The principles of natural justice are not violated by the use of the words "found" and "giving rise to the presumption" in a charge-sheet in disciplinary proceedings, unless there is a misplacing of onus and no opportunity of cross-examination.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order passed by T. K. Basil J. , in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THIS was an application by Biswanath Mukherjee challenging the order dated February 6, 1968 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The only point on which the learned judge decided the whole application was whether the charge-sheet was defective or not, leaving the other points undecided. The decision appealed from was based entirely on the interpretation of two expressions "found" and "giving rise to presumption" in the charge-sheet The charge-sheet reads as follows:--"that Sri Biswanath Mukherjee, who had been functioning as Preventive Officer, Grade I, during the period between 20-12-58 and 31-12-59, was found on 1-1-60 to be in possession of assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of about Rs. 61,000/- giving rise to the presumption that the aforesaid Sri Biswanath Mukherjee acquired the said disproportionate assets by obtaining pecuniary advantage to himself by corrupt and illegal means and thereby he had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duly as a public servant. "the learned judge came to the conclusion on an interpretation of the expressions "found" and "giving rise to the presumption" that they were indicative of the mind of the Collector of Customs who was also the punishing authority and that he had not kept an open mind. Therefore the learned Judge held that the whole proceeding was vitiated and the charge-sheet was defective, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, and vacated the entire proceedings.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge expressly mentions four other points which were argued before him but on which he expressed no opinion. These are: (1) the petitioner had been found guilty of a charge of "benami" which was not in the charge-sheet; (2) the findings of the Enquiring Officer were perverse as being based on no findings and on mere conjectures and surmise; (3) certain documents were considered by the Enquiring Officer behind the back of the petitioner; and (4) the onus of the proof was misplaced by the disciplinary authority as a result of a confusion between the law regarding disciplinary proceedings under Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The learned Judge observed: "it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on the merits of these contentions. "

( 4 ) THE proper way, in our view, of interpreting a charge-sheet of this nature in disciplinary proceedings is not to be technically and legalistically strict as in the case of a charge-sheet in criminal proceedings. This principle is well known. It should be fairly and reasonably interpreted in a common sense way to see that there is a plain statement of the thing complained of as wrong so that the party complained against may be put on his defence to meet the allegation. In Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz, (1919) 253 U. S. 421, a learned Judge of the American Supreme Court observed:--"it does not purport to set out the elements of a crime like an indictment of information nor the elements of a cause of action like a declaration of law or a bill in equity. All that is requisite in a complaint for commission is that there be a plain statement of the thing claimed to be wrong so that the respondent may be put upon his defence. "

( 5 ) NOW, a question of fair interpretation of a charge-sheet in a disciplinary proceeding depends on the context of facts in which the charge is laid. The two words "found" and "giving rise to the presumption" are not, in our judgment, enough by themselves to make the charge in this case in limine bad and void on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The word "found" is a general word and it will depend on the context of the situation whether that expression means a bias or conclusion on the mind when the charge-sheet s