# Tarun Jain v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 386
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13181 of 2020
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tarun-jain-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47109
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
,
Section
41A
-

notice
of
appearance before police officer, Section
144 - Power to issue order in urgent cases
of nuisance or apprehended danger ,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 182 -
false information with intent to cause
public servant to use his lawful power to
the injury of another person , Section188 -
Disobedience to order duly promulgated
by
public
servant
,
Section
271-
Disobedience to quarantine rule - An
unfair, biased, one-sided investigation is
no investigation in the eyes of law, and
vitiates the resultant charge-sheet . (Para
- 8)

Tweet by applicant - maid servants and courier
boys entering the society, where the applicant
resides - without sanitizing themselves -
maintenance staff have not provided for
sanitizers - Sub-Inspector (Informant) lodged a
First Information Report - orders under Section
144 of the Code promulgated in district - looking
to
Corona
Virus
(CoViD-19)
pandemic
-
applicant, by his tweet spread a rumour,
violating
prohibitory
order
-
police
after
investigation submitted impugned Charge-sheet
- Magistrate took cognizance of offence - issued
summons - hence application.

HELD:-
Impugned prosecution not only fails
to disclose a cognizable case against the
applicant, but is one that is a reckless abuse of
the process of Court. Duty of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of
process of Court. Cases of this kind ought to be
scuttled, whenever and wherever it comes to
7 All. Tarun Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
387
the notice of a competent court, whether it be
at the stage of discharge or in a criminal
revision or through an application, asking the
proceedings to be quashed. (Para - 11)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation made in pursuance of order
passed by Magistrate.

13. In the case of 2007(9) ADJ 478
Allahabad High Court, Dr. Rakesh
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
another the case was originally registered
under sections 307 I.P.C. and after
investigation
non-cognizable
offence
punishable under section 504 I.P.C. was
found. Therefore, charge sheet submitted
for offence punishable under section 504
I.P.C. was held to be complainant under
section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

14. In the case of Alok Kumar
Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and another
mentioned above police submitted charge
sheet in non-cognizable offence without
order of Magistrate under section 155(2)
Cr.P.C. Therefore charge sheet submitted
by police was held to be complaint under
section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the discussions made
above,
the
impugned
order
dated
24.07.2019 is hereby quashed. The matter
is remanded back before the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 11th Agra, to
pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh
after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties concerned.

16. With these observations and
directions,
the
application
is
finally
disposed of.
----------

(2021)07ILR A386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13181 of 2020

Tarun Jain ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, Sri Navin
Chandra Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power
,
Section
41A
-

notice
of
appearance before police officer, Section
144 - Power to issue order in urgent cases
of nuisance or apprehended danger ,
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 182 -
false information with intent to cause
public servant to use his lawful power to
the injury of another person , Section188 -
Disobedience to order duly promulgated
by
public
servant
,
Section
271-
Disobedience to quarantine rule - An
unfair, biased, one-sided investigation is
no investigation in the eyes of law, and
vitiates the resultant charge-sheet . (Para
- 8)

Tweet by applicant - maid servants and courier
boys entering the society, where the applicant
resides - without sanitizing themselves -
maintenance staff have not provided for
sanitizers - Sub-Inspector (Informant) lodged a
First Information Report - orders under Section
144 of the Code promulgated in district - looking
to
Corona
Virus
(CoViD-19)
pandemic
-
applicant, by his tweet spread a rumour,
violating
prohibitory
order
-
police
after
investigation submitted impugned Charge-sheet
- Magistrate took cognizance of offence - issued
summons - hence application.

HELD:-
Impugned prosecution not only fails
to disclose a cognizable case against the
applicant, but is one that is a reckless abuse of
the process of Court. Duty of this Court under
Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of
process of Court. Cases of this kind ought to be
scuttled, whenever and wherever it comes to
7 All. Tarun Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
387
the notice of a competent court, whether it be
at the stage of discharge or in a criminal
revision or through an application, asking the
proceedings to be quashed. (Para - 11)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Babubhai Vs St. of Guj. & ors. , (2010) 12
SCC 254

2. Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs St. of U.P. & Anr., 2021
SCC Online SC 367

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This Application under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731
seeks to quash proceedings of Case No.
1111 of 2020, State v. Tarun Jain (arising
out of Case Crime No. 325 of 2020), under
Sections 182, 188 and 271 of the Indian
Penal Code, 18602, pending before the
court of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddh Nagar.

2. This application was initially heard
on 21.09.2020, and an interim stay of
further proceedings before the Magistrate
was granted pending admission, for reasons
indicated in the order of that date. Later on,
this application came up on 19.01.2021,
when, by a detailed order, it was admitted
to hearing and notice was issued not only to
the State, but also the second opposite
party, requiring both these opposite parties
to file a counter affidavit. The time-bound
interim order granted on 21.09.2020 was
directed to remain in operation until further
orders. A counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the State on 01.02.2021. The
complainant-opposite party no. 2, who is a
Sub-Inspector of Police, and to whom
notice was directed to issue, has not been
served, with the Office not putting in a
report either way. It is a little hard to
believe that a Sub-Inspector of Police
would not be served through the criminal
process that is routed through the Police. In
any case, the presence of the second
opposite party is not much required in his
case, instituted on a Police Report, where
the State is before us. For the said reason,
this matter was heard on 24.03.2021, and
judgment reserved.

3. Heard Mr. Navin Chandra
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
applicant and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari,
the
learned
Addtional
Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.

4. The case against the applicant is
that the second opposite party lodged a
First Information Report3 with Police
Station - Sector 49, NOIDA, District -
Gautam Buddh Nagar to the effect that the
informant, who is a Sub-Inspector and was
on duty on 25.03.2020. A tweet by the
applicant came to his notice, which said
that maid servants and courier boys were
entering the society, where the applicant
resides, without sanitizing themselves and
the maintenance staff have not provided for
sanitizers to enable them to do so. The FIR
further goes on to say that orders under
Section 144 of the Code had been
promulgated in the district, looking to the
Corona Virus (CoViD-19) pandemic, and
the applicant, by his tweet aforesaid, had
spread a rumour, violating the prohibitory
order. On this short information, an FIR
was registered against the applicant, giving
rise to Case Crime No. 325 of 2020, under
Sections 182, 188 and 271 of the Penal
Code, Police Station - Sector 49, NOIDA,
District - Gautam Buddh Nagar. The
police, after investigation, have submitted
the
impugned
Charge-sheet
dated
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
02.06.2020, saying that offences punishable
under Sections 182, 188 and 271 of the
Penal Code are disclosed against the
applicant from the investigation made, the
statement of the complainant, statement of
the witnesses, statement of the accused and
on an inspection of the place of occurrence.
The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the
offence, by means of an order dated
07.07.2020 and issued summons to the
applicant to stand his trial for the offences
alleged.

5. It is argued by learned Counsel for
the applicant that though a notice under
Section 41A of the Code was issued to the
applicant, asking him to attend the police
station on 25.03.2020, but when he went
there, the Police did not record his
statement or ask him any questions; rather
they released him on furnishing a personal
bond. It is specifically argued with
reference to the averments in Paragraph
Nos. 6 and 8 of the affidavit filed in
support of the application that the Police
have not undertaken any investigation
worth the name and have filed a chargesheet, doing a mere show of investigation,
recording
cyclo-styled
statements
of
policemen alone. The investigation has
been castigated as unfair and biased by the
learned Counsel for the applicant. It is also
argued that no prima facie case is made out
against the applicant, inasmuch as his act in
saying that maid servants were entering the
society without sanitizing their hands etc.
and that there was no provision made by
the society's maintenance staff for the ready
availability of sanitizers, the intention of
the applicant ex-facie was to secure the
health of residents of Plot No. 7, Golf City,
Sector 75, NOIDA, the society where the
applicant resides in Flat No. 604, Tower
A3. The purpose of the tweet was not to
create any alarm at large in the town or the
district, but to caution the other residents of
the society against the impending risk that
he had observed. There is absolutely no
violation
of
the
prohibitory
orders
promulgated under Section 144 of the Code
in the district, even if every word of what
the Police have said in the charge-sheet
about the applicant's act is to be accepted
on its face value; of course, sans the
perverse inference of its effect drawn by
the Police. The State, in their counter
affidavit, have said that the information
posted by the applicant on his Twitter
account to the effect that maids were
entering the society, where the applicant
resides, without sanitizing their hands etc.
was found to be incorrect and that,
therefore, the applicant had violated the
prohibitory orders promulgated in the
district. It is also very fairly indicated in the
counter affidavit that there is no other case
registered against the applicant.

6. This Court has perused the
statements recorded by the Police under
Section 161 of the Code, which say no
more than this, that the applicant's tweet
was found to be incorrect for a fact, on a
visit made to the premises of the society,
where sanitizers were available and those
entering the society were being required to
sanitize. There is an added stand in the
almost cyclo-styled statements of various
witnesses, all policemen, that the aforesaid
tweet, carrying an incorrect information,
amounts to spreading a rumour that violates
prohibitory orders promulgated in the
district under Section 144 of the Code. Exfacie, this Court fails to understand as to
how a vigilant tweet by the resident of a
society about breach of the CoViD-19
protocol in relation to outsiders entering the
premises could constitute a violation of
prohibitory orders. Assuming that the
applicant, a resident of the Golf City
7 All. Tarun Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
389
Society, was wrong in his information
carried in the tweet, how would the tweet
amount
to
a
rumour
that
violated
prohibitory
orders
promulgated
under
Section 144 of the Code in the district, is
beyond comprehension. Supression of any
breach of the CoViD-19 protocol could
have devastating consequences, rather than
an over zealous misreporting of a fact, even
if that stand of the Police were to be
believed as true. Though certainly not
intending to determine it for a fact, this
Court is clear in mind that either the Police
might never have visited the society to
verify the truth of what the applicant said in
his tweet, or else upon the Police appearing
on the gates of the society, the maintenance
staff put their house in order, to escape
penal consequences.

7. A resident of a society like the
applicant can never be imagined to harbour any
kind of a culpable intention to tweet about a
fact, wrong or right, affecting the health of the
residents. Even if the applicant went wrong in
his observation that maids and courier boys
were entering the society without proper
sanitization or that the necessary sanitizers were
not being made available by the society's
mangament, it can no more than be a human
error about a matter affecting health of the
residents of the society, or for that matter, the
health of a larger section of citizens in the town
or district. An information about breach of the
CoViD-19 protocol that may, on verification,
be found to be wrong, cannot give rise to any
offence about furnishing a false information to
the Police. At its worst, so far as the applicant
goes, it can be regarded as nothing more than
erring on the side of caution. The fact that the
Police registered that kind of an FIR and then
ex-facie did a one-sided, perfunctory and biased
investigation mechanically, recording cyclostyled statements, renders the charge-sheet
void on its face.

8. This Court would have thought that the
investigation was a serious exercise, if the
Police had recorded statements of some
residents of the society, and those in charge of
the maintenance there, or the security guards at
the entrance gates. Whatever of the Case Diary
has been annexed by the applicant shows
statements of the first informant and other
policemen recorded, carrying a parroted version
of facts that ex-facie do not inspire any
confidence. An unfair, biased, one-sided
investigation is no investigation in the eyes of
law, and vitiates the resultant charge-sheet as
held by the Supreme Court in Babubhai v.
State of Gujarat & Others4. In Babubhai
(supra), it has been held :

44. The charge-sheets filed by the
investigating agency in both the cases are
against the same set of accused. A chargesheet is the outcome of an investigation. If
the investigation has not been conducted
fairly, we are of the view that such vitiated
investigation cannot give rise to a valid
charge-sheet. Such investigation would
ultimately prove to be a precursor of
miscarriage of criminal justice. In such a
case the court would simply try to decipher
the truth only on the basis of guess or
conjectures as the whole truth would not
come before it. It will be difficult for the
court to determine how the incident took
place wherein three persons died and so
many persons including the complainant
and the accused got injured.

45. Not only fair trial but fair
investigation is also part of constitutional
rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21
of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
investigation must be fair, transparent and
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judicious as it is the minimum requirement
of rule of law. The investigating agency
cannot
be
permitted
to
conduct
an
investigation in a tainted and biased
manner. Where non-interference of the
court would ultimately result in failure of
justice, the court must interfere. In such a
situation, it may be in the interest of justice
that independent agency chosen by the
High Court makes a fresh investigation.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the
impugned charge-sheet is vitiated on account
of the entire investigation being a sham to the
face of the record. Quite apart, the provisions
of Sections 182 and 188 of the Penal Code
read :

182. False information, with
intent to cause public servant to use his
lawful power to the injury of another
person.-- Whoever gives to any public
servant any information which he knows or
believes to be false, intending thereby to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby cause, such public servant--

(a) to do or omit anything which
such public servant ought not to do or omit if
the true state of facts respecting which such
information is given were known by him, or

(b) to use the lawful power of such
public servant to the injury or annoyance of
any
person,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both. Illustrations

(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a
police-officer,
subordinate
to
such
Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty
or misconduct, knowing such information to
be false, and knowing it to be likely that the
information will cause the Magistrate to
dismiss Z. A has committed the offence
defined in this section.

(b) A falsely informs a public
servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret
place knowing such information to be false,
and knowing that it is likely that the
consequence of the information will be a
search of Z's premises, attended with
annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence
defined in this section.

(c) A falsely informs a policeman
that he has been assaulted and robbed in the
neighbourhood of a particular village. He
does not mention the name of any person as
one of his assistants, but knows it to be likely
that in consequence of this information the
police will make enquiries and institute
searches in the village to the annoyance of the
villages or some of them. A has committed
an offence under this section.

188. Disobedience to order duly
promulgated
by
public
servant.--
Whoever, knowing that, by an order
promulgated by a public servant lawfully
empowered to promulgate such order, he is
directed to abstain from a certain act, or to
take certain order with certain property in
his possession or under his management,
disobeys such direction, shall, if such
disobedience causes or tends to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of
obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any
person lawfully employed, be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to one month or with fine
which may extend to two hundred rupees,
or with both; and if such disobedience
causes or trends to cause danger to human
life, health or safety, or causes or tends to
cause a riot or affray, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one
thousand
rupees,
or
with
both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the
offender should intend to produce harm, or
contemplate his disobedience as likely to
7 All. Tarun Jain Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
391
produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows
of the order which he disobeys, and that his
disobedience produces, or is likely to
produce, harm. Illustration An order is
promulgated by a public servant lawfully
empowered to promulgate such order,
directing that a religious procession shall
not pass down a certain street. A knowingly
disobeys the order, and thereby causes
danger of riot. A has committed the offence
defined in this section.

8. A perusal of Section 182 of the
Penal Code shows that a person to be liable
has to be credited with the act of giving any
information to a public servant, which he
knows or believes to be false. Here, the
applicant never gave any information to the
Police or any public servant. What the
applicant did was a tweet, that was perhaps
a matter of concern for other residents of
the society, rather than a busy body like the
Sub-Inspector, who lodged the FIR in this
case. Thus, the ingredients of Section 182
of the Penal Code are prima facie not
disclosed. So far as Section 188 of the
Penal Code is concerned, it is not even
remotely shown as to how the applicant, by
his tweet, violated the prohibitory orders
promulgated in the district, except for a
vague remark that he spread a rumour. The
information, to emphasize again, carried in
the tweet, was for the safety or intended
safety of the residents of society; these
were certainly not meant to raise any kind
of alarm in the town or district at large.
One can hardly envisage a situation where
a tweet about the safety of residents of a
society
would
be
construed
as
an
obstruction, annoyance, injury or risk, or of
all these to any person lawfully employed.
To construe the tweet as one within the
mischief of Section 188 of the Penal Code
would be unacceptable violence to the
Statute.

9. Again, the last offence charged is
one punishable under Section 271 of the
Penal Code. It reads :

271. Disobedience to quarantine
rule.-- Whoever knowingly disobeys any
rule made and promulgated 1[by the 2[***]
Government 3[***] for putting any vessel
into a state of quarantine, or for regulating
the intercourse of vessels in a state of
quarantine with the shore or with other
vessels, or for regulating the intercourse
between places where an infectious disease
prevails and other places, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine, or with both.

10. Now, Section 271 is one about
disobedience to a quarantine rule, and that
too, largely about vessels or one regulating
intercourse of vessels, where an infectious
disease prevails at other places, and not
about someone warning other residents of a
locality that some precaution about an
infectious disease, according to medical
protocol, is being observed in breach. In the
opinion of this Court, a tweet of the kind
that is the subject matter of the impugned
prosecution can never be regarded as one
within the mischief of Section 271; not
even remotely.

11. This Court finds that the
impugned prosecution not only fails to
disclose a cognizable case against the
applicant, but is one that is a reckless abuse
of the process of Court. The Commissioner
of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar ought to
bear caution and ensure that frivolous
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecutions, like the one in question, are
not launched against respectable citizens. It
is the duty of this Court under Section 482
of the Code to prevent abuse of process of
Court. This Court would expect that the
Trial Court would also not permit frivolous
cases to survive, burdening its already
overloaded docket on one hand, and on the
other, resulting in utterly uncalled for
harassment of a respectable citizen. Cases
of this kind ought to be scuttled, whenever
and wherever it comes to the notice of a
competent court, whether it be at the stage
of discharge or in a criminal revision or
through
an
application,
asking
the
proceedings to be quashed. In this regard,
reference may be made to the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay
Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. & Another5.
In Sanjay Kumar Rai (supra), it has been
held :

16. The correct position of law as
laid down in Madhu Limaye(supra), thus, is
that orders framing charges or refusing
discharge are neither interlocutory nor final
in nature and are therefore not affected by
the bar of Section 397 (2) of CrPC. That
apart, this Court in the above-cited cases
has unequivocally acknowledged that the
High Court is imbued with inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process or
to secure ends of justice having regard to
the facts and circumstance of individual
cases. As a caveat it may be stated that the
High Court, while exercising its aforestated jurisdiction ought to be circumspect.
The discretion vested in the High Court is
to be invoked carefully and judiciously for
effective and timely administration of
criminal
justice
system.
This
Court,
nonetheless,
does
not
recommend
a
complete hands off approach. Albeit, there
should be
interference,
may
be,
in
exceptional cases, failing which there is
likelihood of serious prejudice to the rights
of a citizen. For example, when the
contents of a complaint or the other
purported material on record is a brazen
attempt to persecute an innocent person, it
becomes imperative upon the Court to
prevent the abuse of process of law.

12. In the considered opinion of this
Court, the impugned proceedings cannot be
permitted to continue and deserve to be
quashed.

13. In the result, this application
succeeds
and
stands
allowed.
The
proceedings of Case No. 1111 of 2020,
State v. Tarun Jain (arising out of Case
Crime No. 325 of 2020), under Sections
182, 188 and 271 of the Penal Code, Police
Station - Sector 49, NOIDA, District -
Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Gautam Buddh Nagar are hereby quashed.

14. Let an entry be made in the
General Diary of Police Station - Sector 49,
NOIDA, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar to
the effect that proceedings of Case Crime
No. 325 of 2020, under Sections 182, 188
and 271 of the Penal Code stand quashed
under orders of this Court. The aforesaid
part of the order shall be caused to be
carried out in the records of the police
station concerned by the Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-II,
Gautam
Buddh
Nagar within a week of receipt of a copy of
this order.

15. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the learned Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate-II,
Gautam
Buddh Nagar, through the learned Sessions
Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar and the
Station House Officer, Sector 49, NOIDA,
District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, through
7 All. Neelu Dwivedi Vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of India & Ors.
393
the Commissioner of Police, Gautam
Buddh
Nagar
by
the
Registar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)07ILR A393
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 202 of 2021

Neelu Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp. of
India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Varma, Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
Sri Shesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Bal Mukund, Sri Rahul Shukla

A.
Artificial
Limbs
Manufacturing
Corporation of India, Kanpur, Conduct,
Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1975 - Rule 20
(1) - Suspension -Departmental enquiry
- Charge of obtaining the graduation
degree
and
training
certificate
simultaneously even both being regular
courses
-Employer's
Jurisdiction
to
conduct it - Writ petitioner possessed
verifiable
graduation
degree
and
a
vocational training certificate - Held, till
such time the certificates are cancelled
by the University or the Body that issued
them, the employer having acted upon
them, in our view, would now have no
jurisdiction to question the correctness of
those certificates, after 20 years of their
acceptance, by assuming that both the
courses being regular could not have
been undertaken simultaneously - A
charge-sheet, however, may be quashed
if it is without jurisdiction or on the
face of it illegal. (Para 20A and 25)
B. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Charge of not having requisite work
experience at the time of selection -
Validity - In the advertisement, the
condition of work experience was made
relaxable -Held, after 20 years of service,
it does not lie in the mouth of the
employer to say that the appellant made
a misstatement with respect to her work
experience,
particularly,
when
that
misstatement could not have earned her
an offer of appointment, unless that
condition was relaxed or waived. (Para
26 and 28)
C. Service Law - Departmental enquiry -
Quashing of the charge-sheet - Principle
laid down - (a) Long delay in initiation of
departmental
inquiry,
in
absence
of
proper explanation, if proves prejudicial
to the incumbent, may be a ground to
quash the charge-sheet; (b) ordinarily, a
charge-sheet is not to be quashed by
examining
the
correctness
of
the
charge(s) levelled therein as that is to be
examined in the inquiry; (c) a chargesheet, however, may be quashed if it is
without jurisdiction or on the face of it
illegal; (d) if a decision is taken to quash
the charge-sheet at the threshold, regard
be had not only to the facts but also to
the gravity of the misconduct alleged;
and (e) where there is fraud played by an
employee to secure appointment, the
appointment gets vitiated and, in such a
scenario, no equity comes in favour of
the appointee to challenge the initiation
of
proceedings
to
question
his
appointment on mere ground of delay.
(Para 20A)
Special Appeal partly allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. P.V. Mahadevan Vs MD. T.N. Housing Board;
(2005) 6 SCC 636