Writ petition challenging a charge memo is not maintainable absent jurisdictional error or proven mala fides.

The appellant/writ petitioner challenged a charge memo dated 25.06.2021 issued by the Director of Municipal Administration

The charges related to alleged delinquencies committed between 2017 and 2021

The appellant sought to quash the memo on grounds of delay, merits, and the exoneration of other officials

The Writ Court dismissed the petition, finding no mala fide intention and noting the ongoing nature of the delinquencies

The appellant subsequently filed this Intra-Court Appeal, arguing further that the seizure of files by investigating authorities in related criminal cases involving other officials hindered the process

1. Whether a writ petition challenging a charge memo is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of jurisdictional error or proven mala fide?

2. Whether the pendency of a criminal case against other delinquent officials acts as a bar to the continuation of departmental proceedings against the appellant?

A writ against a charge memo is generally not maintainable unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted by mala fide

Disputed facts and the merits of allegations cannot be adjudicated under Article 226, as judicial review does not extend to performing the functions of a departmental inquiry

Departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct: the former aims to maintain administrative discipline, while the latter seeks to punish offenders

Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically debar disciplinary action under Service Rules

The court reasoned that the appellant failed to prove any mala fide intention or jurisdictional incompetence that would warrant judicial interference at the charge-memo stage

The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to proceed using certified copies and that the pendency of criminal cases against other officials is legally irrelevant to the appellant’s domestic inquiry

The court emphasized that the standard of proof and objectives of the two proceedings are entirely different

It concluded that quashing a charge memo on factual grounds is impermissible as such matters require a trial-like adjudication through a departmental inquiry to cull out the truth

The challenge to the charge memo lacked merit as no jurisdictional error or personal mala fide was established

The Division Bench vacated this specific time limit, noting that the inquiry's conclusion depends on the appellant’s cooperation, though it directed the Disciplinary Authority to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible to avoid affecting service prospects

The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal and awarded no costs