Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing a clear charge-sheet, an opportunity to respond, and consideration of the Enquiry Officer's findings before passing an order.

S.K. Homchaudhuri & Gurusharan Sharma, JJ. - This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.12.1991 (Annexure-3) passed by the Additional Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Respondent no. 4) and consequential order dated 17.1.1992 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Respondent no. 3)

2. While the petitioner was working as Divisional Manager in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charge-sheet under Memo no. 8491 dated 30.6.1989 (Annexure-1) was served on him. In contemplation of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 11.8.1989. The copy of the charge-sheet, served on the petitioner, is annexed to the petition as Annexure-1 and English translation thereof as supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is as follows :

"Name, Rabindra Nath Singh

Designation : Divisional Manager, Dhanbad

Place : Dhanbad Division.

In course of internal audit covering period from 1983 to 1986, you were working as Depot Superintendent at Jamui Depot. Rangbahadur Raut, Cashier has defalcated Rs. 3, 36, 745.23 "paise. He was under you. Out of the above, said sum of Rs. 2, 12, 147.44 is of your period.

This defalcation was not only because lack of proper supervision and control but became possible as because of your connivance. As a Depot Superintendent, it was your duty to check cash book and other records. In case if you had have truly and impartially inspected then there would not have defalcation of such big amount. Even according to Rule if you have made physical verification of cash at the end of every month this type of defalcation could be saved but it appears that there was your connivance with Cashier because he could not have defalcated this big amount under said procedure.

In this way neither you have made physical verification every month nor day to day entry of the cash as a result of which there was defalcation of this big sum.

Therefore, you are charged of the aforesaid charges and you furnish your explanation within a fortnight to Shri E. Topno, Chief of Administration who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. In case the explanation is not received within said period then it will be understood that you have nothing to say in this connection and an ex parte order will be passed."

3. During the pendency of the departmental "proceeding, the petitioner retired from service on 13.8.1989 after attaining the age of superannuation. After conclusion of the proceeding, the Additional Managing Director of the Corporation passed the impugned order dated 14.12.91 inflicting punishment of recovery of the 50% of the amount found to have been defalcated by the cashier with 12% interest per annum during which period the petitioner had been the Depot Superintendent, By the consequential order dated 17.1.1992 (Annexure-5), the petitioner's retiral benefit was calculated at Rs. 1,99,076.58 and out of which a sum of Rs. 1,91,317.13 was recovered in giving effect to the impugned order dated 14.-12.1991 (Annexure-3).

4. The petitioner has approached this court in this writ petition impugning the orders dated 14.12.1991 and 17.1.1992 (Annexures-2 and 5, respectively). The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds :-

(i) The charge-sheet contained vague allegations without framing any article of charge and without statement of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of the charge.

(ii) The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to submit an effective reply to the vague allegations contained in the charge-sheet.

(iii) The domestic enquiry, if any, was held ex parte behind the back of the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner was also not supplied the finding of the enquiry Officer, if any.

(v) The Additional Managing Director, being subordinate to his appointing authority, he has no jurisdiction to pass the order dat