ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the charge- sheet dated 9.10.2025 contained in Annexure P-1. 2 . The counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned charge- sheet is a nullity and is liable to be set aside at the very threshold. The petitioner was confronted with the aforesaid charge-sheet on the allegation that while being posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Multai between 9.3.2021 to 1.8.2023, the petitioner utilized a sum of Rs. 4,60,000/- to purchase a cow-catcher and the said fund was of 15thFinance Commission. It is further contended that the aforesaid allegation is patently baseless and untenable as prior to issuance of the charge-sheet, earlier also one of a political figures made a complaint with oblique motive against the petitioner vide Annexure P-15 and enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry also no allegations were found to be proved against the petitioner.
1
The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Multai vide his communication dated 4.10.2024 (Annexure P-20) has informed to Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal/Narmadapuram Division, Narmadapuram that to purchase the cow-catcher an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- was utilized from the funds allocated as per 15thFinance Commission and later on, the said amount was adjusted. It is further contended that as per Office Memorandum contained in Annexure P-12 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance in case of purchase of any goods or machinery above Rs. 5,00,000/-, tender should be invited through GeM including the automobiles. Thus, in the present case, cow- catcher was purchased, for which there was no requirement to invite offers through tender. Hence, the impugned charge-sheet is a nullity. It is also contended that there is a report of 3 Members' Committee also. Extract of which have been received by the petitioner, which reveal that none of the charges has been found to be proved.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the State submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has called in question the charge- sheet and challenge to a charge-sheet is a premature stage, inasmuch as, the final outcome of the charge-sheet may result in even exoneration of the petitioner. The charge-sheet cannot be nibbed in the bud. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the State has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa & another Vs. Sangram Keshari Misra & another - 2010 (13) SCC 311.
4 . Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused
2
the record.
5. On perusal of record, it reflects that the petitioner in this petition has assailed the charge-sheet dated 9.10.2025 contained in Annexure P-1. The grounds on which the charge-sheet is being sought to be question cannot be entertained at this stage. There is no document on record even to appreciate that in some previous enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated. The extracts of the enquiry report which has been produced by the counsel during course of hearing reveal that in paragraph 5 of the same, 3 Member' Committee concluded that the process which was resorted to for purchase was not in conformity with Rule 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Accounts and Finance) Rules, 2018.
6. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot go into the veracity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Apex Court has already held in catena of decisions that interference with the charge-sheet is not permissible and interference can only be made in exceptional circumstances. 7 . I n Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha - (2012) 11 SCC 565, it has been observed by the Apex Court as under"-
"10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge- sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may
3
have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge- sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC
327] , Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] .)
11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra [(2010)
13 SCC 311 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC pp. 315- 16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 : (1994) 27
ATC 200] .)
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the 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. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge- sheet 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
4
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
PB
5