Chargesheet can’t be quashed in a casual manner: SC

“Thus,a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court,” said a bench of justices B S Chauhan and Dipak Misra,in an order.

The bench passed the order while disposing of an appeal by the Ministry of Defence challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order quashing the chargesheet against one Prabhash Chandra Mirdha in a two-decade old bribery case.

“Law does not permit quashing of chargesheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge sheet,he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon.

“In case the charge sheet is challenged before a court/ tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings,the court/ tribunal may quash the charge sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case after weighing all the facts,both for and against the delinquent employee,and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance,” the bench said.

The bench said charge sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

The court said that “neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues.

“Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee,” it added.

The court also rejected the argument that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated by an authority lower than the appointing authority,though it agreed that the removal must be done by an authority above him or her

“It is permissible for an authority,higher than appointing authority to initiate the proceedings and impose punishment,in case he is not the appellate authority so that the delinquent may not loose the right of appeal.

“In other case,the delinquent has to prove as to what prejudice has been caused to him,” the bench said.

The apex court however,refused to interfere with the CAT’s order as affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court,as certain material were not placed before it.

The bench also wondered as to why the Defence Ministry did not consider a fresh disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee and allowed the case to linger on for 20 years instead.

Mirdha while working as assistant foreman in the ordnance factory,Yeddumailaram,Andhra Pradesh was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs 4,150 out of the total alleged demand of Rs. 37,000 on August 3 1991 from M/s Teela International Limited,Hosur,Bangalore.

“There is nothing on record to show that the respondent delinquent is still in service and that even if the appellants are permitted to proceed with the inquiry,the evidence which was available 21 years ago would be available today,” the bench said.