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.