Charges in a chargesheet should be clear and specific, and an enquiry should be held before passing a termination order.

M. KATJU, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 9-9-88. I have heard Shri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also learned Counsel for Respondents and I am disposing of this case finally.

2. The Petitioner was admittedly a class IV employee and he has alleged that he has served for 17 years since 1971. He was confirmed by the order dated 11-10-74 (Annexure 1 to the petition). A charge-sheet was given to him dated 3/4-8-1988 which is Annexure 4 to the petition and the Petitioner submitted his reply dated 12-8-88 which is Annexure 5. Various charges have been levelled in the charge-sheet. In my opinion the chargesheet itself is illegal as it is extremely vague. The first charge is "you were suspended earlier in 1986 for dereliction of duty" which is very vague. The second charge is "you continued neglecting your duties from time to time and were duly warned" which is again very vague. It does not give any specific date, month and time. Similar other charges are also vague and this itself vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner since it is settled law that the charges should be clear and specific.

3. The allegation of the Petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition is that no enquiry was held against him and the termination order dated 9-9-88 was passed without any such enquiry. The allegation in para 7 of the writ petition that no enquiry was held is not denied in Para 9 of the counter affidavit. The only allegation in para 9 of the counter affidavit is that in view of the earlier undertaking given by the Petitioner no enquiry was held against him. In my opinion this is hardly a ground for not holding an enquiry. Moreover there is no allegation in the charge-sheet regarding the allegation that the Petitioner came to the office of the Chairman, Zoology Department after taking alcohol. The Petitioner was thus not given any opportunity to meet this allegation.

4. For all the above reasons the impugned order dated 9-9-88 is illegal and is hereby quashed. However, it will be open to the Respondents to issue a fresh chargesheet to the Petitioner and hold an enquiry against him in accordance with law.

5. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.