+ .\x^' CD CL^ \^^ PETITIONER BEFORE THE HIGH COUBT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) W.P.fS)No4%S^ of 2010 ^Mohammad Riyazuddin, S/o Shri Shamsuddin, aged about 49 years, Assistant Grade-I, Integrated Child Development Project, Khadgavan, Korea- Baikunthpur (C.G.) Presently working on the post of office Superintendent District Programme Officer, Women & Ghild Development Distt. Korba (C.G.) ^" RESPONDENTS VERSUS /" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary Department of Women & Child Development., D.K.S. Bhawan^ Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ^-' 2, The Collector, Korea, Baikunthpur (C.G.) 3. Project Officer, Cum-Departmental Inquiry Officer, Integrated Child Development Project Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. A^? Petitioner Respondent HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR ' WMLEe3SlW^ASlMQ^±S22ot2QlQ Moham.mad Rlyazuddin Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others. WRiT PETiTiON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTSON OF INDIA (SB : Hon'bSe Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) .Present.:- Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panei Lawyer for the State. (Passed on 22nd day of April, 2010) 1. The petjtioner seeks to quash the charg^ sheet dated 11.0@.2008 (Annexure P/1) wherein, the charges of miscondluct anct flnancial irreguiarity to the tune of Rs. 19,OS,608/- has been ieveled agatnst the petitioner, and the notice dated 4J .2010 (Annexure P/9) whereby, the petitioner has been directed to participate in the departmental proceedlngs. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegatlon and charges ieveled against the petitioner are basetess as petitioner is not responsibie In the abovestated alieged financlal irregularities. 3. Be that as it may, it is a settled principle of law that tie issuance of charge sheet or a notice to appear before the disclplinary authority is not punltive. The same is for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the deiinquent empioyee to put forward his case and reinove the doubt about the aliegations leveied against the emp!oyee. 4. !n Union of Indla and another v. Kunlsetty Satyanarayana1 the Supreme Court observed as under: "13. it is weJI settled by a series of dccjsions of thls Court that ordinarily no writ Sies against a charge-sheet ^ or show-cause vide Executfve Engtiwer, Bihar Sfate Houslng Boai'd v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Specfa/ Dsrector v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghou^, Ulagappa v. Diwsional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Bmhm Datt S^rma, ete. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petltion shouid not be entsrtained against a mer®show-cause notice or 1 (2006) 12 SCC 28 ^T?"'P5^ l"'S;'T?~&.y"l.^.t:..^^,^ 2 charge-sheet is that at that stege the writ petitlon may be held to be prsmature. A mere charge-sheet or shpw-eause notices does not give rsse to any cayse of actlon, because it does not amount to any adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issyed by a person havlng. no jurjsdictjon to do so. It is quite pQssible that sfiter considering the repiy to the show-cause notice or after hoidjng an enquiry the authorlty concemed may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not estabilshed. It is well settted that a writ petitSon lies when some right of any pariy is jnfringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does notinfringe the right of anyone. !t is only when a final order imposing some pynishment or otherwjse adversety affecting a party is passed, that the said party cant be said to have any grievance. 15, Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdictjoo and hence such discretlon under Artjcte 226 shouid not ordinarily be exerdsed by quashing a show-cayse notice or charge-sheet. 16c No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice If it is found to be whoily without jyrisdictlon or for some other reason if it is who$!y Ijiegai. However, ordinariiy the High Court should not interfere In such a matter." Arun 5. On perusai of the impugned notice dated 04.01.2010, it is ctear that tlie authorities have afforded him an opportunjty to submjt hls written statement and to produce evidence and witnesses in his support. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted either witii the charge sheet or the notice as the aitegatlons leveled against the petltioner are grav®in nature. 6. The petltion is bereft of merit and is accordingiy dismissed at ttie rrsotion stage iteeif. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge