Holding

A writ petition cannot ordinarily be entertained to quash a charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice, and the charge memo was valid as it had not been previously adjudicated, so the High Court’s order was set aside.

Summary

The respondent, a clerk in the Postal Department, was initially appointed as an open category (OC) employee but later obtained promotions to posts reserved for Scheduled Tribes (ST) by falsely claiming ST status on his school certificate. After a show‑cause notice, he admitted he did not belong to the ST community, leading to cancellation of his caste certificate and disciplinary action. The department issued a charge memo for availing ST reservation, which the respondent did not reply to, instead filing an objection before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court quashed the charge memo, but the Supreme Court held that a writ cannot ordinarily be entertained against a mere charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice unless it is wholly illegal, and that the charge memo had not been previously adjudicated, so double jeopardy did not arise. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the CAT’s direction, and ordered the respondent to file a reply to the charge memo within three weeks.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies against a charge‑sheet or show‑cause notice in a disciplinary proceeding.
Whether the charge memo issued to the respondent amounts to double jeopardy having been previously examined.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the charge memo and directing disciplinary action.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964s. Rule 3(1)(i), s. Rule 3(1)(iii)
Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

service lawdisciplinary actioncharge memoshow-cause noticewrit jurisdictionArticle 226double jeopardyreservationcaste certificatescheduled tribeCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
v.
KUNISETIY SATYANARAYANA

NOVEMBER 22, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Appointment of incumbent as clerk on merit-Caste of incumbent
wrongly shown as scheduled tribe in school leaving certificate-Appeared C
in a departmental test and selected against a post reserved for Scheduled
Tribe community-Promoted further against a post reserved for Scheduled
Tribe community-Issuance of Show cause Notice as to whether he obtained
employment on forged caste certificate-Incumbent admitting that 'he does
not belong to Scheduled Tribe community-Collector ordering cancellation D
of the caste certificate and disciplinary action against him-Appeal to State
Government-Dismissed by State Government-Issuance of charge Mem~
Incumbent filing petition before Central Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal
directing him to file reply to charge Mem~Instead of complying with the
directions of CAT, he preferred to file writ petition-Allowed by High Court-
on appeal, Held: Ordinarily no appeal lies against a charge-sheet-A writ E
lies only when some right of party infi-inged-Writ jurisdiction should not
ordinarily be exercised by Courts for quashing charge-sheet/show cause
notice-Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court not correct and set
aside-Order of the Tribunal restored-Incumbent directed to submit reply
to the charge mem~Authority may take decision in accordance with law- F
Constitution of India-Writ Jurisdiction-Exercise of

Respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Postal Department
of the Union oflndia on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the SSC
Examination. The School leaving certificate indicated that he belongs to the
'Konda Kapu' community, a Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Andhra G
Pradesh. Thereafter the respondent appeared in a Departmental test for
promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk against a post reserved for the
Scheduled Tribe community, and he was selected. He was further promotion
to the next higher post which was also reserved for Scheduled Tribe category.

257 H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to whether
he obtained employment on forged caste certificate. In reply to the said show-
cause notice, the respondent admitted that he does not belong to 'Konda Kapu'
community, but he belongs to 'Kapu' community which is not a Scheduled Tribe
community. Accordingly an alteration was made in the respondent's Service
B Book stating that he belongs to 'OC' community. Later, the Collector ordered
cancellation of the caste certificate of the respondent and directed the
appointing authority to take action against the respondent. Aggrieved, the
respondent filed an appeal before the State Government which was disposed
of by directing the Postal Department to take appropriate disciplinary action
against the respondent. Consequently, the Department issued a Charge Memo
C to the respondent framing certain charges against him. Instead of replying
to the aforesaid Charge Memo, the respondent filed an OA before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of with the direction to the
applicant to submit his reply to the Charge Memo and on submission of the
reply the Disciplinary Authority should consider the same. Instead of filing
any reply the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which
D was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Respondent submitted that the charge against him had already been
enquired into and he was exonerated of the charge in an earlier proceeding;
and that the impugned Charge Memo would amount to double jeopardy and
E was therefore illegal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD:t.1. The High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ
Petition.It is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet
F or show-cause notice. 1262-C-D)
I
\
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar
Singh and Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 331; Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse and Anr., AIR (2004) SC 1467; Ulagappa and Ors. v.
Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and Ors., 12001) 10 SCC 639 and State of
G UP. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr., AIR (1987) SC 943 etc., relied on.

1.2. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to
any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which
affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person
having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the
H
U.0.1. v. KUNISETTY SATY ANARA YANA 259
reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority A
concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not
established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is
infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the
right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or
othenvise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said B
to have any grievance. (262-F-GI

2.1. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such
discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing
a show-cause notice or charge sheet. (262-H)

2.2. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court C
can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly
without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However,
ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. (263-A)

2.3. If the charge which has been levelled under the Memo had earlier D
been enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent authority, and ifthe
incumbent had been exonerated on that very charge, a second enquiry would
not be maintainable. However, in the present case the charges levelled against
the respondent under the Charge Memo, had not been enquired into by any
authority and he had not been exonerated on those charges. Hence, it is not a
case of double jeopardy. (263-C-DI E
3. In the present case, in the earlier proceedings no finding had been
recorded that the respondent had not availed of the benefit of belonging to the
Scheduled Tribe community for any of the promotions given to him. In fact,
the authority was satisfied that he gained initial entry into service as an 'OC'
candidate and not as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. However, it seems that his F
subsequent promotions were against posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe
Community, to which he did not belong. It appears that the respondent availed
of the benefit of Scheduled Tribe community for getting two promotions - one
as UDC and another as LSG Clerk, on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled
Tribe community, and it is for these reasons that the authorities issued the G
impugned Charge Memo. Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court
is not correct and the same is set aside. However, the view taken by the Central
Administrative Tribunal is correct. The respondent is directed to submit his
reply to the Charge Memo and the authority concerned should decide the same
expeditiously in accordance with law. (263-F-G-H; 264-B)
H
_.,..
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Lt. Governor Delhi and Ors. v. HC Narender Singh, (2004] 13 SCC 342,
distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5145 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22-3-2006 of the High Court of
B Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 7409/2004.

G.E.Vahanvati, S.G., Harikesh Barua and V.K. Venna for the Appellants.

T.L. Viswanathan Iyer, B. Sridhar and K. Ramkumar (for Mis. K. Ramkumar
& Associates) for the Respondent.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order
D dated 22.3.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 7409
of2004.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Postal
E Department of the Union of India on 30.11.1965 on the basis of the marks
obtained by him in the SSLC Examination. The SSLC certificate of the
respondent indicated that he belongs to the 'Konda Kapu' community which
is admittedly a Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Andhra Pradesh ..

Thereafter the respondent appeared for a departmental test for promotion
F to the post of Upper Division Clerk against a post reserved for the Scheduled
Tribe community, and the respondent was promoted as an Upper Division
Clerk in Scheduled Tribe category. His promotion order specifically stated that
he has been promoted as an Upper Division Clerk under Scheduled Tribe
category vide promotion order dated 27.12.1976. Thereafter, in 1987, he was
G further promoted to the next higher post, i.e. LSG cadre, again on a post
reserved for Scheduled Tribe category.

On 28.11.1994, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent to
show cause as to whether he obtained employment on forged caste certificate.
In reply to the said show-cause notice, the respondent admitted that he does
H n()t belong to 'Konda Kapu' community, but he belongs to 'Kapu' community
U.0.1. v. KUNIS ETTY SATY ANARA YANA [MARKANDEY KATJU. J.] 261

which is not a Scheduled Tribe community. The respondent in reply to the A
show-cause notice also stated that it was wrongly mentioned in the SSC
register that he belongs to 'Konda Kapu' community on the basis of a
......
declaration given by his illiterate father who got the respondent admitted in
school when he was 11 years old.

By order dated 3.1.1995, the Assistant Post Master General directed that B
the respondent be treated as 'OC' community and accordingly an alteration
was made in the respondent's Service Book stating that he belongs to 'OC'
community.

On 11.7.1997, the competent authority i.e. Collector of Hyderabad District
passed an order stating that the respondent obtained an ST caste certificate C
from the Manda! Revenue Officer although he does not belong to 'Konda
Kapu' community, but he belongs to 'Kapu' community, which is not a
Scheduled Tribe community. Hence, the Collector ordered cancellation of the
caste certificate of the respondent and requested the Chief Post Master
General, A.P. Circle to take action against the respondent vide order dated D
11.7.1997.

Aggrieved against that order, the respondent filed an appeal before the
State Government which was disposed of on 17.2.200 I holding that the
respondent does got belong to Scheduled Tribe community and he cannot be
considered as such, and the Postal Department may take appropriate E
disciplinary action against the respondent.

Consequently a Charge Memo dated 23.12.2003 was issued to the
respondent framing the following charges against him:

"That he, while working as T/S Clerk in the Secunderabad Postal F
Division, appeared for the examination held on 19.9.76 for promotion
to UDC against a post reserved for 'ST' community and subsequently
he was also promoted to LSG Cadre based on the said reservation.
However, as per G.O. Ms No. 28 dated 17.02.2001 the Government of.
A.P. declared that Sri K. Satyanarayana does not belong to Konda
Kapu as declared by him and as such not entitled for the reservation G
under the ST category.

That Shri K. Satyanarayana availed reservation against ST in the
promotional post though he does not belong to the said category and
as such failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A unbecoming of a government servant contravening the provisions of
Rule 3(1) (i) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The statement
of imputations gives the details of the reservation availed by the
petitioner during his service." .•
Instead of replying to the aforesaid Charge Memo, the respondent filed
B an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad which was
disposed ofvide order 15.3.2004 with the direction to the applicant to submit
his reply to the Charge Memo dated 23.12.2003 and on submission of the said
reply the. Disciplinary Authority should consider the same. Instead of filing
any reply the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which has
C ~i:n allowed, and hence this appeal.

In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ
Petition.

It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily
D no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing BOardv. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and Ors, JT
(1995) 8 SC 331, Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd Ghulam Ghouse and
Anr., AIR (2004) SC 1467, Ulagappa and Ors. v. Divisional Commissioner,
Mysore and Ors., [200 I] I 0 SCC 639, State of U. P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and
Anr., AIR (1987) SC 943 etc.
E
The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained
against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ
petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause
notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount
to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has
F been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible
that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an
enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that
the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some
right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet
G does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing
some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the
said party can be said to have any grievance.

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion
under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-
H cause notice or charge sheet.
U.0.1. v. KUNISETTY SATYANARA YANA [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 263

No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can A
quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without
jurisdiction or for some other reason ifit is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily
the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge against
the respondent had already been enquired into earlier and he had been B
exonerated of the charge in an earlier proceeding. Hence, he contended that
the impugned Charge Memo would amount to double jeopardy and was
therefore illegal. He relied upon the decision of this Court in Lt. Governor
Delhi and Ors. v. HC Narender Singh, [2004] 13 SCC 342.

We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that if the charge C
which has been levelled under the Memo dated 23.12.2003 had earlier been
enquired into in a regular enquiry by a competent authority, and if the
respondent had been exonerated on that very charge, a second enquiry would
not be maintainable. However, in the present case, we are of the opinion that
the charges levelled against the respondent under the Charge Memo dated D
23.12.2003, had not been enquired into by any authority and he had not been
exonerated on those charges. Hence we are of the opinion that it is not a case
of double jeopardy.

In fact, the contention of the respondent was carefully examined by the
Central Administrative Tribunal in paragraph 5 of its order dated 15.3.2004. E
In the present case, in the earlier proceedings no finding had been
recordeci that the respondent had not availed of the benefit of belonging to
the Scheduled Tribe community for any of the promotions given to him. In
fact, the authority was satisfied that he gained initial entry into service as an
'OC' candidate and not as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. However, it seems F
that his subsequent promotions were against posts reserved for Scheduled
Tribe Community, to which he did not belong. While disposing of the appeal
filed by the respondent against the order of the District Collector, Hyderabad,
the State Government referred the matter to the employer to take disciplinary
proceedings after verifying of the records for production of false Caste G
certificate. ft appears that the respondent availed of the benefit of Scheduled
Tribe community for getting two promotions - one as UDC and another as
LSG Clerk, on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, and
·it is for these reasons that the authorities issued the impugned Charge Memo
dated 23.12.2003. Hence, we are of the opinion that ratio of the decision in
H
264
..-·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Lt. Governor Delhi and Ors. (supra) has no application in the present case.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment of the.High Court is not correct and the same is set aside. We fully
agree with the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its
order dated 15.3.2004. The respondent is now directed to submit his reply to
B the Charge Memo dated 23.12.2003 within three weeks from today and the
authority concerned should decide the same expeditiously in accordance with
law, and thereafter take appropriate legal action in pursuance of the said
decision, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent.

The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
c
S.K.S. Appeal allowed.