UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 22-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
KUNISETIY SA TY ANARA Y ANA 
NOVEMBER 22, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Appointment of incumbent as clerk on merit-Caste of incumbent 
wrongly shown as scheduled tribe in school leaving certificate-Appeared C 
in a departmental test and selected against a post reserved for Scheduled 
Tribe community-Promoted further against a post reserved for Scheduled 
Tribe community-Issuance of Show cause Notice as to whether he obtained 
employment on forged caste certificate-Incumbent admitting that 'he does 
not belong to Scheduled Tribe community-Collector ordering cancellation D 
of the caste certificate and disciplinary action against him-Appeal to State 
Government-Dismissed by State Government-Issuance of charge Mem~ 
Incumbent filing petition before Central Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal 
directing him to file reply to charge Mem~Instead of complying with the 
directions of CAT, he preferred to file writ petition-Allowed by High Court-
on appeal, Held: Ordinarily no appeal lies against a charge-sheet-A writ E 
lies only when some right of party infi-inged-Writ jurisdiction should not 
ordinarily be exercised by Courts for quashing charge-sheet/show cause 
notice-Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court not correct and set 
aside-Order of the Tribunal restored-Incumbent directed to submit reply 
to the charge mem~Authority may take decision in accordance with law- F 
Constitution of India-Writ Jurisdiction-Exercise of 
Respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Postal Department 
of the Union oflndia on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the SSC 
Examination. The School leaving certificate indicated that he belongs to the 
'Konda Kapu' community, a Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Andhra G 
Pradesh. Thereafter the respondent appeared in a Departmental test for 
promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk against a post reserved for the 
Scheduled Tribe community, and he was selected. He was further promotion 
to the next higher post which was also reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. 
257 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to whether 
he obtained employment on forged caste certificate. In reply to the said show-
cause notice, the respondent admitted that he does not belong to 'Konda Kapu' 
community, but he belongs to 'Kapu' community which is not a Scheduled Tribe 
community. Accordingly an alteration was made in the respondent's Service 
B Book stating that he belongs to 'OC' community. Later, the Collector ordered 
cancellation of the caste certificate of the respondent and directed the 
appointing authority to take action against the respondent. Aggrieved, the 
respondent filed an appeal before the State Government which was disposed 
of by directing the Postal Department to take appropriate disciplinary action 
against the respondent. Consequently, the Department issued a Charge Memo 
C to the respondent framing certain charges against him. Instead of replying 
to the aforesaid Charge Memo, the respondent filed an OA before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of with the direction to the 
applicant to submit his reply to the Charge Memo and on submission of the 
reply the Disciplinary Authority should consider the same. Instead of filing 
any reply the respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which 
D was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Respondent submitted that the charge against him had already been 
enquired into and he was exonerated of the charge in an earlier proceeding; 
and that the impugned Charge Memo would amount to double jeopardy and 
E was therefore illegal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:t.1. The High Court was not justified in allowing the Writ 
Petition.It is well settled that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet 
F or show-cause notice. 1262-C-D) 
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramdesh Kumar 
Singh and Ors., JT (1995) 8 SC 331; Special Director and Anr. v. Mohd. 
Ghulam Ghouse and Anr., AIR (2004) SC 1467; Ulagappa and Ors. v. 
Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and Ors., 12001) 10 SCC 639 and State of 
G UP. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr., AIR (1987) SC 943 etc., relied on. 
H 
1.2. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to 
any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which 
affect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.