Shri Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3935
of 2013 (Decided on 26.04.2013)
The
Court examined following question:
“Whether
the enquiry can be permitted to be held on vague and unspecified charges?”
The
Court held:
Where the chargesheet is accompanied by the
statement of facts and the allegations are not specific in the chargesheet, but
are crystal clear from the statement of facts, in such a situation, as both
constitute the same document, it cannot be held that as the charges were not
specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. Thus, nowhere should
a delinquent be served a chargesheet, without providing to him, a clear,
specific and definite description of the charge against him. When statement of
allegations are not served with the chargesheet, the enquiry stands vitiated,
as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory, even if the delinquent does not
take the defence of, or make a protest with against that the charges are vague,
that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there
must be fair-play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving
adverse or penal consequences. What is required to be examined is whether the
delinquent knew the nature of accusation. The charges should be specific, definite
and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no
enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. [Para 10]
“The purpose of holding an enquiry against
any person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against
him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with the object of such an
enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an
enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence
result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority
concerned is a paramount necessity.” [Para 11]
Thus
following point may be noted in relation to Domestic Enquiry:
(i)
Where the chargesheet is accompanied by the statement of facts and the
allegations are not specific in the chargesheet, but are crystal clear from the
statement of facts, in such a situation, as both constitute the same document,
it cannot be held that as the charges were not specific, definite and clear,
the enquiry stood vitiated
(ii)
Nowhere should a delinquent be served a chargesheet, without providing to him,
a clear, specific and definite description of the charge against him.
(iii)
When statement of allegations are not served with the chargesheet, the enquiry
stands vitiated, as having been conducted in violation of the principles of
natural justice. E
(iv)
Evidence adduced should not be perfunctory, even if the delinquent does not take
the defence of, or make a protest with against that the charges are vague, that
does not save the enquiry from being vitiated, for the reason that there must
be fair-play in action, particularly in respect of an order involving adverse
or penal consequences.
(v) What
is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of
accusation.
(vi)
The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident
which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague
charges.
The
Court quoted the case of ‘Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal’,
AIR 1971 SC 752 wherein 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 out an effective
defence as he will be unaware of the exact nature of the allegations against
him, and what kind of defence he should put up for rebuttal thereof.”
The Court also 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.”
The
Court also noted following case laws:
State
of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723;
Sawai
Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995;
U.P.S.R.T.C.
& Ors. v. Ram Chandra Yadav, AIR 2000 SC 3596;
Union
of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78; and
Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin
Bank & Anr., (2011) 14 SCC 379
To read full text follow the link