Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to quash a charge-sheet and challenge a de novo departmental inquiry at the threshold.

The appellant, a Lower Division Clerk, was classified as a permanent employee following a Labour Court order.

On 16.12.2016, he was punished pursuant to a show-cause notice. Subsequently, a second show-cause notice and a charge-sheet dated 23.10.2017 were issued on similar allegations.

The appellant challenged this charge-sheet in W.P. (S) No. 4548/2018, contending it constituted a second departmental enquiry on identical charges, amounting to double jeopardy.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 15.12.2025, holding the charges were distinct and interference at the charge-sheet stage was unwarranted.

The appellant filed this writ appeal after the dismissal of his previous appeal (withdrawn with liberty) and noted his superannuation on 31.07.2024.

1. Whether the charge-sheet dated 23.10.2017 was legally sustainable or if it constituted an impermissible second departmental enquiry on identical charges.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in declining to quash the charge-sheet at the threshold stage.

The Court applied the principle that judicial interference at the stage of issuance of a charge-sheet is generally not warranted, as the delinquent employee has the liberty to raise all objections before the departmental authority.

Regarding intra-court appeals, the court applied the doctrine that interference is limited to instances of "patent illegality, palpable infirmity, or perversity apparent on the face of the record".

It further recognized the administrative competence to initiate proceedings for distinct misconducts such as failure to discharge duties and unauthorized correspondence outside administrative channels.

The Division Bench observed that the learned Single Judge identified two distinct charges in the 2017 charge-sheet: failure to discharge official duties/disobedience and engaging in excessive correspondence with higher authorities outside prescribed channels.

Although these mirrored earlier allegations, the court reasoned that the appellant could plead the "identity of charges" during the enquiry itself.

The Bench found that the Single Judge’s refusal to quash the charge-sheet at the threshold was a sound exercise of jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant's superannuation on 31.07.2024 was not disclosed to the Single Judge, and its subsequent disclosure did not alter the legal finding that the impugned order lacked perversity or patent illegality.

It held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any palpable infirmity in the original judgment.

The appellant remains at liberty to raise his defense, including the plea of double jeopardy, before the competent departmental authority during the enquiry process.

No costs were awarded.