Rajasthan HC Clears Way for Disciplinary Probe Against Drug Controller, Refuses to Quash Charge Sheets

The court refused to interfere at the charge-sheet stage and allowed the disciplinary proceedings to continue.

Rajaram Sharma was appointed as Drug Inspector in 1994 and later promoted to Drug Controller in 2017. While serving in that capacity, two separate controversies arose.

In June 2020, Sharma constituted a seven-member committee of Assistant Drug Controllers to deliberate on guidelines issued by the Central Government under Section 33P of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The committee recommended certain relaxations regarding prosecution in cases involving substandard drugs. Sharma forwarded these recommendations to the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) without obtaining prior approval from the State Government and allegedly directed subordinate officers to follow the modified approach.

The State Government viewed this as an unauthorized act exceeding his statutory powers. A charge-sheet dated 19 September 2022 was issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Later, on 29 October 2025, an Inquiry Officer was appointed.

The second charge-sheet dated 18 September 2023 concerned alleged irregularities in handling investigations related to suspected spurious drugs by certain firms. It was alleged that Sharma failed to direct proper verification of transactions of 31 firms and did not initiate appropriate legal action against entities involved in the trade of spurious drugs, amounting to negligence and misconduct. An Inquiry Officer was also appointed in this matter on 29 October 2025.

Aggrieved by both charge sheets and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, Sharma approached the High Court.

He contended that the alleged incidents occurred years before issuance of the charge-sheets and that further delay in appointing the Inquiry Officer caused serious prejudice. He also argued that the guidelines issued under Section 33P were merely directory and that, as Drug Controller and head of the State Drug Control Organization, he was administratively competent to constitute committees and forward recommendations. It was further submitted that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not constitute misconduct under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971, and that the charges were vague.

The State Government opposed the petitions, contending that the Court should not interfere at the charge-sheet stage. It was submitted that a show-cause notice had been issued soon after the events in question and that the matter was examined at appropriate administrative levels before issuance of the charge-sheets. The State further argued that the Central Government’s directions under Section 33P are binding once issued, and the petitioner had no authority to dilute or modify them or act in the capacity of the “State Government.” It was also submitted that part of the delay was attributable to the petitioner himself due to repeated requests for inspection and procedural objections.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court held that delay by itself does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings unless specific and demonstrable prejudice is established. The Court observed that administrative examination of the matter before issuance of the charge-sheet cannot be termed arbitrary. It further held that directions issued under Section 33P of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are binding in nature and that statutory powers vested in the State Government cannot be exercised by an individual officer without express delegation. The Court rejected the argument that the Drug Controller could assume the role of the State Government and found that the charge-sheets contained specific factual allegations sufficient to proceed with inquiry.

Reiterating the limited scope of judicial review at the stage of charge-sheet, the Court stated that it cannot conduct a mini-trial or examine the sufficiency of evidence in writ jurisdiction. Finding no jurisdictional error, illegality, or mala fides, the Court dismissed both writ petitions. However, it directed that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously and that the petitioner be afforded full opportunity of hearing and defence in accordance with law.

To view the official order, click the link below: