"Rajasthan High Court Declines to Interfere with Charge-Sheet, States ‘Court Cannot Act as Disciplinary Authority’ or Adjudicate Allegations Against Employee"
Safiya Malik
The Rajasthan High Court has declined to quash a charge-sheet issued against a police constable, stating that "a writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same had been issued by an authority not competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings." The matter was heard by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, who observed that the petitioner must submit his reply before the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority rather than seeking judicial intervention at the initial stage.
The court disposed of the writ petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all available defenses during the departmental inquiry. It further referred to precedents of the Supreme Court, which have upheld that disciplinary proceedings should not be interfered with lightly or in a routine manner.
The petitioner, Jagdish Prasad, a 47-year-old police constable currently serving in the Reserve Police Line, Jaipur Rural, challenged a charge-sheet dated June 12, 2024, issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge-sheet pertained to alleged negligence in handling an inquiry into a complaint filed by a third party.
The petitioner argued that a preliminary inquiry had previously been conducted against a co-delinquent in the same matter and that no charges had been leveled against him at that stage. He contended that the charge-sheet had now been issued arbitrarily, despite the earlier inquiry not implicating him. His counsel submitted that the allegations were baseless and legally untenable, warranting judicial interference.
The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan, the Director General of Police, and the Superintendent of Police, Dausa, defended the charge-sheet. They argued that the petitioner was required to respond through departmental proceedings rather than seeking judicial intervention prematurely.
The court examined the legal position on judicial interference in disciplinary matters. It observed that the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner contained allegations of negligence in conducting an inquiry into a complaint. The court recorded that "on the question of whether there was negligence on the part of the petitioner or not, the petitioner can put his defense by way of filing his reply and producing adequate evidence in support of his defense."
The court further stated that it could not assume the role of an Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations at this stage. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. K.K. Dhawan (1993) 2 SCC 56, which established that disciplinary action can be taken against a public servant performing quasi-judicial functions if their actions indicate recklessness, misconduct, or an improper motive. The judgment in State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra (2010) 13 SCC 311 was also cited, reaffirming that charge-sheets should not be quashed before the conclusion of an inquiry unless issued by an incompetent authority.
The court recorded that "it is a settled law that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner," emphasizing that the petitioner should submit his response before the Inquiry Officer rather than approaching the court at this stage.
The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to raise his defenses during the departmental inquiry. The judgment stated: "In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all his available defense before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority, which have been raised by him in this writ petition."
Also Read: Supreme Court Raises Concerns About Senior Advocate Designation Process, Refers Issue to CJI
The court also dismissed all pending applications, including the stay application, concluding that the petitioner should pursue the disciplinary process before seeking judicial recourse.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Yadav
Case Title: Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:9659
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13682/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
