Disclosure of disciplinary records cannot be compelled without demonstrating their relevance to the charge-sheet reply.

The petitioner, an Accountant posted at Government High School, Devari, sought directions to the respondent authorities to provide documents relating to the Mid Day Meal Scheme for the period from 4 April 2013 to March 2021, including bills, vouchers, cash books, bank transaction details, bank scrolls, and payment certificates.

The petitioner contended that although a charge-sheet was stated to have accompanied the notice, it had never been supplied to him despite repeated requests.

The State asserted that the charge-sheet had already been supplied but stated that it would provide another copy if the petitioner submitted a fresh application to Respondent No. 2.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled, at that stage, to a direction for production of the documents relating to the Mid Day Meal Scheme without demonstrating their relevance and necessity for responding to the charge-sheet?

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to supply a copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioner?

3. Whether further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 19 December 2025 should be stayed pending supply of the requested documents?

The Court applied the procedural principle that a party seeking production of documents in the course of disciplinary proceedings must establish their relevance and necessity to the defence at the relevant stage.

The Court also applied the basic requirement of procedural fairness that an employee facing a charge-sheet must be furnished with a copy of that charge-sheet so that he can effectively respond to the disciplinary allegations.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not annexed the charge-sheet and had failed to demonstrate how the extensive documents sought—such as bills, vouchers, cash books, bank records, and payment certificates—were relevant or necessary for submitting his reply to the charge-sheet.

Consequently, the Court declined to direct production of those documents or to stay the disciplinary proceedings at that stage.

However, in view of the dispute regarding whether the charge-sheet had actually been supplied, and notwithstanding the State’s assertion that it had already been furnished, the Court directed that a copy be supplied if the petitioner made a fresh application to Respondent No. 2.

It directed Respondent No. 2 to supply the petitioner with a copy of the charge-sheet within ten days from receipt of a fresh application for that purpose.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with this direction.