Charge Sheet Not Final Order: Calcutta HC Refuses to Quash, Directs CGST Superintendent to Face Departmental Enquiry [Read Order]
The Court reiterated that a charge sheet is not a final order and can only be challenged on limited grounds. The petitioner was directed to contest the allegations in the departmental enquiry.
The Calcutta High Court, in a recent has declined to interfere with a charge sheet issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against a CGST Superintendent. The petitioner argued that statements recorded under Section108 of the Customs Act, 1962, were improperly relied upon and that procedural defects vitiated the charge sheet.
The petitioner, a Superintendent of CGST & CE, Bolpur, was served with a charge sheet dated 3 January 2023 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He challenged the charge sheet before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his plea in April 2023. Aggrieved, he approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 226of the Constitution.
His grievance was twofold. First, he contended that statements of three individuals were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, without his presence, and these statements formed the basis of the charge sheet.
Second, he argued that a departmental circular dated 8 January 2020 mandated that statements relied upon must be accompanied by listing the makers as witnesses in Annexure IV of the charge sheet. In this case, the statements were included in Annexure III, but the individuals were not listed as witnesses, which, according to him, vitiated the charge sheet.
The Division Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen held that the challenge was premature.
The Court highlighted that a charge sheet is not a final order but merely initiates disciplinary proceedings. Quoting the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006), the Court observed: “A mere charge sheet or show cause notice does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting parties is passed that the said party can be said to have any grievance.”
The Court also relied on State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra [2025 ], where the Supreme Court reiterated that interference with charge sheets is limited. Most importantly, the Bench cited Union of India v. Upendra Singh [1994], which laid down the narrow grounds for judicial review of charge sheets: “A charge sheet can be interfered with if allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are admitted in toto and yet they do not constitute any misconduct, or the charge sheet is issued by an incompetent authority, or it is issued with inordinate delay which cannot be explained.”
Applying these principles, the Court held that none of the grounds were satisfied in the present case. Even if statements were recorded behind the petitioner’s back, this did not invalidate the charge sheet. The petitioner could raise objections during the enquiry, particularly if the department sought to rely on statements without producing the makers as witnesses.
Ultimately, the High Court refused to quash the charge sheet, holding that the petitioner must contest the allegations in the departmental enquiry. The Court clarified that all procedural objections could be raised before the Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority, who would be bound to consider them in accordance with the law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
