Allahabad High Court
Chandan Pathak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. U.P. ... on 29 August, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51195 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9819 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
1. Heard the petitioner who appears in person and Ms Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.
3. Under challenge is the charge-sheet dated 01.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.
4. Legal argument as raised by the petitioner is that while issuing the charge-sheet the respondents have already prejudged the guilt of the petitioner inasmuch as after indicating the charge against the petitioner they have indicated that the petitioner has violated Rule 3 of the U.P. Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred as as "Rules, 1956")
5. Contention is that once the guilt of the petitioner has already been prejudged as such any inquiry which is held would be a mere formality and a farce in the eyes of law.
6. On the other hand, learned Chief Standing Counsel indicates that the charges as leveled against the petitioner are extremely serious and consequently no error has been occasioned in issuing the aforesaid charge-sheet to the petitioner. However, there is no dispute that while issuing the charge-sheet, the respondents have indicated that the petitioner is guilty of having violated Rule 3 of the Rules, 1956.
7. Whether while issuing the charge-sheet the respondents-authorities can prejudge the guilt of a person is no longer res integra having been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Pvt Ltd vs Union of India : (2010) 13 SCC 427 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"20. In the backdrop of these facts the first question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether the respondents in cancelling the registration certificate of the appellant acted fairly and in compliance with principles of natural justice and also whether the respondents acted with an open mind.
....
22. For a proper appreciation of the points involved, the show cause notice is set out in extenso:
"Sub: Show-cause notice Your attention is invited to our HQ's letter No.IV/53/06-MS/HO dated 25.10.2007 and subsequent joint meeting with the buyer held at our Head office on 5th September, 2007 on the trade complaint received from M/s Cascade Marine Foods LLC, Sharjah.
At the meeting it was convincingly proved that the cargoshipped by you to the above mentioned buyer was defective and you have not so far settled the complaint. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me vide Office Order Part-II No.184012005 dated 25.11.2005 read with Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules, I hereby call upon you to show cause why the Certificate of Registration as an Exporter granted to you should not be cancelled for reasons given below:
1. It has been proved beyond doubt that you have sent substandard material to M/s Cascade Marine Foods, LLC, Sharjah.
2. You have dishonoured your written agreement with M/s Cascade Marine Foods, LLC, Sharjah to settle the complaint made by the buyer as you had agreed to compensate to the extent of the value of defective cargo sent by you and have now evaded from the responsibility.
3. This irresponsible action have brought irreparable damage to India's trade relation with UAE.
Your reply should reach the undersigned within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and we will proceed with action for cancellation of your registration certificate without further notice to you. If ultimately a decision is reached to deregister you under the provisions of the MPEDA Rules, it will automatically entail de-registration under Registration Exporters' policy also."
23. Relying on the underlined portions in the show cause notice, learned counsel for the appellant urged that even at the stage of the show cause notice the third respondent has completely made up his mind and reached definite conclusion about the alleged guilt of the appellant. This has rendered the subsequent proceedings an empty ritual and an idle formality.
24. This Court finds that there is a lot of substance in the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial authority, while acting in exercise of its statutory power must act fairly and must act with an open mind while initiating a show cause proceeding. A show cause proceeding is meant to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making his objection against the proposed charges indicated in the notice.
....
27. It is no doubt true that at the stage of show cause, the person proceeded against must be told the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the chargesheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceeding become an idle ceremony.
28. Justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding also. If the functioning of a quasijudicial authority has to inspire confidence in the minds of those subjected to its jurisdiction, such authority must act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against. In the instant case from the underlined portion of the show cause notice it is clear that the third respondent has demonstrated a totally close mind at the stage of show cause notice itself. Such a close mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 which is set out below. The aforesaid rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33 of The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in nature.
........
31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a showcause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence.
32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show cause notice.
33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it.
34. A somewhat similar observation was made by this Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant & others, (2001) 1 SCC 182. In that case, this court was dealing with a show cause notice cum charge-sheet issued to an employee. While dealing with the same, this Court in paragraph 25 (page 198 of the report) by referring to the language in the show cause notice observed as follows:
"25. Upon consideration of the language in the show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the Officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete."
35. After paragraph 25, this Court discussed in detail the emerging law of bias in different jurisdictions and ultimately held in paragraph 35 (page 201 of the report), the true test of bias is:
"35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom -- in the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained:"
35. Going by the aforesaid test any man of ordinary prudence would come to a conclusion that in the instant case the alleged guilt of the appellant has been prejudged at the stage of show cause notice itself."
(Emphasized by Court)
8. Accordingly, when the order impugned is seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries (supra) it clearly emerges that although the respondents are within their right of issuing a charge-sheet to an employee for any misconduct committed by him but in case the charges levelled against a person are prejudged, the enquiry to be conducted in pursuance to the charge-sheet would be a mere formality.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 01.10.2024 which indicates that the respondents while issuing the charge-sheet have prejudged and have already held the petitioner guilty of having violated Rule 3 of the Rules, 1956, it is apparent that the enquiry to be conducted in pursuance thereof would be a mere formality.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Charge-sheet impugned dated 01.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed.
Consequences to follow.
11. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law August 29, 2025 prateek