Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.S. SWAMINATHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
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 recovered from the from house would indicate that
he was making payments to certain persons and one of the
names disclosed from the incriminating material was of the
respondent. Consequently, a charge memo imputing misconduct
on his part was issued to him. The respondent filed O.A in
the Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the
charge 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 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 he a matter on production of the
evidence for consideration 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 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.
Therefore, the Tribunal was totally wrong in quashing the
charge memo. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 impugned order of the Tribunal. The enquiry
officer is directed to conduct and complete the enquiry
within a period of eight months from the date of the receipt
of the order and the disciplinary authority is directed to
take action thereon within three months thereafter.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the
Circumstance, without costs.