JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. Accepting petitioner’s prayer in his Civil Writ Petition No. 9473 of 2013, learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 18.07.2014 quashed the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner. This decision has been assailed by the State in this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The pleaded case of the parties is that: (i) The respondent-writ petitioner served as Executive Engineer in HPPWD Karsog Division from 31.03.2011 to 26.10.2012. On 26.10.2012, he proceeded on earned leave after handing over the charge to the Executive Engineer (D) 1st Circle HPPWD Mandi. During the period of his leave, the writ petitioner was transferred to Kaza Division on 01.11.2012. (ii) On 18.03.2013, the appellant issued a show-cause notice to the respondent-writ petitioner that:- while serving as Executive Engineer Karsog, he did not properly monitor Arbitration Case Nos. 37 and 33 of 2011; Requisite action in these two cases was deliberately delayed by the writ petitioner for allowing the limitation to expire. According to the show-cause notice, this action of the writ petitioner showed lack of his supervision, non-devotion to duty, collusion with the contractors and entailed disciplinary action. The writ petitioner was directed to explain his position before initiation of disciplinary proceedings. (iii) The respondent-writ petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notice on 23.03.2013. Besides denying the allegations, he also highlighted that the delay in taking further action in the arbitration cases was due to negligence of the concerned staff of the Accounts Branch. (iv) The respondents were not satisfied with the writ petitioner’s explanation and suspended him from the service on 13.05.2013. Memorandum of charge sheet was issued to him on 24.08.2013 under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules 1965. The memorandum contained following articles of charges:- “ARTICLE-I That Shri R.K. Kashyap, while working as Executive Engineer, Karsog Division, HPPWD, Karsog, Mandi, kept un-attended the orders of Hon'ble High Court dated 14.09.2011 in CWP No. 1598/2008 titled as Jai Ram Vs. State of H.P., for a period of more than one and a half years, thereby resulting in Execution Petition No. 37/2013 and adverse orders being passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, Sh. State of H.P., for a period of more than one and a half years, thereby resulting in Execution Petition No. 37/2013 and adverse orders being passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, Sh. Kashyap failed to maintain proper supervision, upon the office and non- devotion to duty and non compliance with the orders of Hon'ble High Court by way of not making a reference to the higher authorities, which is a serious misconduct and violation of rule 3 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II That Shri R.K. Kashyap, while working as Executive Engineer, Karsog Division, HPPWD, Karsog, Mandi did not monitor the cases Arbitration No. 37/2011 & 33/2011 Kamlesh Puri vs. State H.P. and Others, in which the sole Arbitrator Sh. M.D. Sharma, District & Session Judge (Retd.) had announced awards against the department and the cases were deliberately delayed in order to expire that limitation for filing of appeal. The action on the part of Head of the office i.e. Executive Engineer was negligent, lacking of supervision as well as proper control and non-devotion to duty and collusion with contractors. The misconduct is violation of rule 3 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964.” (v) The writ petitioner submitted reply to the above charges, but his suspension period was extended by the respondents. This writ petition was instituted on 07.12.2013, wherein besides seeking quashing of his suspension, prayer was also made for quashing of memorandum of charge sheet dated 24.08.2013. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 18.07.2014 and quashed the memorandum of charge sheet dated 24.08.2013. It is in the aforesaid background that the State has instituted this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The contention of the appellant-State is that the respondent-writ petitioner had failed to monitor the progress of Arbitration Case Nos. 33 and 37 of 2011, decided on 07.07.2012. The writ petitioner allowed the awards dated 07.07.2012, passed in the two Arbitration Cases to become final whereunder huge financial liabilities had been fastened upon the State. It was also submitted that the respondent-writ petitioner had himself received the signed copy of the arbitral awards on 07.07.2012, yet he did not take any steps for assailing the same within the period stipulated in law. The awards were processed for taking the opinion of the higher authorities only on 27.11.2012. It was also submitted that the respondent-writ petitioner had himself received the signed copy of the arbitral awards on 07.07.2012, yet he did not take any steps for assailing the same within the period stipulated in law. The awards were processed for taking the opinion of the higher authorities only on 27.11.2012. It was further projected that the preliminary inquiry got conducted by the appellant-State showed that no timely steps were taken for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the awards passed by the Arbitrator on 07.07.2012. The preliminary inquiry reported that collusion of writ petitioner with the contractors for allowing limitation to expire, could not be ruled out. It was next contended that the judgment in CWP No. 1598 of 2008 (Jai Ram Vs. State of H.P.) was delivered on 14.09.2011. This decision also remained unattended at the end of Writ petitioner till the Execution Petition No. 37 of 2013 was filed for enforcement of the judgment. The writ petitioner remained remiss in discharging his official duties. Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner controverted the submissions of the appellant-State and defended the impugned judgment. 4. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case record: (i) Legal position It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition 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. A writ lies when some right of the party is infringed. Charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. The law in this regard was summarized as under in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (11) SCC 565 : “12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet 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. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet 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 chargesheet 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.” Union of India and Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28 held that 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. (ii) On examining facts of the instant case in light of above legal position, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons: Two charges have been levelled in the memorandum of charge sheet dated 13.05.2013 against the respondent-writ petitioner. Both the charges allege inaction on his part concern Court cases. Article No. 1 is regarding judgment dated 14.09.2011 passed in CWP No. 1598 of 2008, which allegedly lay unattended at the end of writ petitioner for more than a year. The second Article of charge is about the writ petitioner’s not taking requisite steps in time for assailing the awards dated 07.07.2012 passed in Arbitration Case Nos. 33 and 37 of 2011. The appellant-State has alleged that the respondent-writ petitioner had deliberately allowed the limitation to expire in order to extend undue benefit to the claimants (contractors). According to the charge sheet, this action of the respondent-writ petitioner showed that he was negligent, did not exercise due supervision as well as proper control, was not devoted to duty and had colluded with contractors. Such misconduct of the writ petitioner was violative of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. According to the charge sheet, this action of the respondent-writ petitioner showed that he was negligent, did not exercise due supervision as well as proper control, was not devoted to duty and had colluded with contractors. Such misconduct of the writ petitioner was violative of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (ii)(a) The first article of charge: The allegations against the writ petitioner forming the basis of this charge were not part of the show-cause notice issued to him on 18.03.2013. This charge surfaced only in the memorandum of charge sheet dated 24.08.2013. Be that as it may, the respondent-writ petitioner’s case is that copy of judgment dated 14.09.2011, passed in CWP No. 1598 of 2008, was not received by him during his entire service tenure at Karsog Division; It was received in the office of Executive Engineer, Karsog only on 26.11.2012; By that time, the writ petitioner had already relinquished charge of the post held by him at Karsog to the next incumbent. He was transferred from Karsog to Kaza on 01.11.2012; He was not holding the office at Karsog on 26.11.2012 when copy of the decision dated 14.09.2011 in CWP No. 1598 of 2008 was received. The appellant-State has not countered the factual assertion of the respondent-writ petitioner. This assertion has been pleaded not only in the writ petition, but was also the stand taken by the writ petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet. When the stand is as projected by the respondent-writ petitioner, we fail to understand the utility and justifiability of continuation of any further action on this charge. (ii)(b) The second Article of charge: Regarding not assailing the awards passed on 07.07.2012 by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case Nos. 33 and 37 of 2011, the stand of the writ petitioner is that the copies of the awards were received by one H.C. Sharma, the Sr. Accountant of Karsog Division; awards were delivered to the petitioner by the aforesaid Sh. H.C. Sharma, Sr. Accountant of Karsog Division on 10.07.2012. The same day, he forwarded the awards to the Accounts Branch; In terms of the directions given therein, it was the responsibility of the Divisional Accounts Officer as well as the concerned dealing hand to process the cases; The writ petitioner never received the documents back from the Accounts Branch. H.C. Sharma, Sr. Accountant of Karsog Division on 10.07.2012. The same day, he forwarded the awards to the Accounts Branch; In terms of the directions given therein, it was the responsibility of the Divisional Accounts Officer as well as the concerned dealing hand to process the cases; The writ petitioner never received the documents back from the Accounts Branch. The writ petitioner remained occupied during the months of July and August, 2012 due to inauguration of several projects in his division; On 11.09.2012, writ petitioner’s father was diagnosed to be suffering from cancer and in October, 2012 his wife had to undergo surgery. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that in any case it was the responsibility of the Divisional Accounts Officer as well as the concerned dealing hand to process the arbitration cases. (ii)(b.1) The assertions of the writ petitioner find support from the fact finding inquiry got conducted by the appellant-State through the Superintending Engineer, 1st Circle, HPPWD Mandi. The said authority in his preliminary inquiry report dated 15.02.2013 concluded that “the cases were abnormally delayed at Divisional Office Accounts Branch and it can be inferred that the omissions were committed by the Divisional Accounts Officer/dealing Sr. Assistants, who were well aware about the urgency of the cases. From the above facts, it is presumed that Sh. H.C.Sharma Divisional Accounts Officer, Sh. Prem Singh Chauhan Sr. Asstt. and Sh. Tara Chand Sr. Asstt. are responsible for delay in processing the cases.” (ii)(b.2) The preliminary/fact finding inquiry report did not find the writ petitioner derelict in discharge of his duties. The statement of the writ petitioner made before the inquiry officer as recorded in the inquiry report is as under: “(1) Sh.R.K. Kashyap Executive Engineer in his statement admitted that the case indeed was received by him in his office on dated 10.07.2012 and on the same day it was sent to the Accounts Branch for further necessary action. The statement of the writ petitioner made before the inquiry officer as recorded in the inquiry report is as under: “(1) Sh.R.K. Kashyap Executive Engineer in his statement admitted that the case indeed was received by him in his office on dated 10.07.2012 and on the same day it was sent to the Accounts Branch for further necessary action. After that it become the responsibility of Divisional Accounts Officer as well as the concerned dealing hand to process the case as per the direction given therein but no action was taken by them resulting which unnecessary delay in processing the case (copy of statement attached Annexure –A).” (ii)(b.3) To satisfy ourselves, we also called for the record of Arbitration Case No. 4001 of 2013, arising out of the arbitral award dated 07.07.2012 passed in Arbitration Case No. 33 of 2011 and also the record of Arbitration Case No. 20 of 2013, arising out of the arbitral award dated 07.07.2012 passed in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2011. Prima-facie the record reveals as under: The copies of awards dated 07.07.2012 in both the cases though reflect that presence of the writ petitioner has been marked on behalf of the State on the date of pronouncement of the awards i.e. 07.07.2012, however, the pleaded contention of the State in both the Arbitration Cases has been that the signed copy of the awards had not been delivered to them by the learned Arbitrator and that the signed copy of the awards was supplied to them by the Arbitrator only in the year 2013. The writ petitioner has filed the affidavits in both the aforementioned cases solemnly declaring and affirming on oath that he was neither present before the learned Arbitrator on 07.07.2012 nor the awards were handed over to him on 07.07.2012. In his affidavits, the writ petitioner also states that on 07.07.2012, Sh. H.C. Sharma, Sr. Additional Accounts Officer was deputed to attend the Court of learned Arbitrator due to pre-occupation of the writ petitioner in other office works at Karsog. The writ petitioner has attached proof alongwith his affidavits to demonstrate his presence at Karsog w.e.f. 06.07.2012 to 08.07.2012. He has also furnished the proof regarding Sh. H.C. Sharma’s attending the arbitration proceedings on 07.07.2012. Sh. H.C. Sharma, the then Sr. The writ petitioner has attached proof alongwith his affidavits to demonstrate his presence at Karsog w.e.f. 06.07.2012 to 08.07.2012. He has also furnished the proof regarding Sh. H.C. Sharma’s attending the arbitration proceedings on 07.07.2012. Sh. H.C. Sharma, the then Sr. Additional Accounts Officer at Karsog Division in his separate affidavits filed in the aforementioned Arbitration Cases has categorically admitted that he was directed by the writ petitioner vide letter Nos. 5586 and 5587 dated 06.07.2012 to attend Arbitration Cases in cases titled as Kamlesh Puri Vs. State of H.P. (Arbitration Case No. 33 of 2011) and Mahesh Puri Vs. State of H.P. (Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2011). Sh. H.C. Sharma has also sworn that he had attended the hearing before the learned Arbitrator at Shimla in the above two Arbitration Cases on 07.07.2012. He has feigned his ignorance as to whether the unsigned or photocopy of the awards were received by him on 07.07.2012. Sh. H.C. Sharma has also stated in his affidavits that the writ petitioner had not attended the arbitration proceedings on 07.07.2012. In view of above, the factual assertion of the writ petitioner in the writ petition assumes significance that he had not received the arbitration awards himself on 07.07.2012; That Sh. H.C. Sharma, had received the Arbitration Awards dated 07.07.2017; Sh. H.C. Sharma, had handed over the copies of the awards to the writ petitioner on 10.07.2012; On 10.07.2012 itself, the writ petitioner forwarded the awards to the Accounts Branch, where Sh. H.C. Sharma was serving as Sr. Accountant; That he did not receive the awards thereafter from the Accounts Branch. The submissions of the writ petitioner that he remained busy in several crucial and ongoing projects during months of July and August, 2012, has not been disputed by the appellant-State. The factum of illness of writ petitioner’s close family members during September and October, 2012 has also not been rebutted by the State. The transfer of writ petitioner from Karsog to Kaza on 01.11.2012 is a matter of record. Significantly, the respondent chose to file objections against the awards dated 07.07.2012, on 20.04.2013. The respondent-writ petitioner did not even hold charge of Karsog Division w.e.f. 26.10.2012. The transfer of writ petitioner from Karsog to Kaza on 01.11.2012 is a matter of record. Significantly, the respondent chose to file objections against the awards dated 07.07.2012, on 20.04.2013. The respondent-writ petitioner did not even hold charge of Karsog Division w.e.f. 26.10.2012. The writ petitioner has offered very sound justification for being not responsible for the delay, if any, in filing the objections against the Arbitral Awards dated 07.07.2012 till the date of his relinquishing the charge of the post on 26.12.2012. The writ petitioner cannot be made a scape goat for the time consumed by the respondents in assailing the Arbitral Awards on 20.04.2013. (iii) During hearing of this appeal, to a query of the Court, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that no regular inquiry was ever conducted in the impugned charge sheet against the writ petitioner. We may note that this is despite the fact that no interim relief was granted by this Court to the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed on 18.07.2014. The writ petitioner is now stated to have retired from services. (iv) Conclusion The result of above discussion is that: (a) The first Article of Charge levelled against the petitioner is absolutely baseless. Neither in their pleadings nor in their submissions, the respondents even made any endeavour to justify this charge. (b) In view of undisputed facts emerging from the record, even this charge does not survive against the petitioner. For the reasons assigned in Para 4(i) to 4(iii) above, in our view, no purpose will be achieved by permitting the respondents to proceed in the charge sheet dated 24.08.2013 against the petitioner. 5. Rather, it will amount to his harassment. Instant is a fit case for exercise of discretion in favour of the writ petitioner for quashing the memorandum of charge sheet dated 24.08.2013 issued against him. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.