1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4263/2002 Ganga Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 03.08.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Yogesh Gupta for petitioner. Mr. M.Faisal Baig, Dy.Govt. Counsel for State. Heard counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the charge sheet dated 05.11.2001 (Annexure/4) whereby allegations of certain irregularities issued by Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) Rajasthan, Jaipur in investigation of Criminal Case No. 94/2001 relating to offence under Sections 380, 344 IPC Police Station Mahesh Nagar were levelled. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), Rajasthan, Jaipur was not competent to issue the charge sheet and even if the charges are taken on face value, then no misconduct is made out. The charge sheet is outcome of malicious attitude of the Inspector General who ignored the subsequent development taken in the criminal court. Counsel for the State submits that the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) is in the capacity of inquiry officer/disciplinary Committee has authority to issue the charge sheet and further the disputed question of facts are involved and the allegations of mala fide have been denied by the respondents-State. 2 I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and also gone through the record of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to establish that the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) has not competent to issue the charge sheet. As regard the issue of competency to issue the charge sheet, the law is well-settled that authority below the disciplinary authority or equal in the rank can issue a charge sheet and subsequent approval of the disciplinary authority may be sought. On the issue that no misconduct is made out, the counsel has relied on some correspondence. Various disputed question of facts are involved, therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to quash the charge sheet on that ground. I have also considered the issue of mala fide which is a factual foundation is missing. In view of the above, a liberty is given to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid objection before the respondents-authorities by way of representation which is expected to be decided by the respondents-authorities within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Thereafter, the inquiry is expected to be concluded within a period of two months. Accordingly, no interference is called 3 for at this stage and the writ petition is dismissed with the above liberty and observations. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA),J. Gandhi 59