1996 JTR(SC) 1621
1997 1 CLR 18 ; 1997 75 FLR 2 ; 1996 10 JT 40 ; 1997 2 LLJ 1011 ; 1997 3 LLN 289 ; 1996 4 RSJ 674 ; 1997 2 RSJ 761 ; 1996 8 Scale 14 ; 1996 11 SCC 498 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 480 ; 1996 Supp7 SCR 197 ; 1997 1 SCT 373 ; 1997 1 SLR 176 ; 1996 8 Supreme 73
1996(8) Supreme 73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police -Appellant
versus
K.S. Swaminathan -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13229 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19810 of 1995)
Decided on 4-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Krishnamurthy, Advocate.
For the Respondent : T. Raja, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT : S.14
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service Law read with the Administrative Tribunals Act, Section 14, governs the adjudication of service matters where a charge sheet or charge memo is challenged before a tribunal. In this appeal, the tribunals order quashing the charge memo was set aside on the basis that the charge memo was totally vague and disclosed no misconduct, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to assess the veracity of the charges at that stage. The principles under the Administrative Tribunals Act, read through the catena of decisions of this Court, mandate that the forum must only examine whether the allegations disclose an apparent misconduct, not whether they are true, at the threshold stage.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) a charge memo must disclose a clear and apparent misconduct; (ii) the tribunal or court cannot assess the truth of the charges at the stage of scrutiny; (iii) if the charge memo is vague and discloses no misconduct, it is unsustainable; (iv) the forum is required to examine only the face of the charge sheet and not the evidence; (v) an order passed without applying this principle is erroneous; and (vi) appeals under Service Law invoking Administrative Tribunals Act are maintainable by special leave where the tribunal has misdirected itself.
Facts of the case:
A respondent, while serving as an Inspector of Police in the District Special Branch, Coimbatore Rural District, was implicated in a raid conducted on a farmhouse on August 19, 1991. Incriminating material recovered from the farmhouse indicated payments made by the respondent, leading to the issuance of a charge memo imputing misconduct. The respondent filed an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the charge memo dated September 28, 1991. The Tribunal, by an order dated April 15, 1994, quashed the charge memo, holding the charges to be vague.
Findings of Court:
This Court held that the charge memo and the statement of facts did disclose alleged misconduct. The Tribunal was not justified in proceeding to evaluate the truth of the charges at that stage. The Court found that the Tribunals order was erroneous in quashing the charge memo and set it aside. The Court further directed the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry within eight months and the disciplinary authority to take action within three months.
Issues:
(i) Whether a charge memo that is vague and discloses no misconduct can be quashed by the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was entitled to assess the truth of the charges at the threshold stage; (iii) Whether the appeal invoking Service Law and the Administrative Tribunals Act was maintainable; and (iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal suffered from jurisdictional error.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court clarified that the forum must confine its examination to whether the allegations on the face of the charge memo disclose an apparent misconduct. If the charge memo is not vague and discloses an apparent misconduct, the tribunal is required to proceed with the enquiry and cannot assess the truth of the charges at that stage. Any deviation from this principle renders the order unsustainable.
Result:
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside, and directions were issued for completing the enquiry within eight months and for the disciplinary authority to take subsequent action.
(A) The Service Law read with the Administrative Tribunals Act, Section 14, governs the adjudication of service matters where a charge sheet or charge memo is challenged before a tribunal. In this appeal, the tribunals order quashing the charge memo was set aside on the basis that the charge memo was totally vague and disclosed no misconduct, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to assess the veracity of the charges at that stage. The principles under the Administrative Tribunals Act, read through the catena of decisions of this Court, mandate that the forum must only examine whether the allegations disclose an apparent misconduct, not whether they are true, at the threshold stage.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) a charge memo must disclose a clear and apparent misconduct; (ii) the tribunal or court cannot assess the truth of the charges at the stage of scrutiny; (iii) if the charge memo is vague and discloses no misconduct, it is unsustainable; (iv) the forum is required to examine only the face of the charge sheet and not the evidence; (v) an order passed without applying this principle is erroneous; and (vi) appeals under Service Law invoking Administrative Tribunals Act are maintainable by special leave where the tribunal has misdirected itself.
Facts of the case:
A respondent, while serving as an Inspector of Police in the District Special Branch, Coimbatore Rural District, was implicated in a raid conducted on a farmhouse on August 19, 1991. Incriminating material recovered from the farmhouse indicated payments made by the respondent, leading to the issuance of a charge memo imputing misconduct. The respondent filed an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the charge memo dated September 28, 1991. The Tribunal, by an order dated April 15, 1994, quashed the charge memo, holding the charges to be vague.
Findings of Court:
This Court held that the charge memo and the statement of facts did disclose alleged misconduct. The Tribunal was not justified in proceeding to evaluate the truth of the charges at that stage. The Court found that the Tribunals order was erroneous in quashing the charge memo and set it aside. The Court further directed the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry within eight months and the disciplinary authority to take action within three months.
Issues:
(i) Whether a charge memo that is vague and discloses no misconduct can be quashed by the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was entitled to assess the truth of the charges at the threshold stage; (iii) Whether the appeal invoking Service Law and the Administrative Tribunals Act was maintainable; and (iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal suffered from jurisdictional error.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court clarified that the forum must confine its examination to whether the allegations on the face of the charge memo disclose an apparent misconduct. If the charge memo is not vague and discloses an apparent misconduct, the tribunal is required to proceed with the enquiry and cannot assess the truth of the charges at that stage. Any deviation from this principle renders the order unsustainable.
Result:
The appeal was allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside, and directions were issued for completing the enquiry within eight months and for the disciplinary authority to take subsequent action.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. While the respondent was working as an Inspector of Police, District Special Branch is 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 farm 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.
3. 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 be 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 the 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 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."
4. 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.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the circumstance, without costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******