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. (!)