Holding

A charge sheet must be specific and must furnish the employee with copies of the material on which the enquiry is based; a vague charge cannot support a finding of guilt.

Summary

The Government of Andhra Pradesh dismissed A. Venkata Rayudu, a former General Manager of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation, on four misconduct charges relating to the deposit and withdrawal of funds in cooperative and private banks. The primary charge alleged that he violated unspecified Government Orders (GOs) issued in 1997 and 1998 concerning these deposits. During the disciplinary enquiry, the respondent was not provided with copies of the alleged GOs, and the charge sheet failed to specify the dates or numbers of the orders. The tribunal held that charges must be specific and that material relied upon must be furnished to the employee, consequently setting aside the dismissal. The High Court affirmed this view, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the requirement for a detailed charge sheet.

Issues considered

Whether a charge sheet that merely alleges violation of Government Orders without specifying the orders is sufficiently specific to sustain disciplinary action.
Whether the failure to provide copies of the alleged Government Orders to the respondent violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by finding the respondent guilty on a vague charge.

Subjects

service lawdisciplinary proceedingscharge sheet specificitynatural justicegovernment orderstribunal jurisdictiondismissalAP Civil Service Rules

Judgment

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. A
v.
A. VENKATA RAYUDU

OCTOBER 31, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
B

Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-Charge that Respondent,
General Manager in the State Scheduled Tribe Co-operative Finance
Corporation, violated GOs in connection with deposit of funds-Details of C
GOs not mentioned in the charge-Copies of GOs not even placed before the
EnquilJ' Officer-Held: Charge was not specific and hence no finding of guilt
could be fixed on Respondent on that basis-Moreover, Respondent only
renewed deposit made by his predecessor-Tribunal rightly set aside his
dismissal-Principles of Natural Justice.
D
Four charges of misconduct were framed against Respondent while he
was working as General Manager of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes
Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (fRICOR), Hyderabad. An enquiry
was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the Commissioner, Tribal
Welfare Department issued show cause notice to which the Respondent E
submitted his explanation. Finally, the Government issued orders dismissing
him from service.

The Tribunal held that Charge Nos.2 to 4 were not found to be proved
by the Enquiry Officer and that Charge No.1 though proved could not be said
to be misconduct against the Appellant. It was alleged in Charge No.1 that F
Respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government in connection with
the deposits made by TRICOR in various Cooperative/Private Banks.
Ultimately Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal. Hence, the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is
sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied
to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge No. 1, what is
mentioned is that the respondent violated the Orders issued by the
Government. However, no details of these Orders have been mentioned in H
73
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Charge No. l. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but'
should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the G.O
which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that G.O,
etc. but that was n·ot done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the
Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, Charge
B No. 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis
of that Charge. Moreover, the respondent only renewed the deposit already
made by his predecessor. Hence, the Respondent cannot be found guilty for
the offence charged. [77-A-C)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2302 of2005
c From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2003 of the High Court of
Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17676/2003.

Sundaravardhan, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and
T. V. George for the Appellants.
D
H.S. Guru Raja Rao ,Y.Raja Gopala Rao and Y. Ramesh for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the
E impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court
dated 17.11.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 17676 of2003.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The respondent worked as General Manager of Andhra Pradesh
F Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (TRICOR),
Hyderabad from 15.6.1998 to 13.10.1999. On the basis of the report submitted
by the Managing Director dated 18.11.1999, the following charges were framed
against him:

"Article No. 1:
G
That the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, while functioning as A.P. Scheduled
Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (TRICOR), A.P.
Hyderabad and presently working as Deputy Secretary
(Administration) at Gurukulam A.P., Hyderabad violated the Orders
issued by the Government from time to time and despite the specific
H
instructions of the Managing Director, TRICOR, A.P. Hyderabad issued
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1•. A. VENKATA RA YUDU [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.) 75

in the year 1997 and in the year 1998 in connection with depositing A
of the funds of TRICOR in various Cooperative/Private Banks.

Article No. 2 :

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid
office, the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, fonnerly worked as General Manager B
and presently working as General Manager, TRICOR and presently
working as Deputy Secretary (Administration) at Gurukulam, A.P.
Hyderabad though specific instructions were given by the Managing
Director, TRICOR (when it was noticed) to withdraw the money
deposited from the Cooperative Banks and any other non-Nationalized C
Banks, has failed to obey the instructions.

Article No. 3 :

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid
Office, the said Dr. Venkata Raidu fonnerly worked as General Manager,
TRICOR and presently working as Deputy Secretary (Administration) D
at Gurukulam, A.P. Hyderaband has violated the instructions of
Managing Director, TRICOR and failed to withdraw the Deposits made
with Cooperative/Private Banks, and still an amount of Rs. 445.00
lakhs is due for realization from the Cooperative/Private Banks as per
the details given below (as on 18.11.1999). E

SI. No. Name of Cooperative/ Amount
Private Bank (Rs. in lakhs)

1. The Jawahar Cooperative Private Rs. 400.00
Bank Ltd. F

2. The First City Cooperative Rs. 20.00
Urban Bank Ltd.

3. The Channinar Cooperative Rs. 25.00
Urban Bank Ltd. G

Article No. 4 :

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid
Office, the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, fonnerly worked as General Manager, H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A TRICOR and presently working as Deputy Secretary (Administration)
at Gurukulam, A.P. Hyderaband, due to his in effecting action the
TRICOR could not release the amounts due to the implementing
Agencies and Beneficiaries in time and there is a loss sustained to the
TRICOR thereby putting the Corporation as well as the Government
in embarrassing situation".
B
Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and basing on the enquiry report,
the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department issued a show cause notice
dated 27.3.2001 to which he submitted his explanation. Finally, the Government
issued Orders in G.O. Ms. No. 100, dated 5.9.2002 dismissing him from service.
c The tribunal observing that Charge Nos. 2 to 4 were not found to be
proved by the Enquiry Officer, considered the matter with reference to Charge
No. 1 and observed that Charge No. 1 though proved could not be said to
be misconduct which could be held fo be proved against the appellant. The
tribunal also found that in case of misconduci committed by the employees
D jointly, the enquiry ought to have been conducted jointly as requ.ired under
Rule 24(1) of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules).

The tribunal further noticed that the Enquiry Officer exceeded its powers
by finding the appellant guilty of charge of negligence by enlarging the scope
E of enquiry which was also unwarranted. Observing infinnity, the tribunal
found that the Order of dismissal was .. not sustainable and accordingly, it was
set aside. Hence, this appeal.

As noticed from the narration of facts above, four Charges had been
framed against the respondent, but he was found not guilty by the tribunal
F in connection with Charges Nos. 2 to 4. As regards Charge No. 1, the tribunai
held that though Charge No. 1 is proved, it cannot be said to be misconduct
against the appellant. Hence, the tribunal exonerated the respondent.

The High Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment observed thus:

G "It is also to be noted that the so-called directions of G.Os issued by
the Government on the subject were not even placed before the
Enquiry Officer. It is on record that the delinquent Officer only renewed
the deposits already made by his predecessors. Under those
circumstances, the tribunal has categorically observed that the charge
H No. I cannot be held to be proved on the basis of the material
available on record."
- ,.-'
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH'" A. VENKATA RA YUDU [MARKANDEYkATJU, J.]

We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a
77

A
settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used
in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party
against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge No. 1, what is mentioned is that
the respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government. However, no
details of these Orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1. It is well settled B
that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority
should have mentioned the date of the G.O which is said to have been

• violated by the respondent, the number of that G.O, etc. but that was not
done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the Government were not even
placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, Charge No. 1 was not specific and
hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that Charge. Moreover, C
as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit
already made by his predecessor. Hence, we are of 'the opinion that the
respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged.

Thus, there is no force in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly D
dismiss~d. There shall be no order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.

f