Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr. Satyaarth Sinha, Ms. Shradha Mewati, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA ORS

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL) 09.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition assails a Memorandum dated 10 March 20251, whereby major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 19652, were proposed to be initiated against the petitioner on charges contained in the Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputations of Misconduct, annexed to the charge-sheet.

2. The prayer clause in this writ petition reads as under: Signature Not Verified 1 “the charge-sheet” hereinafter 2 “CCS (CCA) Rules” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.12.2025 19:21:03 W.P.(C) 18687/2025 “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may please to allow this writ petition and may further be please to: i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby setting aside the impugned Memorandum of Charge No. D.IX-20/2023- CRC dated 10.03.2025 against the Petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the ground that the chargesheet has been issued in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as well as Rule 08, 12, 13 and 14 of the CCS CCA Rules. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the to supply original/certified copies of all DO CRPF documents, letter, including whereon the presiding officer of the court of inquiry was relied upon the Annexure-III and Annexure-IV forming part of the court of inquiry which is mentioned in the chargesheet issued by the DIG (CR & VIG) CRPF Directorate. the president’s proposal iii. Pass any other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble the facts and Court may deem fit and proper circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

3. Mr. Bhargava initially sought to contend that a preliminary enquiry, prior to institution of issuance of a charge-sheet was mandatory in terms of Rule 14(2)3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. 3 14. Procedure for imposing major penalties ***** (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules. Signature Not Verified Explanation.— (i) Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority. Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:10.12.2025 19:21:03 W.P.(C) 18687/2025

4. At a plain reading of Rule 14(2), there is no requirement of any preliminary enquiry being held before a charge-sheet is issued.

5. This position in law, moreover, stands settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Managipet4 and CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi5.

6. Mr. Bhargava’s next argument was that his client has not been provided with the relevant documents, despite repeated requests having been made in that regard.

7. To our mind, a charged officer is entitled to three categories of documents in a disciplinary proceeding.

8. The first category of documents are documents which are enlisted along with the chargesheet and on which the charge-sheet places reliance to substantiate the charges against the charged officer.

9. In the present case, the said list of documents figures at Annexure-III to the charge-sheet.

10. Mr. Bhargava submits that his client has not been provided any of the documents, though Mr. Siddharth Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, learned CGSC, refutes the contention.