http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5145 of 2006

PETITIONER: Union of India and another

RESPONDENT: Kunisetty Satyanarayana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2006

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16572 of 2006]

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

       Leave granted.         This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order  dated 22.3.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 7409  of 2004.

       Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

       The respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Postal  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 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 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 not belong to ’Konda Kapu’ community, but he belongs to  ’Kapu’ community which is not a Scheduled Tribe community.  The  respondent in reply to the 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 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 from the Mandal Revenue Officer although he does not belong to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

’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 11.7.1997.

       Aggrieved against that order, the respondent filed an appeal before the  State Government which was disposed of on 17.2.2001 holding that the  respondent does not belong to Scheduled Tribe community and he cannot be  considered as such, and the Postal Department may take appropriate  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 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  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 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 an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad which  was disposed of vide 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 been 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  no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive  Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and  others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd.  Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs.  Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of  U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

       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  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  does not infringe the right of any one.  It is only when a final order imposing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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-cause notice or charge sheet.

No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court 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.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge against  the respondent had already been enquired into earlier and he had been  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 others vs. HC Narender Singh 2004 (13) SCC 342.

We agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that if the  charge 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 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.

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 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 certificate.  It appears that the respondent availed of the benefit of  Scheduled Tribe community for getting two promotions \026 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 Lt. Governor Delhi and others (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 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.