Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asi Jagdish Lal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 February, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023946
2024:PHHC:023946
CWP-14700-2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
219 CWP-14700-2018
Date of Decision: 21.02.2024
ASI Jagdish Lal and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of charge sheet (Annexure
P-5) whereby departmental enquiry has been initiated against them.
2. On 31.05.2018, the following order was passed:-
“It is inter alia contended by learned senior counsel for
the petitioners that the petitioners are being proceeded against
departmentally on account of the fact that they have filed a writ
petition in this Court challenging the order of transfer. The
same is patently illegal as right of redressal of grievance is a
fundamental right and no body can be punished for
approaching the Court for vindication of his/her rights.
Notice of motion for 29.10.2018.
Meanwhile, operation of charge-sheet (Anenxure P-5)
shall remain stayed.”
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 09:59:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023946
2024:PHHC:023946
CWP-14700-2018 -2-
3. On 13.07.2023, the matter came up for consideration before this
Court and with the consent of both sides, the stay granted by the aforesaid
order was vacated and the following order was passed:-
“The instant petition has been filed assailing ‘Statement
of Allegations’ (Annexure P-5).
While in the petition, the said document is referred to as
‘charge-sheet’ but the stand of the State is that the said
document is not a ‘charge-sheet’ and it is just a ‘Statement of
Allegations’ in terms of Rule 16.24(i) of Punjab Police Rules
and that the formal decision regarding framing of charge-sheet
is yet to be taken after evidence is recorded in terms of Rule
16.24(iii). It has been submitted by the learned State counsel
that the said decision could not be taken earlier on account of
operation of stay against the impugned ‘Statement of
Allegations’ (Annexure P-5). Learned State counsel has further
submitted that in case such stay is vacated, the authorities
concerned shall take the requisite decision in the shortest
possible time.
Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that he has no objection in case the said
stay is vacated solely for the purpose of enabling the
authorities concerned to take a formal decision as to whether
any charge-sheet is required to be served upon pursuant to the
‘Statement of Allegations’ (Annexure P-5).
In view of the aforesaid position, interim order dated
31.05.2018 vide which operation of the impugned ‘Statement of
Allegations’ (Annexure P-5) had been stayed, is vacated. The
authorities concerned shall take the requisite decision in the
matter after recording evidence, if required, as to whether any
charge-sheet is required to be served in the facts &
circumstances, within a period of 3 months from today.
List again on 10.01.2024.”
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 09:59:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023946
2024:PHHC:023946
CWP-14700-2018 -3-
4. The petitioners have placed on record charge sheet (Annexure
P-6). In the charge sheet, the respondent has alleged that petitioners have
violated Rule 14.49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘1934 Rules’) and
they have violated orders of senior officers.
5. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, submits that Rule 14.49 of 1934
Rules is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
nonetheless, the respondents have invoked the aforesaid Rule and intention of
the respondents is to dismiss the petitioners from service or impose any other
major punishment.
6. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab submits
that petitioners are pre-empting outcome of the aforesaid charge sheet. They
have right to file reply and competent authority would decide charge sheet in
accordance with law and without being influenced by the fact that petitioners
have preferred the present writ petition before this Court.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and
perused the record with their able assistance.
8. The petitioners were initially assailing ‘Statement of Allegations’
and at present, grievance of the petitioners is that charge sheet is contrary to
mandate of Rule 14.49 of 1934 Rules, thus, it should be quashed. Rule 14.49
of the 1934 Rules reads as:
“14.49. Joining associations. – Government is prepared to
grant official recognition to associations representing distinct
ranks of police officers, provided such association conform to
conditions which have been laid down. Copies of the rules3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 09:59:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:0239462024:PHHC:023946
CWP-14700-2018 -4-
embodying these conditions can be obtained by associations or
proposed associations on application through the proper
official channel. The formation of associations otherwise than
in accordance with these rules, and the joining of any
association or trade union other than a recognised police
association by individual police officers, is absolutely
prohibited.”
The petitioners are claiming that they have not formed an
association, thus, rigor of aforesaid Rule cannot be invoked against them. The
respondent in one or another way wants to implicate them. They have
reasonable apprehension that respondent would dismiss them from service or
impose any other major penalty.
9. The petitioners are posted with respondent as Assistant Sub-
Inspector or Head Constable. They are governed by 1934 Rules which is a
complete Code contemplating disciplinary action, remedy to file appeal as
well as revision. The petitioners have further remedy to assail final order
passed by authorities before this Court by way of writ petition.
10. The Apex Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v.
Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, has held that ordinarily a
writ petition 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/competence to do so. The relevant
extracts of the aforesaid judgment read as:
“10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a
charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 09:59:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:0239462024:PHHC:023946
CWP-14700-2018 -5-
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 [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC
319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Bihar State Housing
Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327]
, Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC
3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004)
3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467]
and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC
28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] .)
11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra [(2010) 13
SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC pp. 315-16, para
10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed
prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the
facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to
determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of
the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra
Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 : (1994) 27
ATC 200] .)
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that the charge-sheet 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
charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a
premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 22-02-2024 09:59:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023946
2024:PHHC:023946
CWP-14700-2018 -6-
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.”
11. In the case in hand, the petitioners have been issued charge sheet
and it is pending at the stage of adjudication. The petitioners have remedy to
file reply and in case an adverse order is passed, they have remedy to file
appeal followed by revision. The petitioners are not pleading that impugned
charge sheet has been issued by an incompetent officer or it is beyond
jurisdiction. In these facts and circumstances, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
12. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present petition
stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file response to the
aforesaid charge sheet. The Court is sanguine of the fact that competent
authority would adjudicate the aforesaid charge sheet within four corners of
mandate of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
13. It is made clear that disposal of present petition shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
21.02.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:023946
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 22-02-2024 09:59:47 :::