1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -
146. The charge sheet should be issued in
writing. A hasty verbal reading of the charge sheet does not constitute service
of the charge [K.S. Tewari v. G.M., High Explosive Factory, (1988)6 ATC 984).
147. The charges must not be vague. The
allegations should be concrete and specific with full particularity and should
not leave out anything which the charged employee should know to make out his
defence [Surath Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752;
State of U.P. v. Mohd. Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937, (para 3); Sawai Singh v. State
of Rajasthan, AIR 1986 SC 995, (para 14); Transport Commr., Madras v. A.
Radhakrishna Moorthy, (1995)1 SCC 332).
148. However, the charge sheet is a matter of
substance and not of form. Where full particulars were communicated through the
memos, the Supreme Court did not accept the contention that no formal charge
sheet had been issued. “There is no magic in the word charge sheet” - the Court
observed [Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1589).
149. It is no doubt true that the protection
of Article 311(1) does not cover the mere act of the issue of charge sheet but
it does not mean that a charge sheet can be issued by “any authority. It can be
issued only either by the disciplinary authority itself or any authority so
authorised by the statutory rules [State of M. P. v. Shardul Singh, (1970)1 SCC
108].
150. But where there are no rules, the charge sheet can be issued by the controlling authority of the employee (P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. C&AG of India, AIR 1993 SC 1321].
Post a Comment