P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Anil Bali vs. Union Of India And Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (24 Aug 2022)

Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary remedy which should be sparingly exercised

MANU/DE/3051/2022

Service

In facts of present case, the Petitioner approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Charge Memorandum dated 13th December, 2019 as well as quashing any other proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge-sheet.

The Petitioner has approached this Court directly after issuance of the charge-sheet upon himself, albeit after filing a reply thereto. It is thus clear that the petitioner has admittedly chosen not to await either the appointment of a competent authority by the respondents or to await the commencement of the departmental proceedings by such authority or to participate in any such proceedings before such authority. The Petitioner has thus not raised his defence(s)/ grievance(s)/ objection(s) before the said competent authority.

The Petitioner has not alleged any error on the part of anyone, much less the respondents and has not alleged any violation or non-adherence to the statutory rules, regulations, notifications or like by the respondents. The maintainability of the present petition in the present form casts a shadow of doubt and leaves hardly any scope of interference by this Court.

The petitioner cannot be permitted to put the cart before the horse. The present petition is based on preponderance of probability as the same is arising out of a charge-sheet issued by the respondents which has not commenced and is yet to see light of the day. It would thus not be appropriate for this Court to hear the present petition under Article 226, especially when it is trite law that writ jurisdiction itself is a discretionary remedy which should be sparingly exercised in cases involving the present nature, more so, whence there is hardly any scope of interference by this Court under the facts and circumstances of the present case. The proper remedy for the petitioner before approaching this Court under Article 226 was to first participate in the proceedings initiated by the respondents before the competent authority and place his defence(s)/ grievance(s)/ objection(s) before it and then await the outcome, in the nature of a concrete finding, thereof.

The present writ being pre- mature, has been wrongly filed upon mere issuance of the impugned charge-sheet by the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition being not maintainable in law and deserves outright dismissal. Petition dismissed.

Tags : CHARGE MEMORANDUM   PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved