B.B. Gangele vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the charge-sheet dated 20.09.2016 issued by respondent whereby two charges are

framed against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid charge-sheet on the ground that without considering the reply submitted by the

petitioner, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2017. It is submitted that a charge-sheet has

been issued against the petitioner on baseless allegations. The departmental enquiry on the same charges was held against the Deputy Registrar

Stamp and the charges were not found to be proved in the enquiry and the enquiry was closed under the orders of Inspector General Registration

and Superintendent Stamp Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vide order dated 03.05.2017. It is further submitted that the said charge-sheet has been

issued to the petitioner after a period of 5 years and it has also been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has filed a contempt petition

against the respondent for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, therefore, the said charge-sheet has been issued.

The respondent has filed the reply and in the reply, the respondent has stated that a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 20.09.2016,

thereby alleging two charges against the him. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has appointed Presenting

Officer as well as Inquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that it is settled law that the charge-

sheet/show-cause notice does not adversely affect the right of delinquent employee and also does not give any rise to cause of action, however, the

same can be interfered if it is issued by incompetent authority. The respondent has stated that in the present case, issuance of competency is not

raised at all. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the Division Bench decision passed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Baheti Vs.

High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2015 (3) M.P.L.J. 172 as well as the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary,

Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 . In light of the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the

respondent argues that the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondent has also filed an additional return.

The petitioner has filed the rejoinder and has stated that the respondent has not denied the fact that the enquiry against the Deputy Registrar,

who was executing authority on the said ground had been closed with a warning and therefore, under similar circumstances, if the allegations

against the executing authority has not been found proved how the same charge can be found proved against the supervising authority. The

decisions relied on by learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable in the present case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on

20.09.2016 by the respondent containing two charges. In charge No.1, it was contended that while working in charge Registrar Satna from

23.01.2011 to 23.08.2011, the petitioner registered a case under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and had accepted the value of the

property and has shown in the registration document as 5.10 lakhs as against the actual market value of Rs.22.89 lakhs. It was further contended

that the petitioner carried out inspection of the spot before accepting the said value of the property. Similar is charge No.2. The petitioner filed a

reply to the said charge-sheet on 21.11.2016 stating that the departmental enquiry containing the same charges amongst other was held against the

Deputy Registrar, Satna, who has registered the documents and in the departmental enquiry the charges were not found to be proved and

therefore, the enquiry against the Deputy Registrar was closed. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent

has issued an order dated 04.05.2017 for holding departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed

the present petition. From averments made in the petition, it is revealed that the present petition has been filed challenging the charge-sheet issued

by the respondent. That the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others (supra) in paragraph No.8, 10 and 12 has held

as under :

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 chargesheet 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 circumstances. (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. 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.)

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/competency 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 v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.)

Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of a

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.

Thus, as per the decisions passed by the Apex Court, a writ petition for quashment of charge-sheet is not maintainable unless the same has been

issued by incompetent authority. However, in the present case, from perusal of the averments made by the petitioner, a charge-sheet has not been

challenged on the ground of incompetency of the authority issuing the charge-sheet. A similar view has been taken by Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Jagdish Baheti (supra) and paragraph No.8 and 9 reads as under :

The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted decisions, therefore, makes it clear that generally and ordinarily a

writ petition is not maintainable against a charge-sheet as issuance of the same does not give rise to a cause of action on account of

the fact that it does not adversely effect the rights of a party except in cases where the charge-sheet has been issued by an authority

not competent to do so. The Supreme Court has also held that neither disciplinary proceedings nor a charge-sheet can be quashed at

the initial stage on merits as it would be a pre-mature stage to deal with the merits of the case. The Supreme Court has also held that

at the stage of issuance of charge-sheet the correctness or veracity of the charges cannot be looked into in writ proceedings as that

aspect is the domain of the disciplinary authority and not the High Court.

The contention of the petitioner needs to be examined in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. In the instant case,

as there is no contention or allegation on the part of the petitioner to the effect that the charge-sheet has been issued by an

incompetent authority or by an authority which has no jurisdiction to do so and, therefore, no exceptional circumstances exist to

ignore the general and ordinary rule of nonmaintainability of the petition against a charge-sheet, mere issuance of which does not give

rise to any cause of action as has been held by the Supreme Court in the above cited decisions.

Thus, in the light of aforesaid decision, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said writ petition. So far as exoneration of other Deputy Registrar

against whom the similar charges have been levied is concerned, in that case also a departmental enquiry was held against him and after holding

departmental enquiry, he was exonerated. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.