1 S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 144/08 Satyaveer Singh Vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 21.2.2008 HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. S.D. Goswami for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Govt. Counsel. The petitioner has challenged annexure/8 dated 16.8.2007 and chargesheet dated 11.12.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issuance of the chargesheet is nothing but the outcome of the malafide of Inspector General (Police) in as much as that the time when the candidature of the petitioner was considered for promotion, a doubt was raised regarding the cast certificate of the petitioner and precisely for that reason only chargesheet annexure/7 has been issued. While, issuing notice, this court directed the petitioner to file reply to the chargesheet and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that necessary reply/explanation has already been submitted. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the allegation made in the chargesheet should be dealt with by this court and it should be held that none of the charges made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this court cannot decide question of facts or at least held inquiry to find out as to whether the charges against the petitioner are made out or not. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. I am of the opinion that so as to question whether any charge is made out against the petitioner or not cannot be decided by this Court. Moreso, this Court cannot exercise the powers of disciplinary authority/ inquiry officer while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence no interference can be made in respect of the proceedings initiated pursuant to the chargesheet. However, 3 looking to the fact that explanation to the chargesheet has already been submitted thus, respondents are directed to consider the said explanation, if they come with a view that a further inquiry is required, same may be completed within the period of six months from today. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the inquiry. It is further made clear that if the petitioner is ultimately exonerated in the inquiry, he would be at liberty to seek adjudication of the matter of his promotion by maintaining another writ petition. Hence without deciding the issue of promotion at this stage, the aforesaid direction is given because during the currency of the inquiry, petitioner cannot otherwise claim benefit of promotion but at the same time since the issue pertaining to claim of the petitioner for promotion is not decided the same is kept open in the circumstances above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. ns.