AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 227 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
Heard.
The challenge to the impugned notice in this petition is mainly on the ground that the notice is absolutely vague and does not contain any detail.
There are no list of documents, list of witnesses and it cannot be said to be a charge-sheet against the petitioner and with this kind of notice, the
petitioner cannot be subjected to departmental enquiry.
At the outset, learned counsel for respondent- SECL appearing in this case submits that the respondent- SECL would be issuing a detailed charge-
sheet with the articles of charges, statement of allegations, list of documents and witnesses, by which, the charges are proposed to be proved and only
on the basis of the impugned charge-sheet, further proceeding shall not be drawn.
In the considered opinion of this Court, this statement made, at the bar, by the counsel for respondent- SECL is sufficient to protect the petitioner
against the arbitrary action of holding departmental enquiry on undisclosed charges under the notice impugned in this petition.
In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of placing on record the statement of the respondent - SECL with the clear direction that if the
respondent - SECL intend to proceed in departmental enquiry against the petitioner, then shall issue a proper charge-sheet along with list of documents
and witnesses.