^ •-^ l<ife< :r ^ -•"s^ NieHCOURTORCHMATTISGARH.BILASPUR W.P. (S)No. 6049/2007 PETITIONERS Dr. Subodh'KumarGondal, Son ofShri Narendra Prakash Gondal, Aged 59 years 9 months, Joint Director, Department of Veterinary Services and Animal Husbandry, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Versus RESPQNDENTS Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Veterinary Services and Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Director, Veterinary Services and Animal Husbandary Raipur.Chhattisgarh WRITPmTIONUNDERARTieLE2260FTI-IECONSTITUTIONOF !NDIA Apoearance: ' •;:.:;'.^'''1:::,?'1::.:/';:..-' ';:v:. :...;-. •••:'' i,: '.:.. . Shri Anupam Dubey, Counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay'Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the Stateon advance copy. ORAL ORDER (23.10.2007) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J Heard. , , ' The petitioner, who is working on the post of Joint Director, Department ofVeterinary Services and Animal Husbandry, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the charge sheet issuedon 4.7.2007 (AnnexureP/1). Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at fhe verge of retirement, as he is to retire in the month of November 2007 and initiation of departmentai enquiry at the verge of retirement is unjustified. He raises the factual dispute that the contents ofthe charge sheet are not true, as false allegations have been made against him. However, he submits that the petition6r has filed the reply of the aforesaid charge sheet issued against him. ! have gone through the contents ofthe Writ Petition as aiso the contents ofthechargesheet. ;illil W.K<S) 6049/2007 s& ^ J Shyna S6 far as interference by a Writ Courf by issuance of a writ of certiorari in the matter ofquashing of the charge sheet is concerned, the scope is very limited. Unless the chargesheet is shown to be issued against any statutory rules or the Act or that the same is ex-facie malafideor it suffers with a defect ofjurisdiction etc, the same cannot be quashed by a Writ Court at the preliminary stage of its issuance. The grounds raised by the petitioner pertainingto factual aspects are the grounds to be tested during the course of enquiry and the finding has t6 be recorded bythe Enquiry Officer.The factualaspects of the charge sheet are not gone into bytheVVritCourt in a petition filed for quashing of thecharge sheet on the said ground. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner could not point out any such ground, onwhich.the charge sheet issued against the petitioner can be quashed at its initial stage. He only presses that the petitioner is to retire in the month of November 2007, therefore, the enquiry should not have been initiated against him, but he eould not point out any law in this regard that in case of such proposed retiremerit.departmental enquiry/enquiriescannotbe initiated againstan employee. 1 do not find any reason to interfere vi/ith the charge sheet at this preliminary stage of its issuance. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge tli