B. Giridhar vs State Bank Of India

Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ

(Through Video-Conferencing)

Heard Mr. V. Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This appeal is presented against an order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.16004 of 2020, whereby the learned single Judge negated the challenge made in the writ petition to the charge-sheet dated 20.08.2020 requiring the writ petitioner (appellant herein) to furnish his explanation.

The learned single Judge relied upon the decisions in the case of Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 28 and in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, in coming to the aforesaid conclusion. The learned single Judge had extracted the relevant portion of the decision in Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra). We deem it appropriate to extract the same for the sake of clarity. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows:

"12. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition.

It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943], etc.

The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."

The learned single Judge had observed that in Secretary, Ministry of Defence (supra), the same legal position has been reiterated in paras 10, 11 and 12.

The learned single Judge observed that the writ petitioner may raise all contentions in his reply to the charge-sheet dated 20.08.2020 and if a proper defence is raised, the authority may drop the charge or hold that the charge is not proved. Accordingly, it was held as follows:

"In that view of the matter, this Court holds in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that are cited that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is left open to the petitioner to raise these issues in his reply and this Court is hopeful that the authority will consider the reply notice in its proper perspective and pass orders on merits."

It is significant to note that the writ petitioner had not indicated in the writ petition that he had submitted "tentative explanation" dated 26.08.2020 to the charge-sheet dated 20.08.2020 while seeking time to give effective explanation, as relevant documents based on which charges were framed were stated to be not furnished. Before the authorities could act on the said explanation, the writ petition came to be filed.

Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the documents on which reliance is placed while issuing the charge sheet, had been made available. He, however, submits that request for documents as mentioned in the reply of the writ petitioner dated 26.08.2020, would again be examined and suitable response will be given within a period of two weeks from today and the writ petitioner may file further explanation on receipt of the documents, if any, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

Under the circumstances above, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of taking the statement of Mr. Ashwani Kumar on record. The writ petitioner will submit his explanation within a period of three weeks from the date of response received from the respondents. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.