The Tribunal in the impugned order dated April 15 1994 set aside the charge memo on the ground that the charges were vague.
It is settled law by catena of decisions of this Court that if the charge memo is totally vague and does number disclose any misconduct for which the charges have been framed, the Tribunal or the Court would number be justified at that stage to go into whether the charges are true and companyld be gone into, for it would he a matter on production of the evidence for companysideration 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.
While the respondent was working as an Inspector of Police, District Special Branch in Coimbatore Rural District a special raid was companyducted in the farm house of one Eswaramoorthy Gounder located within the limits of Avinashi Police Station on August 19, 1991.
It is number the case that the charge memo and the statement of facts do number disclose any misconduct alleged against the delinquent officer.
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.
Therefore, the Tribunal was totally wrong in quashing the charge memo.
The respondent filed O.A in the Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of the charge memo dated September 28, 1991.
Consequently, a charge memo imputing misconduct on his part was issued to him.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Thus, this appeal by special leave.
