1 2025:CGHC:12511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1795 of 2025 1 - Devidayal Nirmalkar S/o Balod Ram Nirmalkar Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Bazar Chowk, Village Damru, Tahsil Lawan, Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Rev.) Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar Lavan, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.18 17:45:49 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 17.03.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the show cause notice dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) & 12.12.2024 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Tehsildar/respondent no. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has submitted its reply to the show cause notice (Annexure P/4 & P/5). Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the show notice is very objectionable as the respondent/Tehsildar has created a doubt to the dignity of the petitioner’s service by alleging some illegal act committed by his son. 3. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice is not maintainable in view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha1 , the relevant paragraphs are hereas under:- 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 1. 2012 11 SCC 565 3 weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. 9. In Forest Deptt v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury (2009) 7 SCC 305, this Court dealt with the issue and observed that delay in concluding the domestic enquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not (sic) be permitted to continue. 10. 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/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. 11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra, (2010) 13 SCC 311, 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. 12. 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 4 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. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned show cause notice dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) & 12.12.2024 (Annexure P/2). 5. It appears from the pleadings of the petitioner, the petitioner has already submitted its reply to the show cause notice before the Tehsildar, though the writ petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice, however, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State/respondent no. 4 to consider the reply to the show cause notice in accordance with law and pass necessary order in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib