IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 4792 of 2008. Reserved on: 17.12.2010. Decided on: 21.02.2011. __________________________________________________________ Ram Lal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was posted as Head Constable at Railway Police Post, Taksal during 1993 to June, 1994. The Additional Inspector General of Police issued order dated 28.6.1994 whereby he ordered the departmental inquiry to be initiated against the petitioner and Shri Ratti Ram for mis-conduct and misuse of government quarter. The departmental inquiry was entrusted to Shri Madan Lal, M.M.P.I., Kangra. Thereafter the summary charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 2nd 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - March, 1995. Thereafter petitioner was served with the following charges:- “1. That being a Incharge of Police Post, you have failed to discharge your responsibility to ensure that the quarter of Police Post are not mis-used in connivance between you and Ratti Ram No.13. 2. Your above conduct is highly in-disciplined and is punishable under Section 7 of the Police Act. Therefore, you may submit your reply alongwith list of defence witnesses within 2 days failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say about this and the enquiry report will be submitted to the higher authorities for further orders.” Inquiry was completed by Shri Jai Singh, M.M.P.I., Kangra after the retirement of Shri Madan Lal. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 4th August, 1995. Petitioner was permitted to file reply within ten days why he should not be reverted from the post. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the reply and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The same was rejected by him on 27.11.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the Director General of Police on 31.8.1996. 2. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the inquiry officer has gone beyond the charges levelled against the petitioner while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner in connivance with Constable Kehar Singh has rented out the government quarter by misusing the power and they were negligent in performing their duties. - 3 - 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force, has failed to discharge his duties diligently and was instrumental in giving government accommodation to a private party in connivance with Constable Kehar Singh. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The charge levelled against the petitioner in summary charge was that petitioner and Constable Ratti Ram were allotted residential quarter at Gumma Railway Station. In the residential quarter allotted to Constable Ratti Ram, i.e. quarter No.T-3-D some unauthorized persons were residing. This quarter was allotted in the name of Ratti Ram and the same has been rented out. The petitioner being Head Constable has not performed his responsibilities being Incharge of Police post, Taksal and thus, the police quarters were being used unauthorisedly. According to the summary charge sheet this happened due to negligence, inefficiency and lack of supervision on the part of petitioner. The same charges were repeated when the regular charge- sheet was served upon the petitioner. It was reiterated therein that the petitioner was negligent, inefficient and has failed to exercise the supervisory power to see that the quarter was not misused. The Inquiry Officer came to a definitive conclusion that no case was made out against Shri Ratti Ram. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he has not performed his responsibility being Incharge of Police Post that the Police quarters are not used unauthorisedly. The Inquiry Officer after exonerating Shri Ratti Ram had come to the conclusion that, in fact, another quarter T-3-C was allotted to Constable Ajeet Singh on the basis - 4 - of orders of Assistant Inspector General of Police, but the same was allotted by the petitioner to Constable Kehar Singh No.27 and it was unauthorisedly being used in connivance with Constable Kehar Singh and the same was given on rent to private persons. The inquiry officer has also recorded the finding that the petitioner had not rented out this quarter and despite that he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in the discharge of his duties and in connivance with Constable Kehar Singh has rented out the quarter by misusing their powers. The inquiry officer found the petitioner and Shri Kehar Singh guilty of securing the money by misusing the government property. The only charge levelled against the petitioner was that he has failed to supervise being Head Constable that the quarter No.T-3-D was given to private person by Shri Ratti Ram. Shri Ratti Ram has been exonerated, as noticed above. This was never the charge levelled against the petitioner that he had rented out quarter T-3-C in connivance with Shri Kehar Singh to a private person. The inquiry officer has gone beyond the specific charges levelled against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has overlooked this aspect while imposing the penalty of withholding of two increments upon the petitioner on 25.9.1995. The appellate authority and the revising authority have also not looked into this important fact that the inquiry officer has gone beyond the charge sheet served upon the petitioner. It is settled law by now that an employee cannot be held guilty of an act of which he was not charged with. Petitioner could not be held guilty of negligence or being instrumental in giving quarter No.T-3-C to private person in connivance with Constable Kehar Singh, for which mis-conduct he was never charged with. It is the utmost duty of the inquiry officer to understand the - 5 - charge. The inquiry must be confined to the specific charge levelled against the delinquent. 6. What are the ingredients of charge, has been explained by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in “G. Chandra Kanth and Guntur Dt. Milk Producers Union Ltd. & Ors., Labour Law Journal, (Vol.-1) 668 as under:- “At the outset, it is relevant to note the requirements of a proper and valid charge-sheet. It is needless to state that a charge-sheet is the charter of disciplinary action. The domestic enquiry commences with the service of the charge-sheet. In other words, before proceeding with the domestic enquiry against a delinquent official he must be informed clearly, precisely and accurately of the charges levelled against him. The charge-sheet should specifically set out all charges which the workman is called upon to show cause against and should also state all relevant particulars without which he cannot defend himself. The objects of this requirement is that the delinquent employee must know what he is charged with and have the amplest opportunity to meet the charge and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation, after knowing the nature of the offence or misconduct with which he is charged; otherwise it will amount to his being condemned unheard. Fair hearing presupposes a precise and definite catalogue of charges so that the person charged may understand and effectively meet it. If the charges are imprecise and indefinite, the person charged would not be able to understand them and defend himself effectively and the resulting enquiry would not be a fair and just enquiry. The charged person ought to be informed of the charge levelled against him as also of the grounds upon which they are based. Charge of misconduct should not be vague. The charge-sheet must be specific and must set out all the necessary particulars irrespective of the fact whether the delinquent knows all about the charges. Whether he knows it or not he must be told about the charges and it was not his duty to connect the charge-sheet with his alleged - 6 - understanding or knowledge of the charge. As contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Disciplinary authority the charge need not be framed with the precision of a charge in criminal proceeding. But it must not be vague or so general as to make it impossible of being traversed. The test is whether the charge conveys to the delinquent employee concerned exact nature of the alleged misconduct in a way that would enable him to meet the charge effectively. If a vague charge is given to delinquent, it is fatal defect which vitiates the entire proceedings. It is also relevant to note that vagueness in the charge is not excused on the plea that the employee concerned should be deemed to have known the facts correctly. It should not be left to the delinquent official to find out or imagine what the charges against him are and it is for employer to frame specific charges with full particulars.” 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-II, dated 27.11.1995 and 31.8.1996 are quashed and set aside. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. February 21, 2011. (sck).