S.P. Parasher vs Rehabilitation Council of India

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—By this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the Articles of Charges dated 27.9.2011 and the departmental proceedings initiated in terms of the order dated 13.1.2012. A reference to Articles of Charges in this case show that there are five Articles of Charges against the petitioner and all of which contain factual issues. There are charges against the petitioner of changing existing entries in the service book. There is also a charge of forging of entry against the petitioner. All the Article of Charges in some way or the other are connected to each other because of claim of the petitioner to join his past services with an erstwhile employer.

I have recently in the judgment in the case of Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 4222/2013 decided on 8.7.2013 had an occasion to consider the scope of challenge to Articles of Charges and departmental proceedings at the outset. The relevant paras of this judgment read as under:-

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, has held the following in para 9 of its judgment:-

The High Court was not justified in quashing the show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature. The High Court in our opinion ought not have interfered with the show cause notice.

(underlining added)

A reference to the aforesaid para shows that truth or falsity of the allegations cannot be determined by a Court before whom enquiry proceedings are challenged at the outset and an entitlement to challenge the enquiry proceedings arises only when there is found lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of The Secretary, Min. of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, has similarly so held by referring to various earlier judgments including the judgment in the case of Brahm Datt Sharma (supra). Paras 10 to 12 of the said judgment read as under:-

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. (Vide; State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa and Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore and Ors., Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Anr. and Union of India and Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana).

In State of Orissa and Another Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra and Another, this Court held that normally a chargesheet is not quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh).

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.

(underlining added)

It is therefore clear that a Court can only interfere with continuation of enquiry proceedings when there is complete lack of jurisdiction in holding of the enquiry proceedings by the authority which is holding the enquiry, or because the authority did not have the power to initiate the enquiry or the enquiry may be barred by principle of res judicata or double jeopardise or that on the face of the show cause notice even if facts are accepted as correct no charges are made out or there is no cause of action or no violation of any law or rules etc.

A reading of the writ petition shows that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction in the departmental authorities which is pleaded and only on which basis Articles of Charges can be quashed or departmental proceedings cannot be held. Since there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, issues of merits i.e. truth or falsity of the allegations have to be determined in departmental proceedings and not before this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.