Writ jurisdiction cannot scuttle disciplinary proceedings absent demonstrated procedural violation or prejudice.

The petitioner, a Driver Constable in the Security Wing of the Police Department, was attached to political activist Sonaullah Dar.

He alleged that, during a marriage function at Sonaullah Dar’s residence, two police officials, Naseer Ahmad Dar and Tariq Ahmad Dar, assaulted him after he refused to hand over the keys of the Government Gypsy allotted to the political activist.

An FIR was registered against them, but they were subsequently acquitted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, on 22 June 2022.

Subsequently, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for allegedly making contradictory statements during the trial, which had adversely affected the prosecution case.

A charge sheet dated 12 March 2024 was issued, requiring him to submit his defence within one week.

Whether the charge sheet dated 12 March 2024, initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner for allegedly giving contradictory statements during a criminal trial, was liable to be quashed?

Whether the respondents could be directed to take disciplinary action against Naseer Ahmad Dar and Tariq Ahmad Dar in view of the petitioner’s allegations and their subsequent acquittal?

Whether the alleged non-compliance with Rule 354 of the Police Rules, 1960, or the alleged mala fides justified interference by the writ court at the charge-sheet stage?

The Court applied the principle that issuance of a departmental charge sheet, in the absence of demonstrated violation of a statutory rule or prejudice to the delinquent employee, ordinarily does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction; the employee must participate in the disciplinary proceedings and raise all available defences therein.

The Court also considered Rule 354 of the Police Rules, 1960, relied upon by the petitioner, but held that the objection did not assist him in the circumstances of the case.

Further, an allegation of mala fide must be properly established and the concerned officer alleged to have acted mala fide should be impleaded in his personal capacity.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The Court found that the departmental inquiry had been initiated pursuant to the authorities’ consideration of the criminal court’s judgment of acquittal and the allegation that the petitioner, along with other police officials, had damaged the prosecution case by making contradictory statements.

It held that the petitioner had not demonstrated any violation of law or prejudice caused by the issuance of the charge sheet.

His challenge was further weakened by the fact that he sought action against the alleged assailants only after being served with the charge sheet, despite their acquittal having occurred in 2022; this indicated, in the Court’s view, that the writ petition was intended to obstruct the disciplinary proceedings.

The objection under Rule 354 was held to have lost significance, and the plea of mala fide was rejected because the alleged offending officer had not been impleaded personally and the supporting representations were undated.

It declined to quash the charge sheet dated 12 March 2024 or to issue directions for disciplinary action against the acquitted officials.

The petitioner was left at liberty to participate in the departmental proceedings and raise all legally available defences therein.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.