HIGHCOURTQFCHHATTISOARH.BILASPUR W.P. (81 No. 4665 pf 2007 PETITIONER 4. 5. 6. Smt. Savita Das Vaishnav, w/o Shri Rakesh Das Vaisfanav, aged about 45 years, Occupation Service Inspector in Police Department & posted at Police station Maadir Hasod, District Raipur, r/o Maadir Hasod, District'Raipur(C.G). Versus State of ChhattisKarh. fhrough Ministiy of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiir, District Raipur (C.G). The Inspector General of Police, Chliattisgarh Police Headquarters, Raipur(C.G). Deputy Inspector Oeneral of Police- cum-Seiuor Superiutendent of PoUce, Raipur, District Raipiir (C.G). Shashi Molian Singh, Superintendent of Police, City, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G). Nageudra Prajapati, s/o Ram Chandra Prajapati, aged about 19 years, r/o New SIianti Nagar, Raipur(C.G). Additional Superinteudent of PoUce, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C,G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA Appearaace: Sbri Awadh Tripathi, Couasel for the petitioner. Sbri Suinit Venna, Paael Lawyer, for fhe State/ respoadents 1 to 4 &6. (12.12.2007) SUmLJiU'MARSINHAi J Heard on adimssion. The petitioner Smt. Savita Das Vaishiiav, who is serving as aa inspector in PoUce Departaient, has filed fhis writ petition for quashiag of fhe preliminaiy enquuy report dated 21.12.2006 (Annexiu-e P-8) and charge sheet dated 13.2.2007 (AimexTire P-9) and order dated 12.7.2007 (Aanexure P-11). SubstantiaUy the petition has been filed for quashment of the ^: 6S W.PCS)No.4665/2007 charge sheet as also fhe departmental enquiry proposed aad pending agauist the petitioner vide aanexure P-9. A perusal of fhe document Aiuiexure P-9 would show fhat the aUegations are that on a particular day when the petitioner was on duty she inade a chailaa under fhe provisious of Motor Velucles Act aad directed for payment of certain ainount accordiag to the chaUan. When fhe discussions were going on between the person by whoin the order was to be coinpUed aad the petitioner (iuspector), the petltioner slapped the said person N^endra Prajapati aad has also misbebaved wifh him. Furfher atlegations are fhat she also fhTeatened liim fhat she will impUcate him in other cases. Learaed counsel for fhe petitiouer argues fhat the aUegations raised against the petitioner are false and baseless and on fhe false aUegations the enqiiiry has been proposed. I have heard Jearued counsel for ttie petitioner at length and have also perused fhe records annexured with fhe writ petition. lu the inatter of Union of Jndia and others -vs- Opcndra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 3S7. the Apex Court has held vide para 6 that ia the case of chai^es frained ia a discipltaaiy inquiiy the tribiuial or court caa interfere only ifon the chai^es fi-amed (read with imputation or particulars of ftie charges, if anvj no inisconduct or ofher trreRularity alleged can be said to faave been inade out or the chai^es frained arc contraiy to aay law, At this st^e, the tribunal Uas no jurisdiction to go iato the correctness or truth of the charges. The tnbunal camiot takeover the fuiictions of the disciplmaiy authority. The truth or otherwise of the chai^es is a matter for the discipMnaiy authority to go into. Indeed, even after the coiiclusion of fhe discipltaary proceediugs, if the inatter comes to court or tribunal, fhey have ao jurisdiction to look into the trufh of fhe charges or iato fhe correctaess of the findings recorded by the disciplmary authority or the appeUate auffaority as the case inay be. In the present case, since fhe points pressed are related to the tactual aspects of fhe enquuy on which a finding has to be recorded by the Enquiiy Officer afier giving due opporttmity to both the parties, at fbis stage, it would be difficult for the W.PfS)No.4665/2007 writ Court to go into ffae lactual aspects of fhe inatter aad to entertaia the petition for quastuuent of departmental enquiiy which is based upoa the grounds of such aspects sayiag fhat fiie aUegations pertainiug to the enqiury are falseor iacorrect. In vievv of the above discussion, 1 do not fiad aay reason to iaterfere with fhe inatter at ttus stage. This petition deserves to be disniissed aad is accordingly dismissed at the niotion stage itsetf. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /Rao/