ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for setting aside the Charge Memo dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner on the ground that the charges are vague. 2. The petitioner was posted as SHO at Police Station, Patna and two of his subordinate Constables i.e. Constable No.486 – Mukesh Kumar Sahu and Constable Driver No.649 Radhekrishna Sahu, without informing him or any Superior Police Officer, on the basis of an information to the effect that complainant – Chandrika Prasad was in illegal possession of contraband, made a search in respect of the complainant including his motorcycle. By the impugned Charge Memo, the charges were levelled against the petitioner, who was the SHO of the concerned Police Station at the relevant time, that he failed to control and supervise his subordinate staff, therefore, he was duly responsible for the effective actions of his subordinates, whereby, they have committed gross misconduct and negligence in their duties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Chandrika Pandey made a complaint on 19.9.2016 before the Inspector General of Police to the effect that on 11.9.2016, on account of some personal work, he had gone to Adharsh Chowk, Patna on his motorcycle. On the said date, Constable Radhekrishna Sahu and Constable Mukesh Kumar Sahu intercepted and searched him including his motorcycle by opening its dickey. When the complainant objected to it, they threatened to implicate him in a false case of illegal possession of contraband. Thereafter, the complainant went away and on his return to the same place, both the Constables again made a search and also hurled abuses against him. On a complaint of Chandrika Prasad, an enquiry was conducted by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, in which, the statements of the complainant, Divesh Pandey, Vijay Kumar Pandey and Brajesh Sahu were recorded. The City Superintendent of Police enquired into the matter and it was revealed that Constable Radhekrishna Sahu and Constable Mukesh Sahu received a secret information through an informant that the complainant is in possession of intoxicative drugs. The City Superintendent of Police enquired into the matter and it was revealed that Constable Radhekrishna Sahu and Constable Mukesh Sahu received a secret information through an informant that the complainant is in possession of intoxicative drugs. However, the said Police Personnel, without informing the present petitioner, who was the then SHO of the concerned Police Station, or any Senior Officer proceeded to the place along with the other Constables Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajbhan Singh Paraste and intercepted the complainant and made a search, on which, no contraband was found from his possession. Further, nothing was suggested for hurling rude abuses against the complainant by the Police Personnel. In the Preliminary Enquiry, the City Superintendent Of Police, Surajpur found Constables Mukesh Sahu and Radhekrishna Sahu guilty as their act was found arbitrary and gross negligence was established in their work and conduct. Thereafter, an Enquiry Report was submitted on 21.10.2006-Annexure P/2. The Superintendent of Police, Koriya, after taking into consideration the said Enquiry Report, issued a Charge Memo on 16.11.2016 and the charges were framed against the two Constables, against whom, the allegations were prima facie found proved by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur but he did not make any recommendation in the report against the present petitioner with regard to any misconduct on his part. However, the charges were framed against the petitioner and the charge sheet was filed against him for lack of supervision and dereliction of duty. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the City Superintendent of Police had not made any recommendation in the Enquiry Report against the petitioner and further, in the said report, no misconduct was found proved on his part, therefore, the impugned charge sheet issued against the petitioner is vague. Further, in the said charge sheet, it has not been categorically mentioned that on what terms and in what manner, the petitioner being the SHO of the concerned Police Station, failed to control and supervise his subordinate staff. Further, in the said charge sheet, it has not been categorically mentioned that on what terms and in what manner, the petitioner being the SHO of the concerned Police Station, failed to control and supervise his subordinate staff. She further stated that if a subordinate officer commits breach of duty or any misconduct, without the prior knowledge of the Superior Officer, the said Superior Officer cannot be held liable for such act of negligence on the part of his subordinates and in the instant case, there was no live and proximate link between the Superior Officer and his subordinates with regard to such negligent act. However, the said fact has not been mentioned in the charge sheet, which shows that the charge sheet is not clear, specific or definite. She further submits that in the charge sheet, there is no narration about any act of misconduct or omission on the part of the petitioner. She also submits that the documents of the Preliminary Enquiry Report itself destroys the case of the Department, therefore, the impugned Charge Memo is illegal and unjustified. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that against complainant - Chandrika Pandey, FIR No.7/2020 under Section 21B at Ramanuj Nagar Srinagar Surajpur Police Station, has also been registered. For the above submissions, she places reliance on the matter of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 , State of Punjab Vs V.K. Khanna and others, AIR 2001 SC 343 , and Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and others, (1999) 7 SCC 409 . Hence, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and quash the impugned Charge Memo dated 16.11.2016 (Annexure P/1). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the writ petition is premature. The law is well settled that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence, such discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable. For the above submission, he places reliance on the matter of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed along with the petition and also gone through the Charge Memo-Annexure P/1 and the documents appended thereto. For the above submission, he places reliance on the matter of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 . 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed along with the petition and also gone through the Charge Memo-Annexure P/1 and the documents appended thereto. 7. In the matter of Anant R. Kulkarni (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically observed that a person must be informed in a clear and definite terms what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. The relevant para 15 and 16 read thus : 15. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B AIR 1971 SC 752 this Court held, that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges, as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make out an effective defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 553, para 5) “5. … The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.” (emphasis supplied) 16. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Where the charge-sheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the charge-sheet, but are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should a delinquent be served a charge-sheet, without providing to him, a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of allegations are not served with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The evidence adduced should not be perfunctory; even if the delinquent does not take the defence of, or make a protest that the charges are vague, that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (Vide State of A.P v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 , Sawai Singh v. State Of Rajasthan. AIR 1986 SC 995 , U.P SRTC v. Ram Chandra Yadav AIR 2000 SC 3596 , Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar 2009 12 SCC 78 and Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank 2011 14 SCC 379 .) 8. Similarly in the matter of V.K. Khanna (Supra), it was held that the High Court cannot interfere in the Disciplinary Enquiry at the stage of issuance of charge sheet and when there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issuance of a charge sheet, it is bounden duty of the Court to see that due process of law permeate in the Society. The relevant para 33 read thus : 33. The relevant para 33 read thus : 33. While it is true that justifiability of the charges at the stage of initiating a disciplinary proceeding cannot possibly be delved into by any court pending inquiry but it is equally well settled that in the event there is an element of malice or mala fide, motive involved in the matter of issue of a charge- sheet or the authority concerned is so biased that the inquiry would be a mere farcical show and the conclusions are well known then and in that event law courts are otherwise justified in interfering at the earliest stage so as to avoid the harassment and humiliation of a public official. It is not a question of shielding any misdeed that the Court would be anxious to do, it is the due process of law which should permeate in the society and in the event of there being any affectation of such process of law that law courts ought to rise up to the occasion and the High Court, in the contextual facts, has delved into the issue on that score. On the basis of the findings no exception can be taken and that has been the precise reason as to why this Court dealt with the issue in so great a detail so as to examine the judicial propriety at this stage of the proceedings. 9. In the matter of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar (Supra), it has been stated that there must exist a reasonable basis for the Disciplinary Authority to proceed against the Delinquent Officer and suspicion has no role to play in such matter. The material observation made in para 42 reads thus : 42. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer cannot take place on information which is vague or indefinite. Suspicion has no role to play in such matter. There must exist reasonable basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed against the delinquent officer. Merely because penalty was not imposed and the Board in the exercise of its power directed filing of appeal against that order in the Appellate Tribunal could not be enough to proceed against the appellant. There is no other instance to show that in similar case the appellant invariably imposed penalty. 10. Merely because penalty was not imposed and the Board in the exercise of its power directed filing of appeal against that order in the Appellate Tribunal could not be enough to proceed against the appellant. There is no other instance to show that in similar case the appellant invariably imposed penalty. 10. Revering back to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the petitioner, at the relevant time, was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station, Patna, where, the other two Constables namely Radhekrishna Sahu and Mukesh Sahu were also posted. These two Constables, without complying with the rules and procedure and also without informing the petitioner i.e. the then SHO or any other Superior Police Officer, on an information received by them, went to the concerned place, intercepted the complainant and conducted a search in respect of the complainant including his motorcycle However, on search, they did not find any intoxicative drug in the possession of the complainant. Thereafter, Chandrika Shau (complainant) made a complaint before the Inspector General of Police, Sarguja on 19.9.2016 regarding the above incident dated 11.9.2016 alleging that the said two Constables demanded money from him and also hurled abuses against him threatening him to implicate in a false case. Thereafter, a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur and he found that the said two Police Personnel, without informing the petitioner or any Superior Police Officer, proceeded to the concerned place, intercepted the complainant and made a search, but they did not find any intoxicative drug from his possession and more so, the allegation of hurling abuses was also not proved against the said Police Personnel. The said two Police Personnel acted in an arbitrary manner and violated the norms and thereby, their such act would amount to gross negligence in performing their official duty. The Enquiry Report 21.10.2016-Annexure P/2 in this regard was submitted by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur before the Inspector General of Police, Sarguja. Thereafter, the impugned Charge Memo has been issued not only to the said Police Personnel but also to the petitioner, who was at the relevant time posted as the SHO, levelling charges against him that he failed to control or supervise his subordinates staff posted under him at the concerned Police Station and as such, he was responsible for the negligent actions of his subordinates. 11. 11. On 20.12.2016, this Court issued a direction to the State to seek instructions in the matter and file an affidavit in reply as to on what basis, the charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner and also to submit the documents listed along with the charge sheet for perusal. Further, a direction was made that the petitioner would be obliged to file his reply, however, the respondents shall not compel appearance of the petitioner in the on-going enquiry. It was also observed that the said order shall not come in the way of the enquiry against the other officials. 12. The State has filed its reply in this regard. In the reply, it has been stated that a Preliminary Enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he had no control over the acts of his subordinate staff and he lacks supervision, which demonstrated dereliction towards his duties. At present, the matter is at the stage of framing of charges and submission of reply of the delinquent employee/officer and no final order has been passed. Therefore, the petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed. It has been further stated in the reply that at this stage, the petitioner cannot be held innocent. In para 3 of the reply, it has been stated that though there is no finding against the petitioner in the Preliminary Enquiry Report conducted by the City Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, wherein, only Constable Radhekrishna Sahu and Constable Mukesh sahu were found guilty, but the above act of his subordinates demonstrates the arbitrary attitude of the petitioner towards his duties since he was the Superior Officer posted as SHO of the concerned Police Station at the relevant time and two of his subordinates working under him committed such gross misconduct. Further, it was stated in the reply that the petitioner was responsible for the effective actions of his subordinates and thereby, he had failed to control the acts of his subordinates. Therefore, the action taken by the Department is just and proper, which does not call for any interference at this stage. 13. This Court has gone through the Charge Memo-Annexure P/1 and documents appended to the Preliminary Enquiry Report, on the basis of which, the charge sheet has been filed after recording of the statements of certain persons including complainant Chandrika Pandey. 13. This Court has gone through the Charge Memo-Annexure P/1 and documents appended to the Preliminary Enquiry Report, on the basis of which, the charge sheet has been filed after recording of the statements of certain persons including complainant Chandrika Pandey. In the Charge Memo and the documents annexed, there appears no link to connect the same with the petitioner, which only shows the misconduct of the two Constables. On 11.9.2016, the said two Constables, without informing the SHO i.e. the petitioner or any Superior Police Officer, proceeded to the place, where the alleged incident took place and without complying any rules, made a search in respect of the complainant including his motorcycle. Neither in the Charge Memo nor in the reply filed by the State, it is mentioned as to how and in what manner there was lack of supervision on the part of the petitioner over his subordinate staff and no document has been filed in this regard. The Charge Memo and the list of witnesses supplied to the Delinquent Officer would show that the charge is not specific and definite nor contained any details, which may be linked along with the effective Departmental Enquiry conducted by the concerned Department against the petitioner. 14. For the foregoing, this Court finds that the charge and its description is not clear and specific and no document showing any misconduct on the part of the petitioner is available on record. Hence, this Court is of the view that on such charge, continuation of proceeding is not possible and a public servant could not be harassed on such vague charges. The petitioner has established a good case for interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 15. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the impugned Charge Memo -Annexure P/1, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed.