Dr. Kailash Narayan Mewafarosh vs State Of Madhya pradesh & Ors

Challenge to the issuance of charge-sheet having being negatived by learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 16.04.2018 has led the petitioner

file the Appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Specific charges levelled against the appellant Homeopathy Medical Officer are :

e/;izns'k flfoy los k ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e&1966 ds fu;e & 12 ¼2½ ,oa 13 ¼1½ ds v/khu vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh &

vjksi i=

e/;izns'k flfoy los k ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;=.a k rFkk vihy½ fu;e & 1966 ds fu;e & 14 ¼3½ ds vra xZr Åij fufnZ""V vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh ,rn~ }kjk

MkW- d-s,u- esokQjks'k] gksE;ksiSFkh fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] 'kkldh; gksE;ksiSFkh vkS""k/kky;] ubZ lM+d ¼fMMokuk vksyh½] Xokfy;j ds fo:) fuEu

vjksi vf/kjksfir fd;k tkrk gS %&

vkjksi %&

MkW-d-s,u- esokQjks'k] gksE;ksiSFkh fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh }kjk 'kkldh; gksE;ksiSFkh vkS""k/kky;] ubZ lM+d ¼fMMokuk vksyh½] Xokfy;j

¼e0iz0½ esa inLFk jgrs gq, fnukad 03-08-2008 ls 12-10-2009 rd fcuk foHkkxh; vuqefr ds voS/kkfud :i ls Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] Xokfy;j fLFkr

'kk[kk ds 85 /kkjdksa dk LokLF; ijh{k.k dj Qhl ds :i esa :i;s 5140@& dk Hkqxrku izkIr dj nksgjk vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr fd;k x;k A bl izdkj MkW- d-s,u-

esokQjks'k] gksE;kiSFkh fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] 'kkldh; gksE;ksiSFkh vkS""k/kky;] ubZ lM+d ¼fMMokuk vksyh½] Xokfy;j ¼e0iz0½ }kjk fcuk

foHkkxh; vuqefr ds voS/kkfud :i ls Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe] Xokfy;j fLFkr 'kk[kk ds 85 /kkjdksa dk LokLF; ijh{k.k dj Qhl ds :i esa :i;s 5140@& dk

Hkqxrku izkIr dj nksgjk vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr dj e0iz0 flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3 ¼1½ ds ¼,d½ ¼nks½ ¼rhu½ dk Li""V mYya?

ku fd;k x;k gS] tks e0iz0 flfoy lsok ¼oxzhdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e &1966 ds fu;e 10 ds vra xZr n.Muh; gS A

¼f'k[kk nqcs½ vk;qDr

lapkyuky;] vk;q""k] Hkksiky] e0iz0

Being trite it is that the charge sheet is not a punishment as it would attract the principle of Article 311 of the Constitution. Furthermore, in Secretary,

Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, it is held:

“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. 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 circumstance. (Vide: State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 Supp SCC 738; State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570, Registrar, Coop. Societies v.

Sachindra Nath Pandey (1995) 3 SCC 134; Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180, Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan,

(1996) 3 SCC 157, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833; Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia, (1998) 9 SCC 131, Supt. of Police

v. T. Natarajan, 1999 SCC (L&S) 646, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 3475, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI, (2006) 8 SCC 776; and Government

of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49).

Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or showcause 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. (Vide : State of U.P. v. Brahm

Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa v. Commr., AIR 2000 SC 3603

(2), Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, AIR 2004 SC 1467; and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28).

Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subjectmatter 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.â€​

In view whereof, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well within his jurisdiction in negativing the challenge.

Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed.