Union Of India vs Upendra Singh on 17 February, 1994
9. The learned counsel for first respondent would further argue that the
charge memorandum ought to have been quashed not only on a technical
ground but even on merits without reserving any liberty to the State
Government to proceed in accordance with law. He submitted that the
following circumstances would make it clear that the said charge
memorandum was mala fide and issued with ulterior motive to affect his
career as a senior IAS officer: (a) The copy of the High Court order could be
obtained by applying for a certified copy, and there was no need for any one,
much less for him, to impersonate any one else to get a certified copy, (b) It
is difficult to believe that an officer of a rank of Special Secretary would
personally go to the office of an Additional Govt. Advocate just to receive a
8
certified copy; (c) The first respondent was in no way concerned with either
Misc. Case No. 238 of 2001 or Misc. Case No.236/2001 on the file of the
High Court and he had nothing to do with the order dated 17.1.2002 therein.
Receiving a free copy of the said order would not in any way benefit him or
adversely affect anyone else; (d) The charge against him is so absurd and
preposterous that it is liable to be rejected outright, and (e) The background
facts would disclose the hand of one P.K. Nayak, IAS, who is inimically
disposed towards the first respondent. Though there appears to be some
merit in the said contentions of the first respondent, it is unnecessary to
examine the correctness of these contentions as normally a charge sheet is
not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the
facts stated in the charge are erroneous. It is well settled that the correctness
or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (vide
Union of India vs. Upendra Singh - 1994(3) SCC page 357). Therefore we
reject the contention that the charge to have been quashed without reserving
to the State to proceed in accordance with law.