HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH, BI1ASPUR W.P. (S) No. 4666^0(2007 PBTITIONER RESPONDENTS —*. Siut. Savita Das Vaishnav, w/o Shri Rakesh Das Vaisbaav, aged about 45 years, Occupation Service Inspector in Police Departxaent & posted at PoUce station Maadir Hasod, District Raipur, r/o Mandir Hasod, District Raipur (C.G). yersus 1 The State of Chhatdsgarh, through Secretary, Miaistry of Honie Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipur, Dista-ict Raipiir (C.G). 2 The Iiispector General of Police, Chhatdsgarh PoUce Headquarters, Raipur(C.G). 3. Deputy Inspector General of PoUce- cura-Senior Supermtendent of PoUce, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G). 4. Shashi Mohaa Singh, Cily Supermtendent of PoUce, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 5. Brij Bhushau Tandon, s/o Mehtar Tandon, aged about 30 years, r/o Dr. Raiendra Nagar, near Rawan Putla, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 6. Sanjay D.D., M.L.A., Araug, Distt. Raipur, R/o Araag, Distt. Raipur (C.G). WRIT_PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFJNDIA Appearaace: Shri Awadh Tripafhi, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Vertaa, Paael Lawyer, for fhe State/ respondents 1 to 4 on advance copy. {12.13.2Q07) xJ Heard on adinission. The petitioner, who is workiug on the post of Police Inspector, has filed this writ petition for quashiag the prelmunaiy eiiquiry report dated 22.12.2006 Aniiexure P-8 aad Charge sheet dated 13.2.2007 (Annexure P-9) as also fhe order dated 12.7.2007 (Aimexure P-111. W.P(S)No.466»2( 7 ~^- In a nutshell, the petition has been filed for quashiaent of fhe cbarge sheet and fbe departmental enquuy proceedings pending agamst her vide Annexure P-9 aud Aimexure P-11. Learued counsel tbr fhe petitioner argues tliat the departmental enquiry has been iaitiated on false and fabricated grouads aud ftie same has been iaitiated at the uistaace ofa local M.L.A. He subiuits fh.at fhe petttioner has never comiuitted any such acts which are mentioned ia fhe charee sheet Aiuiexure P-9 and on. fhe talse aBegations; tbe charge sheet bas been served upon the petitioner. I have heard learaed counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused fhe contents of the writ petition aad fhe documents filed alongwith it. A perusal of the ABnexure P-9 (Charge sheet) whould show that whfle the petitioner was on duty and was haadling fhe vehicles under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, she had some altercation wifh one Brij Bhushan Tandon. The atlegations are that she misbehaved wifh fhe said person who was a driver of Miuidor Vehicle and that she also misbehaved with a local M.L.A., wheu he went to fhe poUce station regarding the said case. Learaed counsel for fhe petitioner subniits that these allegations are false aud baseless. In fhe matter of (?nton of India emd others -vs- Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 3S7. the Apex Court has held vide para 6 that iu fhe case ofchai^es &amed ia a disciplinary mquuy the tnbunal or court can. iaterfere only it'on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if aay) no misconduct or ofher irregularity aUeged caa be said to have been niade out or the charges fTained are contraiy to aay law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdictioa to go iato fhe correctaess or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot takeover fhe fanctious of the disciplmary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a naatter for the disciplmary auftiority to go iato. Indeed, even after fhe conclusion of the disciplmaiy proceediugs, if fhe niatter coiaes to court or tribunal, ftiey have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of fhe ?hai^es or iato fhe correctaess of tfae findiags lecorded by fhe L W,P(S)No,4666ao07 disciplmary authority or fhe appeUate aufhority as the case may be. Siace the factual aspects are iuvolved in fhis case, it would be difiScult for the writ Court to go iato the aierits of chai^es, at fbis ste^e, partiCT-ilarly wifh reference to fheir correctness etc., even before the coinpletion ofthe departinental enqiury. In fact, the aflegations raised against the petitioner and the grouads taken by her are to be decided in fhe departmental euquiry aiid a fiinding has to be recorded by fhe Enquiry Ofiicer. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with fhe chai^e sheet or departinental enquiry, at fhis stage. The petition deserves to be disiuissed and accordingly, it is disniissed at the luotion stage itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge . JRaof