The question for consideration is whether a domestic inquiry in which the charges are vague in that they do not particularize the allegations of misconduct, is vitiated by reason of such vagueness?

2. The petitioner K. Raman was appointed as the Secretary of the Service Co-operative Society Limited, Karuvatta, whose President is the respondent No.1 to this petition. Suspicion of misconduct resulted in her suspension from service on 28-10-1969. She did not appear at the inquiry. She was dismissed from service. However, on her application, an industrial dispute I.D. No. 13 of 1980 as to the validity of her dismissal was referred to the Labour Court, Quilon on 7-5-1980. Evidence was recorded. There were 20 charges against the petitioner. The charge Nos. 4,7,8,10,11 and 16 were held not proved.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that none of the charges ever told the petitioner, what accusation was she expected to meet at the trial and that therefore the inquiry by the Labour Court and the Enquiry officer is vitiated.

The charge No.1 is that the society's records were not "written properly, truly and correctly". It is not alleged that the petitioner did not maintain t