1 2025:CGHC:23641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3893 of 2025 1 - Girdhar Lal Sahu S/o Late Lekhram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Pendri Ward No. 20, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarters, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent Of Police Police Prashikshan Vidyalaya, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Vivek Madan S/o Late Subhash Chandra Madan Aged About 45 Years R/o Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order On Board 12/06/2025 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who is an employee under the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, essentially, impugning the charge sheet dated 25-05-2023 (Annexure P-1) and prayed for the following relief:- SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.16 18:46:30 +0530 2 A. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the matter of petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. B. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly do issue in the nature of Wirt of Cetitiouryor any other appropriate Writ and quash the charge-sheet dated 25.05.2023 also close the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner. C. Any other relief, which may be suitable in the fact’s of the case, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Police Constable and posted at the PTS, Rajnandgaon. On 28-02-2022, the petitioner entered into an agreement for the sale of his piece of land of Kh. No. 629 area 10 dismils, situated at village Pendri, District Rajnandgaon, at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per Sqr.Ft. with the Respondent No. 4, and an amount of Rs. 11,000/- cash and Rs. 20 Lakhs through cheque was received by him under the agreement to sale. The sale deed was to be executed in favour of the purchaser within 6 months from the date of the agreement, which was extended by another agreement dated 23-08-2022. The Respondent lodges an FIR against the petitioner with respect to the offence of cheating and preparing forged documents, on which the FIR has been registered. Based on the registration of the FIR, a charge sheet is issued to the petitioner on 25-05-2023 by the department, alleging that the petitioner has committed misconduct under the service rules and is involved in the offence of cheating and preparing forged documents. He would further submit that it is purely a civil matter and the allegations are baseless. Respondent No. 4 may seek civil remedies against his grievances. He would further submit that the impugned charge sheet is issued with mala fide intention and is arbitrary, and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the state would submit that the petitioner has challenged the charge sheet, and he has already filed his reply to the charge sheet before the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority on 31-05-2023 (Annexure P-2). 3 It is in an initial stage, and there is no violation of any statutory rules. No prejudice is being caused to the petitioner by the charge sheet, and he has ample opportunity to put up his case before the enquiry officer. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the charge sheet dated 25-05-2023, the following charge has been levelled against the petitioner: vkjksi %& vipkjh Vz~sM vkj{kd dzekad 106 fxj/kj yky lkgw }kjk iqfyl tSls vuq’kkflr foHkkx esa inLFk jgrs gq, QthZ dwVjfpr nLrkost rS;kj dj /kks[kk/kMh tSls vijk/k esa lafyIr gks dj uSfrd iru iznf’kZr djrs gq, ‘kkldh; lsok fu;eksa ds foijhr d`R; dj ?kksj vuq’kklughurk dk ifjp; nsukA 6. It is settled law that a charge sheet can be challenged only under the specific circumstances, i.e. it was issued by an incompetent authority, it violates statutory rules, or there is an allegation of mala fide. A charge sheet cannot be interfered with by the court in a routine manner. The employee, instead of seeking quashing of the charge sheet at an initial stage before seeking judicial review, should submit his reply before the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority and should wait for the conclusion of the proceeding. In the present case, the petitioner has already submitted his reply on 31-05-2023. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors. V. Prabhash Chandra Mishra”, 2012 (11) SCC 565, has held that:- 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 4 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 v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana.) 11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (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) 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 e charge-sheet 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. 8. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet dated 25-05- 2023 (Annexure P-1) issued to him. The charge against the petitioner is that he indulged in the offence of cheating and preparing forged documents while employed in the police service. The allegation in the charge sheet requires a detailed hearing on the facts as well as on the law. The headings of the charge are supplemented by detailed imputations of mala fide, lack of sufficient evidence, and other facts, which are factual aspects on merits and will obviously have to be decided by the departmental authorities, not by this court. This court cannot examine the factual aspects by converting this writ petition into a suit and decide the disputed question of fact without a trial. In a service matter, a charge sheet, which formally initiates 5 disciplinary proceedings against an employee, can be challenged only under specific circumstances. 9. It is therefore clear that a Court can only interfere with the continuation of enquiry proceedings when there is a complete lack of jurisdiction in holding 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 there is no cause of action or no violation of any law or rules etc. 10. Given the aforesaid legal position as it stands, this Court at this juncture is not inclined to interfere with the issuance of the charge sheet by the department. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika