Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the departmental charge sheet and standing order was maintainable at the stage when the petitioner had already replied to the charge sheet and an inquiry officer had been appointed.
Analysis: The petitioner was proceeded against under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, with the charge sheet containing the articles of charge and supporting imputations. Since the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply and the inquiry process had commenced, the Court held that judicial interference at that stage would amount to stalling the departmental proceedings at the threshold. The Court further noted that the correctness of the charges could be examined by the inquiry officer on the basis of the evidence and documents placed on record, and that no jurisdictional infirmity in issuing the charge sheet was shown.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at that stage and was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: Interference with an ongoing disciplinary inquiry was declined, leaving the petitioner to pursue the departmental remedy in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition ordinarily will not be entertained to quash a charge sheet in an ongoing disciplinary proceeding unless a jurisdictional defect or other exceptional ground is shown.