RATILAL K RAY Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was called out for hearing in the first round, second round and lastly in the third round, but none put appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised by the petitioner in this special civil application.

(3.) As this special civil application has been filed at interlocutory state, where charge sheet has been given, I do not consider it to be proper to go into all the contentions raised by the petitioner. Otherwise any finding given by this court against the petitioner could prejudice him in submitting his defence in the reply to the charge sheet. The approach of the petitioner to this court at the stage of issuance of charge sheet is highly improper and unjustified. Nothing has been decided against the petitioner. Whatever possible grounds which are available to the petitioner in defence or against the action of the respondent to issue charge sheet can be raised in his reply to the charge sheet. That has not been done. In the case of Kumar Madhuri Patel vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, 1994 6 SCC 241 and in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare,Govt. of A. P. vs. Laveti Giri and Another, 1995 4 SCC 32, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that intervention of the court at the stage of show cause notice is illegal. Charge sheet is nothing but only informing the petitioner of the charges and he has been called upon to give reply. Thereafter, in case reply is not found satisfactory, then, enquiry may be started and therein the petitioner will have all the opportunity of defence etc., So it is a case of only at interlocutory stage of the proceedings of enquiry and at this stage the petitioner cannot be permitted to stall the proceedings.