B.B. GANGELE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the charge-sheet dated 20.09.2016 issued by respondent whereby two charges are framed against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid charge-sheet on the ground that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2017. It is submitted that a charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner on baseless allegations. The departmental enquiry on the same charges was held against the Deputy Registrar Stamp and the charges were not found to be proved in the enquiry and the enquiry was closed under the orders of Inspector General Registration and Superintendent Stamp Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal vide order dated 03.05.2017. It is further submitted that the said charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner after a period of 5 years and it has also been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has filed a contempt petition against the respondent for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, therefore, the said charge-sheet has been issued.

(3.) The respondent has filed the reply and in the reply, the respondent has stated that a charge- sheet was issued to the petitioner on 20.09.2016, thereby alleging two charges against the him. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent has appointed Presenting Officer as well as Inquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that it is settled law that the charge-sheet/show-cause notice does not adversely affect the right of delinquent employee and also does not give any rise to cause of action, however, the same can be interfered if it is issued by incompetent authority. The respondent has stated that in the present case, issuance of competency is not raised at all. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the Division Bench decision passed by this Court in the case of Jagdish Baheti Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others , 2015 (3) M.P.L.J. 172 as well as the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565. In light of the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the writ petition is not maintainable. The respondent has also filed an additional return.