S.B. C. Writ Petition No. 4428/2010. (Pramod Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & ors.) Date of Order: 02/04/2010. HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. Mr. Sorabh Purohit, for petitioner. An extraordinary prayer has been made in the present writ petition by the petitioner that the charge-sheet issued to him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short CCA Rules) be quashed since it has been issued on the ground of mala fides of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and that it is a case of no evidence and charges on the face of it do not make out any misconduct. Shri Sorabh Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgment of this Court in Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma Vs. State of Raj. & 3 ors., 1994(2) WLC (Raj.) 632, and; SS Darbari Vs. Union of India & ors., 2000(1) WLC (Raj.)707. Learned counsel further submitted that charges are absolutely vague and self- contradictory and charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner only on the basis of preliminary enquiry conducted by respondent No.4, without application of mind by the disciplinary authority, in a mechanical manner. It is alleged regarding charge No.1, that on 11.10.08, the petitioner was given information by Mohd. Zafar S/o Mohd. Yakub regarding dismantling of his Truck No. RJ14 GA 9727 by driver Mujib and Tahir Haddiwala. Petitioner sent Rendra Singh Head Constable and Premchand near Reliance Petrol Pump who brought the accused persons to Police Station, Kotwali at about 1-2.00 P.M.. The petitioner in connivance with the accused, released them without taking action after keeping them in custody in wireless room for 15 to 16 hours. It is also argued that no complaint was made by any person regarding the said incident. Complainant Mohd. Zafar himself stated that he went to police station, Kotwali to lodge an FIR regarding his truck and again in his statement dated 31.10.08 in so called preliminary enquiry, he stated the date as 13.10.08. Now after death of complainant, no evidence can be adduced in this respect. Thus, the said charge cannot stand proved against the petitioner. It is also argued that the area in which the incident is alleged to have taken place was not within the jurisdiction of the petitioner where he was posted. As regards the second charge, it is submitted that it does not contain full particulars regarding name and number of persons in the charge sheet and preliminary enqury report and the same is therefore, vague and on that basis, the charge is liable to be quashed. Charge No.3 is also contrary to record. It states that the petitioner has misused his powers by placing /posting the constable Rajkumar and Naryan Lal to guard the disjointed truck. However, even as per the statement of complainant when the petitioner was informed on 13.10.2008, as alleged, then there could be no possibility of petitioner posting constable Rajkumar and Narayan Lal to guard the truck. Charge No.4 relates that on 12.10.08 petitioner in his report No.577 and 579 in the Rajnamcha Aam has shown the above persons to be brought in police station at 5.00 AM, and released at 5.40 AM after verification by Kadir @ Kalu whereas in fact, said persons were brought about 1-2 PM on 11.10.08 and there is no person named Kadir in the list of CLG members. Charge No.5 is to the effect that on 14.10.08 on the direction of Superintendent of Police, case No.253/08 was lodged under Sections 420, 120(b) IPC and after investigation accused Mouzid and Tahir were arrested and recoveries were made from them which clearly reveals that respondents willingly and deliberately did not take any action to save the accused persons and thereby misused his official powers. It is also argued that the complainant Mohd. Zaffar never met the petitioner and never made any complaint, thus there was no occasion for the petitioner to lodge FIR. In substance what the petitioner wants is that all the charges should be examined by this Court on their face value and they should be quashed as according to him it is case of no evidence and that even if charges are examined prima facie, they do not make out any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. I am afraid, if what is contended by the petitioner is accepted by this Court at the threshold stage of issuance of the charge-sheet, that would amount to preempting the issues. The charges which otherwise appear to be quite serious from reading of the charge-sheet, cannot be gone with a view to examining their veracity to find out whether or not the Director General of Police, who is the head of the Police Department, was justified in issuing the charge-sheet. In view of petitioner's own saying that the preliminary enquiry was conducted prior to issuance of the charge-sheet against him and on that basis, the charge-sheet was issued, I do find any such justification for this Court to interfere in the present matter at this initial stage to forestall a full-fledged disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, merely because according to his understanding, the charges are based on no evidence. There is no evidence or date to show that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on account of mala fides of respondent No.4 and accepted by respondent No.3. Mere fact that respondents No. 3 and 4 were the authorities who conducted/ accepted preliminary enquiry, cannot be a reason to uphold the argument that they had any mala fide against the petitioner because that needs to be proved by production of some more material than mere such assertion. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Gandhi/-P.A. Item no. 46