-Report by Zainab Khan
The Delhi high court held in the case of Anil Bali Vs Union of India and others, that the courts can’t interfere in writ petitions filed u/a -226 of the Indian constitution if the petition is premature.
When Petitioner was posted as senior commandant officer of CISF at Kochi Port Trust, a complaint of CISF constable using fake caste certificate in his recruitment was lodged. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent to probe into the matter. The petitioner taking reference from the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs Addl. Commissioner (1994) 6 SCC 241, asked the district collector to inquire about the genuineness of the caste certificate. Meanwhile, the constable remained absent from his duty for that period and also refused to appear before a competent authority. Hence, he was punished with compulsory retirement and a 10% cut in a monthly pension because of overstay leave (OSL). On 13th December 2019, the respondent issued a charge sheet against the petitioner for not giving a proper explanation about the constable’s fake caste certificate. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution for quashing the memorandum of charge.
The Learned counsel for Petitioner argued that since the Petitioner was a senior officer he was bound to follow the rule laid in the Kumari Madhuri Patil case. He further argued that the respondent has taken action without examining the reply of Petitioner on 1st November 2017 in which he mentioned rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh schedule caste, certificate
rules 1997 and more acts. The counsel further contended that the respondent’s act was in contravention with rules laid down in Government of A.P & ors Vs A Venkata Raidu (2007) 1 SCC 338 and Kumari Madhuri Patil case. The counsel seeks a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings taken against the Petitioner.
The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has not performed his duty in a bonafide manner and the charge sheet was filed against him u/rule -14 of CCS(CGA) rules,1965 because he has not taken necessary
action against the constable who used a fake caste certificate. He further argued that the petitioner had never mentioned Kumari Madhuri Patel’s case in his reply. The counsel pleaded that the court should not interfere, as
the writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not participated in any prior proceedings of the charge sheet. The counsel relied upon the judgments of Union of India & anr Vs Kunishetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 and Shashi Bhushan Prasad Vs Inspector General, CISF & ors (2019) 7 SCC 797, where it was ruled that courts should not interfere in the disciplinary proceeding under its limited scope of Article-226 &227 of Indian constitution.
The court examined that petitioner has directly filed the writ petition before HC without going with departmental proceedings and didn’t use the various grievances system available to him. The court ruled that petition being of such premature nature is not maintainable against the mere issuance of the charge sheet. The court relied upon the judgment of Kunishetty Satyanarayan, where it was held that a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge sheet because at that stage the petition may be held to be premature. The writ petition was dismissed because of its premature nature.
It was observed
“The petitioner cannot be permitted to put the cart before the horse. The present petition is based on preponderance of probability as the same is arising out of a charge-sheet issued by the respondents which has not commenced and is yet to see light of the day. Having said so, it is a matter of fact that today there is no adverse order under challenge before us. The present petition is thus pre-mature.”
The court held there is no scope for their interference in the writ petition under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed.