High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms that charge-sheets cannot be quashed at the initial stage for technical or repetitive defects, permitting fresh issuance to cure procedural flaws; binding authority for subordinate courts in service law matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS No. 3889 of 2025 of RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs SECL |
| CNR | CGHC010191822025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing precedent |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Service Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a charge-sheet initiating disciplinary proceedings does not give rise to a challengeable right until a final adverse order is passed, and cannot be quashed at a premature stage merely because multiple iterations are issued on identical allegations. Technical defects in earlier sheets justify fresh charge-sheets to cure procedural flaws. No enquiry findings were recorded on any of the charge-sheets, so res judicata does not apply. Detailed factual and legal merits must be determined by the disciplinary authority. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied |
The court applied the principle that charge-sheets are a preliminary step not infringing vested rights, relying on Supreme Court rulings that charge-sheets cannot be quashed before enquiry unless issued without jurisdiction. It invoked the fraud exception to res judicata and distinguished cases permitting only one concluded enquiry on the same charges. The correctness of allegations is for the disciplinary authority, not the writ court at the initial stage. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, appointed in 2000 on verified documents, was accused in 2019 of using forged certificates. SECL issued charge-sheets in April and September 2019 and June 2021; each was stayed or withdrawn before any finding. Writ petitions challenging those sheets were dismissed as infructuous. A fourth charge-sheet and suspension dated 07-05-2025 prompted the present petition. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Distinguishes | G.D. Purohit v. State of M.P. & Others, W.P. 25426/2003 (M.P. HC) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that charge-sheets cannot be quashed at the initial stage unless issued without jurisdiction.
- Permits fresh charge-sheets to cure technical or procedural defects in earlier ones.
- Confirms that absence of any enquiry finding precludes res judicata on repeated sheets.
- Emphasises that disciplinary merits must be examined by the enquiry authority, not the writ court.
- Highlights fraud exception to res judicata where appointment is said to be based on bogus documents.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The first and amended charge-sheets (April & September 2019) were preliminarily challenged; no enquiry finding was recorded—the 11-11-2019 note-sheet shows only an adjournment.
- A letter dated 24-02-2020 clarified that enquiry remained pending; that communication was not challenged.
- On receipt of verification reports from Mines Safety Directorate and Police, SECL withdrew earlier sheets and issued a fresh one on 23-06-2021 to cure technical defects.
- None of the charge-sheets resulted in any departmental findings; all were withdrawn or stayed, making earlier writs infructuous.
- Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that charge-sheets are not adversarial orders and cannot be quashed prematurely unless issued without competence.
- The res judicata principle does not apply to unadjudicated charge-sheets; repeated issuance on the same allegations is permissible to ensure procedural compliance.
- Distinguished G.D. Purohit (M.P. HC) where a concluded enquiry barred a second enquiry; here, no enquiry concluded on any sheet.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Charge-sheets issued repeatedly without any preliminary inquiry or sufficient material.
- Documents were verified at appointment; complaint was mala fide.
- Second enquiry disproved charges; subsequent sheets on same facts are abuse of process.
Respondent (SECL):
- Petitioner’s service governed by Standing Orders with alternative remedy under Industrial Dispute Act.
- Investigations by Mines Safety Directorate and Police established forged certificates.
- First and revised charge-sheets issued; enquiry adjourned awaiting external verification.
- Fresh charge-sheet (June 2021) cured technical defects; earlier ones withdrawn.
- Allegations are serious; suspension and enquiry initiation are justified.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents limiting writ interference at preliminary stage.
Factual Background
The petitioner joined SECL as Mining Sirdar in July 2000 on verified certificates and was promoted to Grade-A. In April 2019, a third-party complaint alleged forged competency and gas-testing certificates, prompting a charge-sheet and a revised sheet in September 2019. Each sheet was stayed or withdrawn pending awaiting verification reports. A fresh sheet was issued in June 2021 and later withdrawn; previous writs became infructuous. A fourth charge-sheet and suspension dated May 2025 led to the present petition.
Statutory Analysis
- SECL Certified Standing Order Clauses 26.9 & 26.22 define misconduct and enquiry procedures.
- Article 226 writ jurisdiction does not ordinarily extend to quashing charge-sheets before enquiry unless issued without jurisdiction.
- Service law principle that only a final adverse order gives rise to a challengeable cause of action.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- CGHC CNR 010191822025
- Special Director & Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Another, AIR 2004 SC 1467
- Krishna Hare Gaur v. Vinod Kumar Tyagi & Ors., 2015 AIR SCW 1195
- Secretary, Ministry of Defence & Ors. v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (11) SCC 565
- Lalan Prasad v. SECL & Others, W.A. No. 548/2024 (Chhattisgarh HC)