The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that courts cannot interfere with disciplinary proceedings at the initial stage by acting as a disciplinary authority. A writ petition against a charge sheet is not maintainable unless it is demonstrated that the charge sheet was issued by an incompetent authority.
A single-judge bench comprising Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that courts must not lightly or routinely interfere with charge sheets. Instead of seeking quashing of the charge sheet at the outset, the concerned employee should present their defense before the disciplinary authority and await the outcome of the proceedings.
Case Background
The case revolved around Jagdish Prasad, a police constable, who was served with a charge sheet on June 12, 2024, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The allegations pertained to his negligence in conducting an inquiry in a complaint filed by a complainant.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Halts Demolition of Properties Linked to Beawar Sexual Exploitation Case
Prasad challenged the charge sheet before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that:
- A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the same matter, and no allegations were raised against him.
- The charges leveled were baseless and not legally sustainable.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The Court firmly held that it cannot act as an inquiry officer or disciplinary authority to determine the correctness of allegations. Instead, the petitioner should present his defense by filing a reply and submitting evidence before the disciplinary authority.
“On the question of whether there was negligence on the part of the petitioner or not, the petitioner can put his defense by filing his reply and producing adequate evidence in support of his defense. In any case, this Court cannot act as an Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations,” the Court observed.
Read Also:- Rajasthan HC Overturns Dismissal of Head Constable Accused Without Evidence
The Court referred to Union of India & Ors. v. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56, where the Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary action is warranted if an officer’s actions indicate recklessness, misconduct, or an improper motive.
“An officer who exercises judicial or quasi-judicial powers and acts negligently, recklessly, or with an intent to confer undue favor on a party is not acting as a judge,” the Supreme Court stated.
Similarly, in State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (2010) 13 SCC 311, the Supreme Court held that a charge sheet is not normally quashed before the conclusion of an inquiry based on the assumption that the charges are erroneous. The correctness of the charges is within the domain of the disciplinary authority.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to present his defense before the inquiry officer. All pending applications, including the stay application, were also dismissed.
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
