Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Vardhanapu Madhu Kumar vs Home Affairs on 12 August, 2025
1 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 12th day of August, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Applications Nos.200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024
Sushovan Banerjee, S/o Late Shri Ajoy Kumar Banerjee, aged about
60 years, retired as Additional Director General of Police, R/o HX
61, E-7, Extension Arera Colony, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462011.
-Applicant in OA 200/351/2024
Shri Vardhanapu Madhu Kumar, S/o Vardhanapu Raghavulu, aged
about 61 years, Indian Police Service, retired as Additional Director
General of Police, (ADGP-Police Headquarters), R/o 8-2-684/1/B,
Banjara Vally Street, Banjara Hills, Road No.12, Hyderabad 500034.
-Applicant in OA 200/512/2024
(By Advocate - Shri Pankaj Dubey)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home, CGO
Complex, New Delhi - 110001.
2. State of Madhya Pradesh through its Secretary, Department of
Home Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462011.
3. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Bhopal (M.P.) -
462011.
4. Additional Secretary, Home Department, Government of Madhya
Pradesh, Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhavan, Bhopal (M.P.) - 462011.
Page 1 of 12
ANUPAM2025.08.13
16:53:19
MISHRA +05'30'
2 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024
- Common Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri Divesh Jain for respondents Nos.2 to 4)
(Date of reserving order : 30.07.2025)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM;
The applicants in these Original Applications are challenging the chargesheet dated 24.02.2021 issued under Rule 7(1)(B) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Since the issue involved in both these Original Applications is identical in nature, we propose to decide both the cases by way of a common order. For the purpose of this order, facts and the documents referred in OA 200/351/2024 have been taken as a leading case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a retired IPS officer. During his tenure as Director General, EOW, M.P. Bhopal from 04.10.2019 to 27.03.2020, the applicant was entrusted to investigate into the multi-crore online tender scam, which relates to large scale and gross irregularities in the manner of allotment of Government contracts and involvement of various politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen. The irregularities relate to the e- tendering process of various State Government projects which was compromised and manipulated to benefit select private players from State Departments. The first step in exposing the scam was initiated by the MP State Electronics Development Corporation (MP- Page 2 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 3 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 SEDC) which conducted an internal enquiry into the matter wherein it was found that the bid process of contracts of State Government were allegedly manipulated in order to benefit various companies based in Mumbai, Hyderabad etc., with the help of insiders, who provided sneak previews to such companies into the bid prices in an unauthorized manner so that those companies to make lower bids to get the tenders awarded to them. The various departments/corporation whose projects were thus manipulated and rigged in the above manner ranged from Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, MP Road Development Corporation, MP State Industrial Development Corporation etc. 2.1 The MP-SEDC had issued show cause notices to service providers viz; Tata Consultancy Services and Antares Systems on 06.06.2018 for non compliance with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) of the contract agreements. The MP-SEDC later alerted other departments to cancel their tenders in view of the alleged manipulations and rigging that was taking place.
2.2 Subsequently, on the orders of the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh, some tenders were handed over to the EOW of the State Police for an investigation under the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the ground that tampering of e-ports is tantamount to economic and cyber fraud. Consequently, a preliminary enquiry was first registered by EOW and after Page 3 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 4 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 investigations and FIR was registered in April 2019 against some suspected politicians, bureaucrats and companies on charges that pertained to fraud and violation of the IT Act, 2000 and other transgressions, leading to invocation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The actions of EOW were also based on a report by the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), which is the national nodal agency for responding to computer security incidents as and when they occur and functions under the Union Ministry of Electronics and IT.
2.3 In the midst of the investigation, the applicant was transferred from EOW M.P. Bhopal to Sagar as Director JNPA and the applicant had duly joined his new assignment.
2.4 On 07.04.2019, certain search operations were conducted at the premises of a private individual named Shri Prateek Joshi by the Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant has never received any notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961. Based upon the aforesaid search operation, the Income Tax Department has prepared an Appraisal Report dated 28.10.2010, which was later sent to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the month of December, 2020. The ECI has reportedly issued directions to the Chief Electoral Officer of Government of Madhya Pradesh based on such Appraisal Report to take adverse actions against the applicant. A press note was released by the ECI on 16.12.2020 Page 4 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 5 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 reporting that these entities/individuals engaged in unauthorized and unaccounted cash contributions to individuals on behalf of certain political party, which is reported to be corroborated during searches against persons by Income Tax department under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The report specifically mentions instances of prima facie involvement/nexus of public/Government servants in unauthorized/unaccounted cash transactions. After deliberations, Commission directed to forward copy of the report of CBDT dated 22.10.2020 the Chief Electoral Officer, Madhya Pradesh to lodge criminal action before Designated Authority, e.g. Economic Offence Wing, State of Madhya Pradesh against concerned for violation as per extant Electoral and other relevant laws. Commission has also directed Union Home Secretary to initiate appropriate departmental action against All India Service officers and also to Chief Secretary, Madhya Pradesh for similar action against State officer.
2.5 The Election Commission had directed for action against four officers of Madhya Pradesh including the applicant, three other officers namely Shri Sanjay Mane (IPS) (died), Shri Madhu Kumar (IPS) and Shri Arun Mishra (the then SP EOW and an officer of State Police Services). All these officers have been chargesheeted. Shri Arun Mishra has challenged the aforesaid chargesheet before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No.5274/2021 and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated Page 5 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 6 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 15.03.2021 while issuing notices had stayed the proceedings of departmental enquiry. Later on vide order dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure A-11), the Hon'ble High Court had allowed the Writ Petition filed by Shri Arun Kumar Mishra.
3. Respondents Nos.2 to 4 have filed their reply and have stated that a raid was conducted by the Income Tax Department along with Economic Offence Wing against one Prateek Joshi in which they got some loose papers containing some unaccounted cash transactions and on the basis of such entries, inference was drawn that the applicant had handed over the amount of Rs.7.5 crores to Prateek Joshi and the same was the foundation for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was prima facie found involved in the offence of irregularities and there was material in respect of cash transaction by the applicant to the tune of Rs.7.5 Crores. After considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority opined to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that on the same set of charges, Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, who was amongst the four officers subjected to disciplinary proceedings, had already been exonerated by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. No.5274/2021 (supra). Though the State of Madhya Pradesh had Page 6 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 7 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 challenged the said decision before the same Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Appeal No.687 of 2023 but had withdrawn the same on 01.02.2024. Therefore, he averred that there is no occasion to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against the applicants once the respondents have agreed not to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding against similarly situated person. He placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel vs. Union of India and others, (Civil Appeal No.1943 of 2022 decided on 09.12.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had emphasized to grant similar treatment to similarly situated persons.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present Original Applicants are premature as normally a chargesheet does not give rise to any cause of action. The applicants may put all these contentions before the Disciplinary Authority for which all reasonable opportunities shall be afforded to them. He also averred that the present Original Applications are barred by limitation period as the cause of action arose on 24.02.2021 when the applicants were chargesheeted, whereas the present Original Application has been filed in the year 2024 after a delay of almost three years. On the aspect of scope of judicial review, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dy. Inspector General of Police vs. K.S. Swaminathan, (1996) 11 SCC 498; Secretary, Page 7 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 8 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565.
7. In the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, "it is a settled position that ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinariy be quashed by the Court."
8. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid proposition of law. But at the same time, we do not find any justifiable reason to proceed against the applicants when the similarly situated person, Shri Arun Kumar Mishra against whom it was alleged to have given Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi has already been given clean chit by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.5274/2021 (supra). Even the State Government had decided not to contest the Writ Appeal filed against the said order and withdrew the same. In the present case also, the entries, Page 8 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 9 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 which are the sole basis of issuance of chargesheet against the applicant, contain the name of the applicant presuming that the applicant had given Rs.7.5 Crore to Shri Prateek Joshi. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court taking cognizance of those casual entries in loose paper by Shri Prateek Joshi, has observed as under:
xxx xxx xxx
6. As per Shri Nema, the actions only based upon loose sheets or diary entries or paper slips, in absence of strong and incriminating evidence/material are not valid and legal, as their truthfulness has to be corroborated by additional independent evidence and these figures cannot be a foundation of any punishment because nothing could be proved with those entries. He further submitted when other than entries6 have not been taken note of by CBDT and did not include in the income of Shri Prateek Joshi, the charge-sheet itself becomes redundant and therefore can be quashed. Bolstering his contention, Shri Nema placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in re Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanrayana (2006) 12 SCC 28 wherein it has been held as under:"
"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."
(emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx
9. Over and above, Shri Nema argued that the charge-sheet is bad in law as is infested with vagueness based only on certain loose papers and vaguely-scribbled diary-entries allegedly seized from a third and unknown person, have been maliciously given the effect of being admissible evidence against the petitioner in issuing the impugned charge-sheet and those entries are not qualified as evident under Section 34 of the Evidence Act as has been established in number of decisions of Supreme Court like - Page 9 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 10 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024 in re Surath Chandra Chaakravarty v. State of West Bengal AIR 1971 SC 752 wherein it has been held that vague and indefinite charges and failure to supply statement of allegations would render removal of Government servant void and inoperative. He further submitted that in a domestic enquiry, the charge must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges.
11. In contrast, Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that in the imputation of charge and the statement appended with the charge-sheet, it is specified that the petitioner has handed over Rs.7.5 Crore in cash contained in three bags to Shri Prateek Joshi and that imputation was essentially an elaborate interpretation of said loose paper entries. He submitted that at this stage quashing the charge-sheet by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be proper. Making referral to the return submitted by the respondents and stand taken therein, only because scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceeding exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been discussed and that the charge can only be ascertained to be correct or not when enquiry is conducted and material is placed before the enquiry officer, Shri Kekre propounded that the charge-sheet does not prejudice the petitioner and it cannot be quashed at this stage.
xxx xxx xxx
13. Indeed, from a bare look to the very foundation made for issuance of the charge-sheet, it emerges that there is insufficiency of gleaned material to show the nexus between the petitioner and the entries contained in a loose paper, nor does it imply the same meaning as has been presupposed by the respondents to bring home the charges against the petitioner. Not only this, but in the developed circumstances, it can also be seen that when assessment of income, consequential to search- drive made against Prateek Joshi has been done by not referring those entries, then dragging the petitioner in disciplinary proceeding unnecessarily would obviously tantamount to causing injustice with him and such exercise and the charge-sheet can be held purely illegal. I find it a fit case where this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can quash the charge-sheet. In my opinion, the charge- sheet (Annexure-P/2) is purely illegal, based on vague charge bereft of foundation and issued only on assumption and suspicion, therefore, is not sustainable. Obviously, the issuance of such charge-sheet causes prejudice to the petitioner because he being a young police officer, would be deprived from further promotion on mere pretext of pending disciplinary proceeding. Page 10 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 11 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024
14. To strengthen my view, I deem it apposite to emphasize on the enunciation of law in re V.C. Shukla (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed that if there is no evidence that the prosecution except the diaries, handbook and loose sheets with regard to alleged payments but on the basis of those evidence, nothing can be proved against the delinquent and therefore the Court has to see as to how the charges can be framed against the petitioner.
15. In the fact-situation, finding this case as one of the exceptional cases wherein the view formed by this Court can be materialized only by interfering in disciplinary proceeding while exercising power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, Indubitably, the view of this Court gets credence from the verdict of Apex Court in re Kunisetty Satyanrayana (supra) which elucidates that the High Court in very exceptional case can quash the charge-sheet or show cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for other reason if it is wholly illegal.
16. In view of the above discourse, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned charge-sheet dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure-P/2) is hereby quashed.
9. In the present case also, the charges against both the applicants are similar in nature. While the charge against applicant in OA 200/351/2024 is with respect to amount of Rs.7.5 Crores handed over to Shri Prateek Joshi, the applicant in OA No.200/512/2024 has been charged for giving amount of Rs.25 lacs to same Prateek Joshi. The applicants are amongst the four officers including Shri Arun Kumar Mishra whose names were found in loose papers containing unaccounted cash transactions when a raid was conducted by the Income Tax Department along with EOW. Therefore, once the Hon'ble High Court had already negated the charge levelled against Shri Arun Kumar Mishra, there is no occasion for the respondents to proceed with the present applicants in the disciplinary proceeding. Page 11 of 12 ANUPAM2025.08.13 16:53:19 MISHRA +05'30' 12 OA 200/351/2024 & 200/512/2024
10. In view of the aforesaid, both these Original Applications are allowed and the chargesheet impugned therein dated 24.02.2021 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am
Page 12 of 12
ANUPAM2025.08.13
16:53:19
MISHRA +05'30'