IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary charges must be clear and specific; vagueness can invalidate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.

This intra-Court appeal is preferred against the judgment & order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.8305/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has set aside the Memorandum of Charges dated 27.09.2016 containing the statement of charges at Annexure-I and the statement of facts and allegations at Annexure-II and has also quashed and set aside the consequential orders, i.e. the order of dismissal dated 04.02.2019 and the appellate order dated 26.07.2019. While doing so, the learned Single Judge has kept it open for the appellant authorities to proceed against the respondent strictly in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the consequence of setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent Mayur Dutta would be that he would be an employee of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and has kept it open to the authorities of the FCI to decide as to what would be the status and entitlement of the respondent as an employee of the FCI during the intervening period, i.e. from the date of the order of dismissal and the date of setting aside of the dismissal order. The appellant authorities have been given 1(one) month’s time to pass a reasoned order in the matter from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the said judgment & order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Mayur Dutta was appointed in the FCI as a Manager (Accounts) on 13.02.2012 and thereafter, was transferred to the FCI District Office at Banderdewa, where he joined on 03.02.2015 and continued up to 31.03.2016. Vide order dated 05.10.2016, he was placed under suspension with reference to a Memorandum of major penalty for the acts and commission, as provided in the Memorandum. He was served with a Memorandum of Charges dated 27.09.2016, whereby he was charged for certain acts, along with other officials.

3. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Executive Director (North East), vide order dated 04.02.2019, has imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent along with forfeiture of the gratuity amount, which was ordinarily in the form of disqualification for future employment under the Corporation.

4. The respondent submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Managing Director of the FCI, however, the said appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 26.07.2019 and the respondent was informed that he can file a statutory review before the Reviewing Authority within 45(forty-five) days from the date of delivery of the order.

5. Being aggrieved with the penalty order dated 04.02.2019 and the order of rejection of his appeal dated 26.07.2019, the respondent approached the Writ Court, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the same vide the impugned judgment & order dated 19.12.2022 with certain directions and observations. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants have preferred this writ appeal.

6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against the respondent were vague and not specific. It is contended that a bare perusal of the Memorandum of Charge would reveal that the charges against the respondent, amongst others, are very specific and crystal clear and cannot be said to be ambiguous in any manner. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has ignored the fact that the respondent, while denying the charges in the written statement, did not raise any objection regarding the ambiguity in charges and, on the other hand, after fully understanding the purport of charges, filed his written statement of defence denying the same. It is contended that from the tone and tenor of the cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent, i