9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 600 - HC - Indian LawsProceedings against the Police officer - misconduct and is violative to the provisions of Section 3(1)(i), (iii) and 5(1) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 -charge-sheet issued to the petitioner - Assessment u/s 153A - loose papers containing alleged unaccounted cash transaction was found and only on the basis of such entries, an undue inference was drawn that the petitioner had handed over an amount of Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi and on that foundation, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner - HELD THAT - From a bare look to the very foundation made for issuance of the charge-sheet, it emerges that there is insufficiency of gleaned material to show the nexus between the petitioner and the entries contained in a loose paper, nor does it imply the same meaning as has been presupposed by the respondents to bring home the charges against the petitioner. Not only this, but in the developed circumstances, it can also be seen that when assessment of income, consequential to search-drive made against Prateek Joshi has been done by not referring those entries, then dragging the petitioner in disciplinary proceeding unnecessarily would obviously tantamount to causing injustice with him and such exercise and the charge-sheet can be held purely illegal. It a fit case where this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can quash the charge-sheet - charge-sheet (Annexure-P/2) is purely illegal, based on vague charge bereft of foundation and issued only on assumption and suspicion, therefore, is not sustainable. Obviously, the issuance of such charge-sheet causes prejudice to the petitioner because he being a young police officer, would be deprived from further promotion on mere pretext of pending disciplinary proceeding. We deem it apposite to emphasize on the enunciation of law in re V.C. Shukla 1998 (3) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed that if there is no evidence that the prosecution except the diaries, handbook and loose sheets with regard to alleged payments but on the basis of those evidence, nothing can be proved against the delinquent and therefore the Court has to see as to how the charges can be framed against the petitioner. In the fact-situation, finding this case as one of the exceptional cases wherein the view formed by this Court can be materialized only by interfering in disciplinary proceeding while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Indubitably, the view of this Court gets credence from the verdict of Apex Court in re Kunisetty Satyanrayana 2006 (11) TMI 543 - SUPREME COURT which elucidates that the High Court in very exceptional case can quash the charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for other reason if it is wholly illegal. The writ petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner. 2. Validity of evidence based on loose paper entries. 3. Judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings. 4. Impact of vague and indefinite charges on the petitioner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Charge-Sheet Issued to the Petitioner: The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated 24.02.2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking its quashing. The charge-sheet was issued based on allegations derived from an appraisal report by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) concerning a search operation against one Shri Prateek Joshi. The petitioner, a police officer, was implicated in alleged unaccounted cash transactions amounting to Rs.7.5 Crore, inferred from entries found in loose papers during the search. The petitioner contended that these charges were based on fallacious and fictitious allegations without substantial evidence. 2. Validity of Evidence Based on Loose Paper Entries: The petitioner argued that the entries in the loose papers, which allegedly implicated him, lacked evidentiary value. The entries contained the name 'Arun Mishra' and a numeric entry '750', which was presumed to denote Rs.7.5 Crore. The petitioner emphasized that such casual entries in loose papers, without any final assessment or corroborative evidence, could not be used to substantiate the charges. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause v. Union of India, which held that entries in loose papers are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Additionally, the petitioner cited the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, where it was held that diaries, notebooks, and loose sheets could not be converted into legal evidence without corroboration. 3. Judicial Interference in Disciplinary Proceedings: The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet was issued prematurely and based on mere suspicion, which is insufficient for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanrayana, which elucidated that the High Court could quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in rare and exceptional cases if found to be wholly without jurisdiction or illegal. The petitioner also referred to the case of Union Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee, emphasizing that judicial review should ensure that relevant evidence is considered and irrelevant facts are excluded in disciplinary proceedings. 4. Impact of Vague and Indefinite Charges on the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the charges were vague, weak, and based on assumptions and suspicions. The petitioner cited the case of Surath Chandra Chaakravarty v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that vague and indefinite charges render disciplinary actions void and inoperative. The petitioner further argued that the entries in the loose papers were not recognized by the Income Tax Department during the assessment of Shri Prateek Joshi's income, and no notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also highlighted that the assessment orders did not reference the alleged Rs.7.5 Crore transaction, undermining the basis for the charge-sheet. Conclusion: The High Court, after meticulously examining the submissions and documents, found that the charge-sheet was based on insufficient and vague evidence. The court noted that the loose paper entries did not establish a clear nexus with the petitioner and were not corroborated by the Income Tax Department's assessment. The court held that the charge-sheet was illegal, based on assumptions, and caused prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court quashed the charge-sheet dated 24.02.2021, allowing the writ petition.
|
