JUDGMENT S.K. Homchaudhuri & Gurusharan Sharma, JJ. - This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 14.12.1991 (Annexure-3) passed by the Additional Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Respondent no. 4) and consequential order dated 17.1.1992 (Annexure-5) passed by the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (Respondent no. 3) 2. While the petitioner was working as Divisional Manager in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charge-sheet under Memo no. 8491 dated 30.6.1989 (Annexure-1) was served on him. In contemplation of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 11.8.1989. The copy of the charge-sheet, served on the petitioner, is annexed to the petition as Annexure-1 and English translation thereof as supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is as follows : "Name, Rabindra Nath Singh Designation : Divisional Manager, Dhanbad Place : Dhanbad Division. In course of internal audit covering period from 1983 to 1986, you were working as Depot Superintendent at Jamui Depot. Rangbahadur Raut, Cashier has defalcated Rs. 3, 36, 745.23 "paise. He was under you. Out of the above, said sum of Rs. 2, 12, 147.44 is of your period. This defalcation was not only because lack of proper supervision and control but became possible as because of your connivance. As a Depot Superintendent, it was your duty to check cash book and other records. In case if you had have truly and impartially inspected then there would not have defalcation of such big amount. Even according to Rule if you have made physical verification of cash at the end of every month this type of defalcation could be saved but it appears that there was your connivance with Cashier because he could not have defalcated this big amount under said procedure. In this way neither you have made physical verification every month nor day to day entry of the cash as a result of which there was defalcation of this big sum. Therefore, you are charged of the aforesaid charges and you furnish your explanation within a fortnight to Shri E. Topno, Chief of Administration who has been appointed as Enquiry Officer. In case the explanation is not received within said period then it will be understood that you have nothing to say in this connection and an ex parte order will be passed." 3. In case the explanation is not received within said period then it will be understood that you have nothing to say in this connection and an ex parte order will be passed." 3. During the pendency of the departmental "proceeding, the petitioner retired from service on 13.8.1989 after attaining the age of superannuation. After conclusion of the proceeding, the Additional Managing Director of the Corporation passed the impugned order dated 14.12.91 inflicting punishment of recovery of the 50% of the amount found to have been defalcated by the cashier with 12% interest per annum during which period the petitioner had been the Depot Superintendent, By the consequential order dated 17.1.1992 (Annexure-5), the petitioner's retiral benefit was calculated at Rs. 1,99,076.58 and out of which a sum of Rs. 1,91,317.13 was recovered in giving effect to the impugned order dated 14.-12.1991 (Annexure-3). 4. The petitioner has approached this court in this writ petition impugning the orders dated 14.12.1991 and 17.1.1992 (Annexures-2 and 5, respectively). The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on the following grounds :- (i) The charge-sheet contained vague allegations without framing any article of charge and without statement of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of the charge. (ii) The petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to submit an effective reply to the vague allegations contained in the charge-sheet. (iii) The domestic enquiry, if any, was held ex parte behind the back of the petitioner. (iv) The petitioner was also not supplied the finding of the enquiry Officer, if any. (v) The Additional Managing Director, being subordinate to his appointing authority, he has no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 14.12.1991 and as such the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. The Respondents in their counter affidavit, have denied the contention of the petitioner that "the impugned orders have been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. According to the Respondents, the petitioner was given full opportunity to inspect the records which he wanted to inspect and also to participate in the domestic enquiry. But inspite of being given reasonable opportunity, the petitioner did not participate in the domestic enquiry and consequently the domestic enquiry had to be held ex parte. The Enquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, gave a finding holding that the charge against the petitioner was established. But inspite of being given reasonable opportunity, the petitioner did not participate in the domestic enquiry and consequently the domestic enquiry had to be held ex parte. The Enquiry Officer, after conclusion of the enquiry, gave a finding holding that the charge against the petitioner was established. In support of the contention that the Enquiry Officer gave' a finding in the domestic enquiry, the respondents in the counter affidavit stated that Annexure 'J' to the counter affidavit was the finding of the Enquiry Officer. But on perusal thereof we find that Annexure 'J' to the counter is the copy of the finding given against one S.P. Sinha and is not related to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed before us. On perusal of the charge-sheet, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet are vague and no specific article of charge has been framed. It is also not for Corporation that the charge-sheet did not contain any statement of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of the charge against the petitioner. The list of documents, on which the article of charges was based and list of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges in the domestic enquiry, have also not been furnished with the charge-sheet. It appears from the charge-sheet that Shri E. Topno, the Chief of Administration was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the charges to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer is not the competent authority to consider the reply to the charges. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider the reply to charges and on consideration of the causes shown in the reply to decide as to whether to close or to continue with the proceeding by holding domestic enquiry into the charges. 7. In the .disciplinary proceeding the disciplinary authority is required to frame definite article of charge. No disciplinary proceeding can be founded on vague and indefinite allegation. 7. In the .disciplinary proceeding the disciplinary authority is required to frame definite article of charge. No disciplinary proceeding can be founded on vague and indefinite allegation. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not supplied with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, if any, and thereby the petitioner has been denied the reasonable opportunity to make representation before the disciplinary authority against the finding before the impugned order was passed. The impugned order (Annexure-3) does not disclose that the same has been passed on the basis of the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it become apparent that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated and concluded against the petitioner arbitrarily and in a perfunctory manner in gross violation of the rules and established procedure. The impugned order passed on the basis of the perfunctory and infirm disciplinary proceeding cannot be sustained. 8. learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation however submits that in regard to the same allegation made in the charge-sheet a criminal proceeding is pending and the petitioner is one of the accused in the said proceeding. He further submits that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy by way of preferring an appeal to the higher authority namely the Managing Director of the Corporation against the impugned order (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Managing Director. 9. In the instant case, scope of enquiry is confined to the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and the order passed on conclusion thereof and not in respect of pending criminal proceeding which will be disposed of on its own merit. The petitioner retired from service in 1989 and this petition was filed in 1992. It will not be just and proper if the petition is not disposed of on merit and the petitioner is asked to seek alternative remedy by way of preferring appeal. 10. For the reasons stated above, we are constrained to hold that the impugned orders (Annexures 3 & 5) cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. This petition is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order dated 14.12.1991 (Annexure 3) and the consequential order dated 17.1.1992 (Annexure 5) are set aside. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.