Manoj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing of the impugned charge sheet dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure No.17) as well as the inquiry report dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure No.16).

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Maths) in the respondent-institution. An inquiry was conducted by a two-Member Committee and one of the Members of the said Committee is Authorized Controller of the Institution and he may be influenced by the Manager of the Management.

It is reflected from the record that pursuant to an inquiry report dated 06.01.2024 submitted by the Inquiry Committee, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.4/ Manager of the Committee of Management, vide order dated 15.02.2024 leveling as many as three charges and the petitioner was called upon to reply the same by 29.02.2024.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has sought further time to file his reply to charge sheet.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet was issued by respondent No.4-Committee of Management of the Institution through its Manager Shri Dushyant Kumar, on whose instance; the alleged complaint was moved against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner extensively and have gone through the record of the writ petition. It is a settled view that ordinarily a writ petition does not lie against a charge sheet or a show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. The issuance of the charge sheet does not amount to an adverse order, which affects the rights of the parties, unless the same has been issued by a person who has no jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Manager of the Institution is not competent to issue the charge sheet.

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, has clearly enunciated as stated above. The petitioner would have all opportunities to raise his objection to the charge sheet by filing a detailed objection/explanation in his defence.

For ready reference, Para 11 and Para 13 of the aforesaid judgment, are quoted herein below:-

“11. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a chargesheet 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, chargesheet 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 chargesheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court.

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.”

Since, the inquiry is being conducted on the charges imputed against the petitioner; this Court is of the opinion that these grounds which are being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are available to the petitioner to be taken in explanation to the charge sheet.

In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.