Rakesh Shrivastava vs The State Of Mp & Ors.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging impugned charge-sheet dated 15.02.2023 contained in Annexure-P/1.

Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that charge-sheet has been served with mala-fide intention and vague reasons. Plantation Work on 50 Hec. & 15 Hec. at compartment no.P-351 & P-349 Beat Madumaar was under charge of petitioner. Respondent nos.3 & 4 are trying to include fake names in the list of labourer so that monetary advantage can be taken. Petitioner was illegally transferred from Beat Madumaar to Beat Guard Aalpur, No.1 Forest Range Jatara Tikamgarh. Petitioner assailed the transfer order dated 04.10.2022 and interim relief was granted in favour of petitioner in W.P.No.26699/2022. Said petition is pending for final consideration.

Counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned charge-sheet on the ground that same is mala-fide and is discriminative in nature and issued so that respondents may benefitted monetarily by including fake names of labourer in plantation work. Charge no.2 is regrading illegal extraction within Forest Beat Madumaar. It is submitted that charge-sheet was issued to petitioner without deciding his appeal against suspension order. Petitioner was not supplied the copy of charge-sheet and documents, therefore, petitioner could not file reply in disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner has filed rejoinder that false complaint has been filed by fake persons and Panchnama is also false. Respondent no.3 with malafide intention granted Grade-'घ' to petitioner. Respondent no.3 committed an error in down grading the petitioner by two grades and in not accepting ACR written by S.D.O. Charge-sheet depends upon letter dated 02.01.2023 and no allegation with regard to illegal extraction is made in said letter. In view of same, petitioner prays for interference in this petition.

Govt. Advocate appearing for State submitted that there is no mala-fide in issuing charge-sheet. Petition is premature. Petitioner shall appear in departmental enquiry and file his reply. Only superficial and frivolous grounds have been raised by petitioners in this writ petition, therefore, no interference is called for and writ petition may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that petitioner is challenging the charge-sheet issued to him on merits of the case like false panchnama is prepared, complaint is false, there are malafides of respondent nos.3 & 4, petitioner was not provided with documents in departmental enquiry and charges levelled against petitioner are false.

Aforesaid factual issues cannot be dealt with by Writ Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. High Court while examining challenge to charge-sheet cannot go into the merits or truthfulness of the case. If there is falsity in charges or in complaint, it is for the petitioner to face departmental enquiry in accordance with law and submit his evidence in it. Petitioner is not appearing in departmental enquiry and has not filed his reply and has approached this Court by filing writ petition. Allegations of mala-fides that respondent nos.3 & 4 want to take illegal monetary benefits by interpolating with records to include fake names of labourers in plantation work also cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. Ascertainment of aforesaid facts requires documentary and oral evidences and in a writ petition, said exercise cannot be done, therefore, aforesaid grounds taken by petitioner for quashing of charge-sheet does not find any favour by the Court. Falsity and truthfulness of charges cannot be enquired into by Writ Court. There is no violation of Principle of Natural Justice or violation of any statutory rights of the petitioner. Petitioner has raised new grounds in rejoinder, which is also not permissible. If petitioner wants to raise any new ground, then petitioner has to amend the petition. Rejoinder is for purposes of clarification of facts & grounds which have already been raised or to clarify documents or pleadings made in reply but no new ground which are not taken in petition is permissible in rejoinder, therefore, new grounds raised in rejoinder cannot be considered by this Court.

Petitioner has also raised a ground that petitioner was transferred malafidely and stay has been granted over the transfer order of petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2022, therefore, action of disciplinary proceedings was taken against him and authorities have committed an error in issuing charge-sheet without considering the appeal against order of suspension. Transfer order was passed on 04.10.2022 and stay was granted vide order dated 23.11.2022. Petitioner has alleged mala-fides in transfer order as respondent want to take illegal monetary advantage. Malafides of fact cannot be examined in this writ petition. Malice in law and malice in facts are two different concepts in law. Malice in law is primarily concerned with unlawfulness of the act without reference to motivation. When action taken is illegal irrespective of intention or motivation behind it then said illegal act can be said to be malice in law. When there is actual malice, which is based on animosity or ill-will towards any person, then said fact will be covered by malice in fact. In this case, petitioner has alleged malice in fact which can only be examined on basis of evidence adduced by parties and cannot be examined in a writ petition where decision is taken on basis of admitted and affidavits of parties. Disciplinary authority will be in a better position to examine the same on basis of evidence and documents available before it. Transfer of petitioner was stayed vide order dated 23.11.2022. However, no reason or finding was given in order regarding malafides on part of officers in transferring the petitioner. It will be too early to say that transfer order was issued with mala-fide intention as petitioner wants to point out illegalities done by respondent nos.3 & 4.

In view of same, no interference is called for by this Court in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.