ORDER : 1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the charge-sheet (Annexure P/2) dated 25.02.2023 and the subsequent order (Annexure P/4) passed on 23.03.2023 whereby the respondents have appointed an Enquiry Officer. Challenge also is to the order (Annexure P/5) dated 04.05.2023 passed by the respondents wherein the representation which the petitioner had made against the charge-sheet, has not been accepted and the representation has been rejected. 2. Challenge primarily to the charge-sheet is on the ground that since the petitioner stands retired from service w.e.f 30.06.2021, the charge-sheet subsequent to his retirement could not have been issued by the respondents. Challenge also is on the ground that the said charge-sheet has not been issued in accordance with law. 3. Challenge further made by Learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that the plain reading of the article of charges itself would establish that the petitioner is not one who would be responsible for the alleged Merg enquiry that is said to have been conducted in a faulty manner and the concerned Erring Officer has already been proceeded with on the disciplinary front and he has also been inflicted with a punishment. Therefore now the responsibility further cannot be shifted upon the petitioner. 4. The State Counsel opposing the petition on the other hand referred to (Annexure P/6) which is an order passed in the name of Governor of the State. The said order is dated 14.09.2022 and the said order clearly reflects that there is a sanction provided by the Hon’ble Governor for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a matter which has been traveled from the State Human Rights Commission and that the allegations against the petitioner was that during the period when he was the Station House Officer of Police Station Pusour Dist. Raigarh, there was an intimation that was received at the Police Station of which the Merg intimation was recorded as 33/2020 in-respect-of the deceased Raivati Chouhan. There was an allegation of deliberate delayed FIR that was lodged and for which there was a recommendation for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the other subordinate officers at the said Police Station. 6. There was an allegation of deliberate delayed FIR that was lodged and for which there was a recommendation for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the other subordinate officers at the said Police Station. 6. The contention of the counsel for petitioner all along was that except for the fact that he was a Station House Officer, the Merg intimation was recorded by a different person and the Merg enquiry was conducted by another person and that there was no role played by the petitioner in the said Merg enquiry. He further submits that as far as trial is initiated on the said Merg enquiry, the same has resulted in the condition of the accused. Therefore prime facie, there is no lapse as stated against the petitioner and he is now being unnecessarily prosecuted after his retirement. 7. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the fact that the petitioner was not responsible for the said lapses, would stand established from the fact that the respondent-authorities had already initiated disciplinary proceedings against the head constable who had conducted a Merg enquiry. An order of punishment was also imposed on the said head constable namely Keshav Prasad Devta vide order dated 30.12.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur. Since the said proceedings stand concluded there itself, there could not have been again revival of the disciplinary proceedings at this juncture by further prosecuting the petitioner and issuance of the charge-sheet that too much after his retirement. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that it is a matter of enquiry whether the petitioner did play any role or not, further the petitioner has already filed his reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter since the reply not being found satisfactory, the disciplinary authorities have decided to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. 9. It is the contention of the State Counsel that now that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner, he will get ample opportunities of presenting himself before the Eqnuiry Officer to prove his innocence and also to establish that he was not responsible in any manner for any lapse in the so called Merg enquiry that was conducted in relation to death of the deceased Raiveti Chouhan. 10. 10. The further contention of the State Counsel is that the law of the Supreme Court as also of this High Court, is also by now well settled that at the stage of charge-sheet and or at the stage of show cause notice, the interference of the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 should be minimal. That it should not be interfered as a matter of routine. It was the further contention of the State Counsel that since there is a proper sanction obtained from the Hon’ble Governor before issuance of charge-sheet, the primary ground alleged by the petitioner stands met with and rest is the matter of enquiry which the petitioner may face and he may prove his innocence. 11. As regards the settled legal position of interference at the stage of charge-sheet by the High court under Article 226 is concerned, the issue is no longer res integra . 12. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr. [ 1987 2 SCC 179 ] dealing with the scope of judicial interference in disciplinary matters was of the opinion that, “the purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown and is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant, only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature and the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on holding that, the High Court in our opinion ought not have interfere with the show cause notice. 13. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [ 2012 11 SCC 565 ] in paragraph 8, 10 & 12 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the 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.” 14. From the aforesaid legal position as it stands it is clear that, the Supreme Court has been of the view that, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would interfere with the disciplinary proceedings only in the event of there been a total lack of competency in the holding of enquiry proceedings by the enquiry officer or the enquiry proceedings are barred for any reason or where the charges have been already enquired upon and has been concluded. 15. 15. Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands considering the submission made by the State Counsel drawing the attention of the Court to Annexure P/6 which shows the sanction having been given by the Hon’ble Governor for prosecuting the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that petitioner has already submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and the disciplinary authorities not being convinced with the same having decided to proceed further and have appointed an Enquiry Officer. It would not be proper for this Court at this juncture to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. 16. Nonetheless it is directed that since the petitioner already stands retired about two years back and the charge-sheet has now been issued, the disciplinary authorities are expected to conclude the enquiry, after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 17. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of.