vuqHkkx esa inLFkkiUu vof/k esa ,QŒ,QŒ ugj esa fnukad 29-7-2004 dks ikuh Áokg fd;k x;kA bl rF; ls vkidks tkudkjh Fkh] vki ikuh Áokg ds iwoZ ugj dks okp ugha fd;k] ikuh] Áokg ds le; vki eq[;ky; ij gh ugha FksA vkius ,QŒ,QŒ ugj dh lqj{kkRed fdlh r[kehus vkfn cukus esa :fp ugha n'kkZbZ] vius in nkf;Ro ds fuokZg dks Hkyh&Hkkafr fuokZg ugha fd;k vkius vkxs mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks vkns'kksa dh ikyuk ugha fd;k mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa ds vuqlkj] lEcfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl esa ÁFke lwpuk vijk/k ckcr dV ntZ djokus esa :fp ugha n'kkZbZ] dV cU/kokus esa vius mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks lg;ksx Ánku ugha fd;k vkSj vius drZO; ds Áfr mnklhurk n'kkZbZA bl Ádkj ls vkidk lsok ds Áfr mnklhu jguk] mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dks ugha ekuuk] dV LFkku dks Hkjokus esa vlg;ksx dk joS;k j[kuk jktLFkku flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;eksa esa nks"kk;qDr lsok dk Hkkx gSA** 12. A bare perusal of the charges as framed shows that the charge of negligence in duties has been framed against the petitioner on the premise that he was not present on site when the flow of the water commenced whereas it was his duty to do so. The second allegation also pertains to the negligence in duties of not keeping a watch on the canal before the flow of the water and further not taking interest in adopting the measures for security of the canal. Further, it has been alleged that no interest was shown by the petitioner for lodging of the FIR of the incident which also proves to be a misconduct. 13. A perusal of the FIR dated 29.07.2004 shows the same had been got registered by the Assistant Engineer Harneek Singh on the information of the incident of the canal being damaged been given to him by the petitioner. Had the petitioner been negligent towards his duties, he would not have been aware of the said fact and would not have been in a position to inform of the incident on the same night. So far as the fact of the canal being damaged by the agriculturalists is concerned, there is no allegation that the same was done at the instance of the petitioner or at his behest. It is also not the allegation that the canal was weak or damaged prior to the said incident. Rather it is clear on record that the canal was in a perfect condition at the time of the incident. 14. The guidelines as issued vide order dated 08.06.2004 and 30.06.2004 by the Department requires the officer-in-charge (OIC) to note down the timings of the commencing of the flow of the water and to note down the time when the level of the water reduces at the tail. The said guidelines also require the OIC to make preparations and maintain the canal before the flow of the water is commenced and even in the rainy season, so that the same is not damaged. The said guidelines specifically provide for the surprise visits by the OIC to curtail the water thefts and even to report the incident immediately. The said guidelines also require the OIC to make preparations and maintain the canal before the flow of the water is commenced and even in the rainy season, so that the same is not damaged. The said guidelines specifically provide for the surprise visits by the OIC to curtail the water thefts and even to report the incident immediately. A perusal of the guidelines as issued shows that the same requires the concerned OIC to take necessary actions and precautions for making the entries pertaining to the water flow, maintaining the canal in an undamaged condition and to keep a watch over the water thefts. So far as the charges as framed against the petitioner are concerned, the same do not show any allegation that the canal was not maintained or was in a damaged condition. The charges also do not speak of any non-entries or wrong-entry qua the water flow. So far as the reporting of the incident is concerned, the same has also been made by the petitioner with immediate effect and in pursuance thereof, an FIR of the incident has also been lodged. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the compliance of the guidelines as issued by the Department had not been made by the petitioner. 15. Furthermore, the most important aspect to be taken into consideration is that the guidelines specifically provide the Assistant Engineer/Junior Engineer to comply with the said guidelines. Admittedly, Harneek Singh is reported to be the Assistant Engineer at the relevant point of time. No charge-sheet against him has been issued by the Department. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that for the incident, only the petitioner, the Junior Engineer would be liable and not the Assistant Engineer. It is the settled proposition of law that no two employees can be dealt with discriminately. 16. Further it is clear on record that just two days prior to the said incident, an FIR had been got registered by the petitioner against the culprits for an incident which happened on 14.07.2004. It is also clear on record that the said FIR had been registered only after the indulgence by the criminal court. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the charge-sheet in question was an aftermath of the FIR dated 24.07.2004 registered at the instance of the petitioner. 17. It is also clear on record that the said FIR had been registered only after the indulgence by the criminal court. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the charge-sheet in question was an aftermath of the FIR dated 24.07.2004 registered at the instance of the petitioner. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunisetty Satyanarayana’s case (supra), held as under: “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. 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.” 18. The same judgment further lays down as under: “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.” 19. In the opinion of this Court, the present case falls within the category of an exceptional case, where it is clear on record that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is because of the extraneous circumstances arising out of an event which took place just two days prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet. In the opinion of this Court, the present case falls within the category of an exceptional case, where it is clear on record that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner is because of the extraneous circumstances arising out of an event which took place just two days prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet. The said fact speaks writ large on the face of it when it is found that no charge-sheet to the Assistant Engineer on duty on the same date has been found to be served. The misconduct or negligence, if any, was caused by both the employees equally and issuance of the charge-sheet to only one of them is clearly in abuse of power. 20. In Dr. B.K. Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5785/1991) decided on 10.06.1992, it has been held that the negligence in supervisory duties cannot amount to a misconduct. In B.K. Choudhary’s case (supra) while relying upon the case of Dr. R.K. Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, the court opined as under: “Professional misconduct on the part of the person exercising one of the technical profession cannot fairly or reasonably be found, merely on a finding of a bare non-performance of a duty or some default in performing it. The charge is not one of inefficiency, but of misconduct and in an allegation of misconduct, an imputation of a certain mental condition is always involved. I think, it would be impossible for any professional man to exercise his profession if he was to be held guilty of misconduct simply because he had not, in a given case, been able to do all that was required in the circumstances or that had misconceived his duty or failed to perform a part of it. I think, the test must always be whether in addition to the failure to do the duty, partial or entire, which had happened, there had also been a failure to act honestly and reasonably.” 21. The same view has been affirmed in Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6654/1993) decided on 01.04.1994. 22. In view of the above observations and in view of the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgments, this Court does not find any ground to uphold the charge-sheet dated 24.08.2004. Therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. 22. In view of the above observations and in view of the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgments, this Court does not find any ground to uphold the charge-sheet dated 24.08.2004. Therefore, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 23. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. 24. All pending applications also stand disposed of.