Judgment:
W.P.No.10805/2013 (Bhan Singh ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.03-07-2013 Heard Shri D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, Annexure P-1, dated 7-6-2013.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioners is mere a forest guard and is neither the sanctioning not drawing and disbursing authority, not does he prepare vouchers against which payments are made by the department and in such circumstances the impugned charge sheet served upon the petitioner alleging disbursal of Rs.6,10,534/- and consequent loss to the Government is absolutely misconceived.
It is further submitted that the actual persons, namely, D.F.O., A.C.F.and Forest Ranger have not been served with the charge sheet whereas the petitioner who is a forest guard and not involved in the process of drawing and disbursing, has been served with the charge sheet is being prosecuted.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that it is a settled law that this Court cannot enter into the veracity or correctness of the charges levelled against the petitioners in proceedings under Articles 226/2207 of the Constitution of India wherein a charge sheet has been challenged.
Quite apart from the above it has also been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Another versus Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.Dy.
Inspector General of Police v.
K.S.Swaminathan, (1996) 11 SCC 49.that issuance of a charge sheet does not give any cause of action to the petitioner for filing a writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I find no reason to entertain the present petition and therefore the same being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
It is, however, observed that the petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the issues before the authority including the issue of having been singled out for prosecution without prosecuting the concerned drawing and disbursing officers and other higher authorities who are responsible for the alleged disbursement.
It is next stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are also not processing the application filed by the petitioner seeking documents.
The application filed by the petitioner is required to be processed by the respondent/authorities in accordance with the rules and this court has no doubt that they shall do so .
In the circumstances, without making any comments on the entitlement of the petitioner or correctness of the charges framed against the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the above observations.
C.C.as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) mct Judge