..
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
A
v.
K.S. SW AMINA THAN
OCTOBER 4, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Departmental inquiry-Cliarge memo issued to delinquent--On an ap-
plication by delinquent, Tribunal setting aside the charge memo on the ground C
that the charges were vague-Held, Tnounal was totally unjustified in going
into the charges at the inquiry stage and quashing the charge-memo-Inquiry
Officer would conduct and complete the inquiry and the disciplinary authority
would take action accordingly.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13229 of D
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.94 of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. No. 3590 of 1991.
V. Krishnamurthy for the Appellant.
T. Raja for .the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
E
F
While the respondent was working as an Inspector of Police, District
Special Branch in Coimbatore Rural District a special raid was conducted
in the farm house of one Eswaramoorthy Gounder located within the limits
of Avinashi Police Station on August 19,1991. The incriminating material G
recovered from the farm house would indicate that he was making pay-
ments to certain persons and one of the names disclosed from the in-
criminating material was of the respondent. Consequently, a charge memo
imputing misconduct on his part was issued to him. The respondent filed
0.A. in the Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the charge H
197
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A memo dated September 28, 1991. The Tribunal in the impugned order
dated April 15, 1994 set aside the charge memo on the ground that the
charges were vague. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
It is settled law by catena of decisions of this Court that if the charge
memo is totally vague and does not disclose any misconduct for which the
B charges have been framed, the Tribunal or the Court would not be justified
at that stage to go into whether the charges are true and could be gone
into, for it would be a matter on production of the evidence for considera-
tion at the enquiry by the enquiry officer. At the stage of framing of the
charge, the statement of facts and the charge sheet supplied are required
C to be looked into by the Court or the Tribunal as to the nature of the
charges, i.e., whether the statement of facts and material in support thereof
supplied to the delinquent officer would disclose the alleged misconduct.
The Tribunal, therefore, was totally unjustified in going into the charges at
that stage. It is not the case that the charge memo and the statement of
facts do not disclose any misconduct alleged against the delinquent officer.
D Therefore, the Tribunal was totally wrong in quashing the charge memo.
E
In similar circumstances, in respect of other persons involved in the same
transactions, this Court in appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19453-63 of
1995 had on February 9, 1996 allowed the appeals, set aside the order
passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter holding that :
"This is not the stage at which the truth or otherwise of the charges
ought to be looked into. This is the uniform view taken by this
Court in such matters."
We respectfully agree with the above conclusion and set aside the
F impugned order of the Tribunal. The enquiry officer is directed to conduct
and complete the enquiry within period of eight months from the date of
the receipt of the order and the disciplinary authority i5 directed to take
action thereon within three months thereafter.
G costs.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstance, without
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex