Uday Kumar Varma ORDER
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)
1. The issue with regard to delay in concluding the departmental proceedings has given rise to present case.
2. The applicant has assailed the memorandum of charges dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure A-4) whereby the respondents have not considered the grant of medical leave from 21.03.2014 to 10.04.2014.
3. The undisputed facts are that the applicant who was working as Lower Division Clerk with respondent department was served with impugned charge sheet dated 30.05.2014 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for absent from duty w.e.f. 21.03.2014 to 10.04.2014. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his reply on 09.06.2014. Now, the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present O.A. with a prayer that impugned charge sheet be quashed on the ground of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings. The applicant has also alleged malice against respondent No. 3 on whose instance, he has been served with the present charge sheet. He also alleged that he was on sick leave from 21.03.2014 to 10.04.2014 but his leave was not sanctioned and later on it was converted into extra ordinary leave, therefore, he submitted that impugned charge sheet is nothing but a colourable exercise on the part of the respondents to harass the applicant. Hence, the present O.A.
4. The respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant submitted that due to attitude of the applicant for not performing the duty as assigned to him and non corporative-behaviour of the applicant, forced the authority to issue the charge sheet for the period when he was absent from duty i.e. without valid sanction.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal, learned counsel for the applicant, in support of aforementioned plea, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Nath Bail Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, MANU/SC/1461/2015 : 2016 (1) SCT 603 and prayed that impugned charge sheet be quashed.
7. Per contra, Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant vehemently opposed his prayer and placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, MANU/SC/0492/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 2250.
8. Ordinarily, a writ application does not lie against a charge sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed; it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgments State of U.P. Vs. Braham Datt Sharma(MANU/SC/0711/1987 : AIR 1987 SC 943); Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (MANU/SC/0180/1996 : 1996 (1) SCC 327); Ulagappa & Ors. Vs. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors. (MANU/SC/2400/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 3603); Special Director & Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Another (MANU/SC/0025/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 1467) and Union of India & Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (