The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific, definite charges in disciplinary proceedings, fair and objective conduct of the enquiry, and the obligation to record reasons for the finding of fact.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment dated 23.8.2006 (Annex.-1) imposing punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, which has been subsequently reduced to withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect by the Appellate authority by Order Dated 18.1.2008 (Annex.-2).

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioner while working as Personal Assistant of the Orissa High Court, Cuttack was served with a charge sheet in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 1 of 2005 (Annex.- 3). Following charges were drawn up against him.

Whereas you while working as P.A. to Hon'ble Shri Justice R.N. Biswal were neither sincere in coming to Court in time nor co- operating in Court's work and were taking frequent leave.

As apparent from your past conduct, you have been warned time and again for such type of lapses.

3. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said charges and subsequently it was not found satisfactory. The enquiry was conducted and after completion of the same, punishment of withholding two. annual increments without cumulative effect was imposed. However, the Appellate authority vide Order Dated 18.1.2008 reduced the said punishment to withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Hence this Writ Petition.

4. Mr. Devanand Misra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that on the top portion of the charge sheet itself which has been served upon the Petitioner, a note has been given stating that the charges must be specific, each charge should be drawn up and separately numbered and should give the date, occasion and the nature of the offence committed by the delinquent employee. The charges levelled against the Petitioner do not meet the aforesaid requirement. Therefore, the Petitioner was not able to defend himself properly. As in the instant case, no specific instance or date or time had been given when the delinquency was committed, the order of punishment is vitiated.

5. On the contrary, Mr. P.K. Khuntia, Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the petition contending that undoubtedly the charges were not specific, but the Petitioner was fully aware of the charges and therefore, the punishment cannot be interfered with.

6. We have considered the rival submissions of the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. State of West Bengal, the Apex Court held that it is not permissible to hold an enquiry on vague charges as the same do not give a clear picture to the delinquent to make an effective defence because he may not be aware as what is the allegation against him and what kind of defence he can put in rebuttal thereof. The Supreme Court observed as under:

The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the specific contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.

8. In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide State of Andhra