IMPORTANT POINT
An enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.

Headnote:Service Law-Staff Service Regulations- Regulation 30(1) -Order passed by disciplinary authority removing appellant a Branch Manager from services on charges of misconduct-Appeal –Dismissed- Writ Petition – Single Judge held that when the charges levelled against the delinquent officer in charge-sheet were vague and not specific entire enquiry was vitiated-Writ appeals thereagainst-Allowed by Division Bench of High Court holding that charges against appellant as described in the charge-sheet were not vague –Appeals- Held Division Bench of High Court was not correct in taking a view in the impugned order that the charges against the appellant were not vague- A plain reading of charges and statement of imputations showed that only vague allegations were made against appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others- The details of loan accounts or the names of the borrowers had not been mentioned in the charges- The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the appellant had not been mentioned- Impugned order of Division Bench set aside and that of Single Judge restored-Appeals allowed. (Paras 7 to 11)
       Facts of the Case :
        An Order was passed by disciplinary authority removing appellant a Branch Manager from services on charges of misconduct. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed. On Writ Petition, Single Judge held that when the charges levelled against the delinquent officer in charge-sheet were vague and not specific entire enquiry was vitiated. Writ appeals thereagainst were Allowed by Division Bench of High Court holding that charges against appellant as described in the charge-sheet were not vague.
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of Division Bench of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Division Bench of High Court was not correct in taking a view in the impugned order that the charges against the appellant were not vague. A plain reading of charges and statement of imputations showed that only vague allegations were made against appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others. The details of loan accounts or the names of the borrowers had not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the appellant had not been mentioned. Impugned order of Division Bench was set aside and that of Single Judge was restored. Appeals were allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Subject: Employment - Disciplinary Action.
Act Referred: Service Law - Staff Service Regulations - Regulation 30(1).
Core Principle: An enquiry against any person must give strict adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice; charges must be specific, definite, and provide details of the incident forming the basis of charges; no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (!) (!)
Case Outcome: The appeals filed by the appellant were allowed; the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the order of the Single Judge was restored. (!)
Reasoning on Vague Charges: The Division Bench was incorrect in holding that the charges were not vague. A plain reading revealed only vague allegations that the appellant sanctioned loans to brick manufacturing units but did not disburse the entire amount, with the balance misappropriated. Crucially, details of loan accounts, names of borrowers, sanctioned amounts, disbursed amounts, and misappropriated amounts were not mentioned. (!) (!)
Procedural Fairness: The appellant could not submit a proper written defence or a fair enquiry could not be held without particulars of loan accounts, borrower names, and specific amounts sanctioned, disbursed, and misappropriated being furnished in the charge-sheet. (!)
Legal Precedent: The court relied on Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal and Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar, reiterating that grounds for action must be reduced to definite charges communicated with a statement of allegations and circumstances, as a person cannot discover facts by projecting their own imagination if allegations are not clear. (!) (!) (!)
Facts of the Case: The appellant, a Branch Manager, was removed from service for misconduct under Regulation 30(1) after the disciplinary authority disagreed with an Inquiry Officer's findings that the charge of financial corruption was not proved. The appellant had been suspended in 1989, and the order of removal was passed in 1991. (!)
High Court Decision: The Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court had held that while charges were not vague based on documents mentioned, the disciplinary authority failed to furnish reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer and could not conduct a suo motu enquiry to fill lacunae. It directed a fresh decision. (!)
Compensation Direction: The Supreme Court deleted the direction of the Single Judge to pay Rs. 1.5 lacs as compensation and is not inclined to grant backwages. (!)

ORDER

A. K. Patnaik, J. —

Leave granted.

2. These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010 of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.82 of 2010.

3. The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of direct recruitment and he successfully completed the period of probation. While he was working on the post of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, he sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram Development Programme. The disciplinary authority placed the appellant under suspension and issued a charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the appellant sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units in a very short period of time, but had not in fact disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him. The appellant was asked to submit his written defence in reply to the charges. On 11.02.1989, the appellant submitted his written defence denying the allegations made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry Officer enquired into the charges against the appellant and submitted his report with a finding that the witnesses produced by the Bank had not said that what was actually advanced was less than the loan amount, and although there were some serious irregularities, the charge of financial corruption against the appellant had not been proved. The disciplinary authority in his order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial corruption against the appellant had been proved and that the appellant had not only violated the Rules of the Bank, but had also tried to cause financial loss to the Bank and by abusing his position, had lowered down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the punishment of removal of the appellant along with forfeiture of the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund of the appellant under Section 50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that a copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be sent to the appellant to show-cause why he should not be punished as proposed. On 18.09.1991, the appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.

4. The appellant then filed a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. After the reorganization of the Madhya Pradesh in the year 2000, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Chhattisgarh High Court and was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.02.2010 found that in the charge-sheet, there is no reference to any specific documents or to the names of the persons who had not been given the loan amounts and accordingly took the view that in the charge-sheet there were no specific charges. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal1 [(1970) 3 SCC 548], Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan2 [(1986) 3 SCC 454] and Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar3 [(2009) 12 SCC 78], the learned Single Judge held that when the charges levelled against the delinquent officer in the charge-sheet were vague and not specific and the entire enquiry is vitiated. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 917

2011 (6) Supreme 317SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.Anil Gilurker — AppellantversusBilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal Nos. 7864-7865 of 2011(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.33088-33089 of 2010)Decided on : 15-9-2011

Cases Referred (3)

2011 (6) Supreme 317
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Anil Gilurker — Appellant
versus
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7864-7865 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.33088-33089 of 2010)
Decided on : 15-9-2011