Saiyad Sharif Mohammad vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard. This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 6.1.2014 passed in W.P. No. 8841/2013(S).

The appellant filed a petition before the writ court for quashment of charge sheet. Writ Court refused to quash the charge sheet, however, disposed of the writ petition with direction that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant be concluded within a period of six months and Excise Commissioner shall pass fresh order of appointment of Enquiry Officer by name.

Vide memo of charge sheet, following three charges were levelled against the appellant:-

In the imputation of charges, it was alleged that on 3.5.2011, the appellant conducted a raid and registered a case u/s 34(2) of Excise Act against one Anil Shivhare S/o. Shankarlal Shivhare, however, the appellant did not array the owner of the shop and also Shankarlal Shivhare neither he conducted proper investigation. Similarly, another raid was conducted on 8.5.2011 at Chaurasiya Dhaba and it was found that foreign liquor was being served, however, the appellant did not make proper investigation. Third charge is that he purchased a Chevrolet car No. M.P. 07 CC 0654, which is registered in his residential address, however, he did not mention about his residence in the information submitted by him in regard to immovable property.

The charges of misconduct levelled against the appellant are self explanatory. In support of charges, statements of witnesses and documents were also supplied.

It is well settled principle of law that charge sheet could only be quashed if after perusal of charge sheet no misconduct is made out or it is issued by an incompetent authority.

The law in regard to quashment of charge sheet is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, however, under special circumstances, the charge sheet can be quashed if no charge is made out against the person taking into consideration the charges levelled against the person as true or it is issued by an incompetent authority (See: The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, , Ulagappa and Others Vs. Divn. Commr. and Others, , Mysore, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, .

In view of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, in our opinion, the writ court has rightly refused to quash the charge sheet because it has been issued by a competent authority and prima facie misconduct is made out against the appellant. Counsel for the appellant has also raised other objections. Those have been considered by the writ court in the impugned order. Hence, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.