Service Law | Charge Memo Must Contain Date And Time Of Occurrence, Use Of Phrases Like 'On Many Occasions' Vague: Kerala High Court

While hearing a Writ Petition challenging the departmental enquiry and dismissal of an employee of the KSFE, Justice P. M. Manoj held that charges should always follow logically from the nature of allegations made and that if it does not, this amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

In the present case, the grounds upon which the petitioner was charge-sheeted and subsequently dismissed included wrongful gain by collusive act with loanees on several occasions and cause of heavy loss to the company through sanction of loans with inadequate security among other allegations.

Elucidating the general principles regarding charges, the learned Single Judge observed thus:

“The general Principles states: Charge should be brief, pointed, and couched in clear terms without any vagueness. The date of occurrence of the incident and times, wherever applicable, should always find a place in charge...

“…It is quite ambiguous about the nature of the charge since it does not provide details of the loan against each charge or allegation, which cannot be categorically distinguished. Similarly, the other charges raised in paragraph 4 are also general in nature. It is also bywords “on many occasions” “in almost all”. The charges are supplemental which show that the memo of charge is not brief, pointed and in clear terms. It was vague, there was no distinct offence mentioned in the memo of charges. The charges are not in a state of distinguishing allegations. Originally, the charge should be logically framed, and which would flaw the nature of allegations made. In this case there is no separate charge as well as allegation”

The Court also noted the settled position of law that the scope of judicial review for interfering with disciplinary proceedings is limited but the Court can proceed to do so when the findings of the administrative authority are perverse, based on no evidence and on violation of natural justice, and when the punishment imposed shocked the conscious of the Court.

Agreeing with the contentions put forth by the Amicus Curiae, the Court found that the findings of the enquiry officer were vague, arbitrary, illegal and not backed by evidence. The Court also held that since the persons who were charged along with the petitioner for colluding and engaging in conspiracy were exonerated, the same cannot sustain against the petitioner as well.

The Single Judge found the present case to be one fit for interference since there were serious procedural irregularities that shocked its conscious and set aside the charges and order of dismissal against the petitioner.

However, since the petitioner had crossed the age of retirement, Court ordered calculation of back wages and other benefits shall be done on a notional basis, including the entitled promotions. 

Case No: WP(C) No. 19103 of 2014

Case Title: P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273

Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. P. Sankaran Namboodiri (Party-In-Person)

Counsel for 1^st Respondent: Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar (Standing Counsel), Sri. P. Benny Thomas, Sri. K. John Mathai, Sri. Joson Manavalan, Sri. Kuryan Thomas and Smt. Pooja Menon for R1

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent: Sri. Binoy Davis, Govt. Pleader

Amicus Curiae: Smt. A. Aruna