L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been working as Senior Assistant in the Dredging Corporation of India Limited-the respondent herein. He was issued a Charge Memo, dated 09-02-1990, wherein it was alleged that he has encashed seven cheques by using forged signatures and thereby caused loss to the respondents to the tune of Rs. 2,79,000/ -. The charge sheet was appended as Annexure-I to the proceedings, dated 09-02-1990. Annexure-II was the imputations that constituted the basis of the charge. Annexure-III comprised of the supporting material in the statement of witnesses and relevant documents. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the same, denying the charge. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and he conducted an elaborate enquiry. The petitioner participated in it. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced before the enquiry officer. Ultimately, the enquiry officer submitted a report, dated 18-09-1992. ( 2 ) IN his report, the enquiry officer recorded the findings on various imputations which were divided into 12 items. He found that the allegation against the petitioner as regards 5 items are proved, and the rest of the items were not proved. The report of the enquiry officer was accepted by the respondents. The petitioner was issued a second show-cause notice, directing him to show-cause as to why suitable punishment should not be imposed on him, on the basis of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the respondents passed order, dated 15-02-1993, imposing a punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner by six stages i. e. , from Rs. 2,640/- to Rs. 2,130 for a period of two years. The petitioner challenged the same in the Departmental Appeal, which was rejected through orders, dated 25-10-1993. Hence the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings on two grounds. The first ground is that the enquiry officer has failed to record any finding on the solitary charge and it was not open for him to record separate findings on various items which constituted the basis for the charge. The second contention is that, the allegation, as contained in item Nos. 11 and 12, in fact constituted that charge, and once the said items were not proved, the entire charge or the imputation against the petitioner disappeared and there was absolutely no basis for imposing the punishment. The second contention is that, the allegation, as contained in item Nos. 11 and 12, in fact constituted that charge, and once the said items were not proved, the entire charge or the imputation against the petitioner disappeared and there was absolutely no basis for imposing the punishment. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed counter affidavit justifying the impugned proceedings. According to them, framing of charge is an exercise to state the imputations in a precise form and the various allegations, which led to the framing of the charge form part of the imputation against the petitioner. According to them, inasmuch as the petitioner was clearly informed of the nature and contents of the proposed enquiry, it cannot be said that there was any violation of the procedure. As regards the punishment, it is the contention of the respondents, that the enquiry officer, on the basis of cogent evidence, has recorded a finding that the petitioner was in-different and guilty of negligence in failing to report the missing of blank cheques. Had he taken prompt steps in informing the bank, it would have prevented the encashment of the missing cheques. It is stated, that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was proportionate to the acts of misconduct held proved, against the petitioner. ( 5 ) SRI Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents have framed only one charge against the petitioner, which accused the petitioner of having stolen the blank cheques and on having encashed the amount of Rs. 2,79,000/ -. The other documents in the form of Annexure Nos. II and III were only supporting material. The enquiry officer was to have undertaken the enquiry, pointed to the charge itself, and not to the supporting documents. According to him, the enquiry officer who was supposed to answer the solitary charge has not only failed to do so, but has undertaken a discussion on the supporting material and recorded finding thereon. Such procedure, according to the learned counsel, is not permissible in law. It is his contention, that the disciplinary authority also has treated these two aspects, viz. , taking away blank cheques and causing wrongful loss of Rs. 2,79,000/- constitute the basis of the charge and he was also convinced that the petitioner is not guilty of the same. Such procedure, according to the learned counsel, is not permissible in law. It is his contention, that the disciplinary authority also has treated these two aspects, viz. , taking away blank cheques and causing wrongful loss of Rs. 2,79,000/- constitute the basis of the charge and he was also convinced that the petitioner is not guilty of the same. That being the situation, it was not open to the respondents, to inflict the punishment of reducing the pay by six stages. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits, that the object of framing of charge is to inform the delinquent officer of the substance of the nature of the allegations against him. The various acts and omissions which led to the framing of charge do constitute the imputation against the employee. In that view of the matter, the various imputations which in fact were communicated to the petitioner, cannot be said to be alien to the charge sheet or the scope of enquiry itself. Both the learned counsel have relied upon certain judgments of the Supreme Court, in support of their respective contentions. ( 7 ) THE main question that needs to be considered in this writ petition is, as to whether the charge sheet and the other supporting material, whether it is called statement of allegations or known by any other description, constitute two separate aspects or it is to be treated as part of the same exercise of informing the employee of the imputations against him. Whenever, certain acts and omissions on the part of an employee take place, disciplinary proceedings are initiated, with reference to such acts and omissions. Framing of charges constitutes an important step in the disciplinary proceedings. In framing the charges, there may be circumstances, wherein the acts and omissions are capable of being stated with precision and which do not need any further supporting material. However, there are cases, wherein the facts giving rise to the imputation are voluminous. In such cases, it is difficult to state all aspects of the imputation with mathematical precision in a concise statement, known as charge. The employer cannot put all that narration on paper and call it as a charge sheet. It is for this reason, that law permits the framing of a charge and to supplement the same with narration of relevant acts and omissions. The employer cannot put all that narration on paper and call it as a charge sheet. It is for this reason, that law permits the framing of a charge and to supplement the same with narration of relevant acts and omissions. This is generally called as statement of allegations or basis of a charge. ( 8 ) IN a way, framing of charges in disciplinary proceedings can be compared to framing of issues in Civil proceedings or framing of charges in Criminal proceedings. The importance of framing of charges cannot be watered down. At the same time, to confine the scope of enquiry to the charge and not permitting it to have a bearing on the facts that constitute the charges, particularly in departmental proceedings may not be possible. It is in this context, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the "state OF A. P. v. SREE RAMA RAO" has observed that under:-"the charge and the "statement of facts" form part of a single document on the basis of which proceedings were stated against the respondent and it would be hypercritical to proceed on the view that though the respondent was expressly told in the statement of facts which formed part of the charge sheet, that he had failed to record that Durgalu was handed over to him, that ground of reprehensible conduct was not included in the charge, and on that account the enquiry was vitiated. " ( 9 ) IN the case on hand, it is evident that the enquiry officer did not record any finding on the charge itself, but has recorded his findings on as many as 12 items. As regards 7 items, he hold that the petitioner is not guilty of the same, whereas as regards 5 items, he is so. It is not the case of the petitioner that the various items, as regards which the enquiry officer has recorded finding are not germane to the charge or that they are not having any bearing on the charge. It cannot be said that the petitioner has suffered any detriment on account of the recording of finding on various aspects. The petitioner could certainly have assailed the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer, had he recorded a finding on the charge in favour of the petitioner and despite the same, he has undertaken the finding on the components of the charge. The petitioner could certainly have assailed the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer, had he recorded a finding on the charge in favour of the petitioner and despite the same, he has undertaken the finding on the components of the charge. It is in this context, that the learned counsel for the respondents, placed reliance in the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to supra-1 and supports the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in "surath CHANDRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL" and submits that the object of furnishing the statement of allegation is only to give the necessary particulars and by no stretch of imagination, such particulars can be said to constitute the charge or imputations. It is no doubt true, that the Hon ble Supreme Court explained the purport and the purpose of the statement of allegations that are to accompany the charge. However, the observation made in the case of "state OF A. P. v. SREE RAMA RAO" (supra-1) remains untouched and it is not explained away. Further, I do not find any inconsistency in the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to supra-1 and 2. While the former had dealt with the scope of charge sheet and explained as to what constitute the same, the latter had explained the purport of the supporting material. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity in the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer. ( 11 ) THE second submission is, as to the basis for imposing the punishment even after the enquiry officer had recorded that the petitioner is not guilty of the main allegation contained in the charge itself. It is true, that the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is not guilty of taking away the blank cheques or encashing them. But he found that the petitioner was guilty of indifference in not taking appropriate steps in preventing the encashment of the cheques which have been lost from his custody. It was further held, that but for his failure and indifference, the respondents would not have been put to financial loss, on account of unauthorized encashment of the cheques, which missed from the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner, no doubt deserve some punishment on account of such indifference. It was further held, that but for his failure and indifference, the respondents would not have been put to financial loss, on account of unauthorized encashment of the cheques, which missed from the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner, no doubt deserve some punishment on account of such indifference. However, reduction of pay by six stages cannot be said to be proportionate to the accusation against him. Having regard to the fact that no specific charge was framed in that regard, and also to the fact that the petitioner reported the matter to his immediate superior on the same day, this Court feels that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh. Accordingly, the punishment is reduced to the one of withholding of three increments for a period of one year. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.