Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was the Chief Accounts Officer of erstwhile "Nesamani Transport Corporation Limited", Nagercoil during the years 1985-86 to 1987-88 and he was in over all control of the accounts section. For printing tickets, the printers were selected for each year by calling upon tenders by means of advertisement in leading news papers. The tenders were finalised by a committee consisting of Managing Director, General Manager, Chief Accounts Officer and Assistant Manager (Accounts) of the Corporation. 2. According to the model financial delegation of powers communicated by the joint Secretary to the Transport department in her letter No. 529/Ch.C/83, dated 13.4.1983. a committee consisting of Chief Accounts Officer and Managing Director of each corporation had been vested with the powers regarding printing of ticket books. The finanacial powers vested with the Chief Accounts officer and the Managing Director had been diluted by delegating this power to a committee consisting of Managing Director, General Manager, Chief Accounts Officer and Assistant Manager (accounts) of the corporation and the same was approved by the Board in its 4th meeting held on 20.8.1983. During audit, it was found that the printing orders had been placed for excess quantity in all most all cases. The auditors report further stated that the procedure of placing orders for one and same kind of ticket books on several printers at the same time was one of the reasons for going unnoticed of actual non supply of ticket books by printers. It was found out that ticket books worth Rs.3,66,024.50 were not actually supplied by one printer by name M/s. Associated Art Printers, Madras, during the said period namely 1985-86 to 1987-88 in pursuance of the printing orders issued by the committee. But it was noticed by the auditors that bills were passed and payments were made totally to the tune of Rs. 3,66,024.50, though as a matter of fact, ticket books were not printed and supplied by the printers. Thus, the funds belonging to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.3,66,024.50 was found misappropriated. Based on the said auditors report, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner holding him responsible for the above irregularities. By the proceedings of the Managing Director in No. 11521/Legal.4/Disc/NTC/88, dated 25.2.1989. As many as 13 charges were framed under the said charge memorandum, which reads as follows:- " CHARGES:- 1. Based on the said auditors report, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner holding him responsible for the above irregularities. By the proceedings of the Managing Director in No. 11521/Legal.4/Disc/NTC/88, dated 25.2.1989. As many as 13 charges were framed under the said charge memorandum, which reads as follows:- " CHARGES:- 1. That you have passed bills for printing charges to Associated Art Printers to the tune of about Rs.3,66,024.50 without receiving the tickets during the year 1985-86 to 1987-88. 2. That you have connived with the Printer and passed the bills without receiving ticket books and thereby caused loss to the Corporation for about Rs.3,66,024.50. 3. That you have failed to give instructions/ take action to deduct from bills or impose penalty on printers for supplying defective/ damaged/ substandard ticket books. 4. That you have failed to give proper instructions to maintain Central Ticket Stock Register in a proper manner. Failure to verify the postings of receipts and issues of tickets received from Printers and issued to Branches. 5. That you are responsible for the improper accounts and reconciliation of Ticket Stock which lead to heavy loss to Corporation. 6. That you have permitted subordinates to certify the bills for supply of tickets. 7. That you have failed to conduct periodical verification of ticket stocks. 8. That you have failed to carry out the observation of Internal Auditors (External Agency). 9. That you have failed to give suitable instructions to the subordinate staff to carry out proper check of ticket accounts. 10. That you have placed printing orders for excess quantities of tickets. 11. That you have made payment earlier to the printers against the provisions of agreement. 12. Negligence in duty. 13. Violated the rules and regulations of the Corporation." 3. The petitioner denied all the charges. Therefore, one S. Andi, a retired Subordinate Judge was appointed as enquiry officer to inquire into the charges. Apart from the petitioner, few more officials against whom also charge memorandums were separately issued in respect of similar allegations, were also put up for enquiry. Thus a common enquiry was held by the enquiry officer in respect of various charge memorandums issued against various officials including the petitioner. Before the enquiry officer, as many as three witnesses were examined on the side of the Management and twenty two documents were exhibited. Thus a common enquiry was held by the enquiry officer in respect of various charge memorandums issued against various officials including the petitioner. Before the enquiry officer, as many as three witnesses were examined on the side of the Management and twenty two documents were exhibited. On the side of the charged officials eight witnesses were examined and fifteen documents were exhibited. On concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 5.12.1990. It is again a common report pertaining to all the officials, who were facing different charges under different charge memorandums. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the enquiry officer held the charges 1 to 3, 10 and 11 as fully proved. In respect of charges 4 to 9 and 12, the enquiry officer held that the petitioner is liable only to the extent that he was negligent in discharging his official duties. 4. A copy of the enquiry officers report wasfurnished to the petitioner along with a show cause notice for which also, the petitioner submitted a due explanation, but the same was rejected. The enquiry officers report was accepted and the second respondent by his proceedings dated 28.5.1991 imposed punishment of demotion from the "Deputy Manager" cadre to the "Assistant Manager" cadre and he was ordered to be kept as a junior in the seniority list of Assistant Manager from the date of joining duty. However, his existing pay was ordered to be protected. The period of suspension was relaxed against his leave. 5. Challenging the said punishment, he preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The Board, by a resolution No. 99, in its 5th Board meeting held on 23.12.1996, rejected the appeal. The same was communicated by the Managing Director by his proceedings in No.11521/legal 4/Disc/TNST.C(MDU.Dvn.III/88, dated 3.7.1998. Challenging the above punishment imposed on the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash the same. 6. In the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, interalia, it is contended that the petitioner was responsible for the payments made to the printers during the relevant period though the tickets had not actually been supplied by the printers. 6. In the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2, interalia, it is contended that the petitioner was responsible for the payments made to the printers during the relevant period though the tickets had not actually been supplied by the printers. It is further contended that the charges have been proved by sufficient evidence and the reason why the enquiry officer held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and the same was accepted by the respondents 1 and 2. Regarding the other contentions in the counter, this Court will narrate in this order at the appropriate places. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent and I also perused the records carefully. 8. The enquiry officer has dealt with the charges 1 to 3 together and therefore, I would also, for the sake convenience, take up these three charges first. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that it is not the duty of the petitioner to physically verify the tickets and the entries made in the stock register and the relevant records in the stock section before passing the bill for payment of printing charges to the printer. To substantiate the said contention, the learned senior counsel has narrated the duties and responsibilities of various officials and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to the admitted position, the printing orders are issued only by a committee consisting of Managing Director and other officials as narrated at the beginning of this order. Thereafter, the tickets are printed by the printer in pursuance of such printing orders and then the printer supplied the tickets to the Corporation. Such printed tickets supplied by the printer were to be handed over to the stock section. There was one senior assistant clerk, who was responsible for receiving tickets from the printer, verify the tickets physically and then to make necessary entries in the stock register. It is the primary duty and responsibility of the senior assistant clerk only in which, the petitioner has got nothing to do with. Thereafter, there was yet another officer known as Superintendent in the stock section. It is the primary duty and responsibility of the senior assistant clerk only in which, the petitioner has got nothing to do with. Thereafter, there was yet another officer known as Superintendent in the stock section. He would verify the correctness of the entry made in the stock register by physically verifying the tickets received from the printers thereby certifying that the tickets had been really received by the Corporation. Thereafter, the Superintendent will issue a certificate to the effect that so much of quantity of tickets had been received in the section. The said certificate would go to the junior accounts officer. He will again verify the certificate, initial the same and then send the same to the passing section. There is yet another Superintendent in the passing section to pass the certificates, prepare the bill and send the same to the accounts section. In the accounts section, the same after passing several tables would ultimately reach the assistant manager (accounts). If the amount claimed under a particular bill does not exceed Rs.10,000/-, the assistant manager himself will pass the bill and issue order for issuance of cheque to the printer. If the amount claimed under the bill exceeds Rs.10,000/-, then only, the bill so passed by the assistant manager (accounts) will be placed before the chief accounts officer (petitioner) for the purpose of issuing final orders. The bills so passed either by the Assistant manager (accounts) or by the Chief Accounts officer will go to another section where cheques would be prepared and the same would be handed over to the printer. This was the system admittedly followed in the corporation. 9. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner passed only two such bills, which have been marked as A8 and A9 before the enquiry officer. All the other bills related to other officials about which no reference need be made in this order. The bill under Ex.A8 reached the hands of the petitioner on 26.3.1986 and the value of the same was Rs.17,325/. The bill under Ex.A9 was also dated 26.3.1989 and the value of the same was Rs.11,500/-. The petitioner passed both the bills on 13.3.1986. Thereafter, payments were made by means of different cheques by a different section. The bill under Ex.A8 reached the hands of the petitioner on 26.3.1986 and the value of the same was Rs.17,325/. The bill under Ex.A9 was also dated 26.3.1989 and the value of the same was Rs.11,500/-. The petitioner passed both the bills on 13.3.1986. Thereafter, payments were made by means of different cheques by a different section. There is no dispute in this case that except these two bills, the petitioner did not pass any other bill, as they related to other officials, who were also put on enquiry in the same enquiry proceedings. 10. From the undisputed facts narrated above, it is crystal clear that even in respect of these two bills, except passing the bills, the petitioner had got no role to play at all. But a close reading of charges 1 to 3 would indicate that the allegation is that the petitioner passed the bills for printing charges to the printer without receiving the tickets during the years 1985-86 to 1987-88. Out of the printing charges paid to the tune of Rs.3,66,024.50, as per the evidence available, the petitioner is responsible for the payment made under the bills viz., A8 and A9 to the tune of Rs.28,825/- alone. But the enquiry officer has held the petitioner responsible for the entire amount of Rs.3,66,024.50. This is patently erroneous and the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer is based on no evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has to necessarily interfere with the said findings. 11. Even in respect of the payment made to the tune of Rs.28,825/-, as I have already stated, the petitioner admits that he passed these two bills viz., Ex.A8 and A9. But what is his contention is that he passed these two bills because there were certificates issued duly by the stock section superintendent thereby certifying that the tickets had been supplied by the printer and received in the section. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, no documents have been exhibited before the enquiry officer or before this Court indicating any duty or responsibility for the petitioner that before passing the bill, it was his duty to verify the correctness of the certificate by verifying the same with reference to the stock register and the tickets supplied by the printer. When such responsibility or duty has not been cast upon the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner can never be held responsible for the non supply of tickets by the printer. From the materials available on record, it can only be inferred that the certificates were fraudulently issued by the stock section and believing the same, the petitioner had passed the bills. When it was none of the duty or responsibility of the petitioner to verify the correctness of the same by verifying the same with the stock register in the section, holding the petitioner responsible in any manner for the payment made to the printers is ill founded. Thus in my considered opinion, regarding the charges 1 to 3, absolutely there is no evidence to hold him in any manner guilty under the Regulations of the corporation. 12. Now coming to the charges 4 to 13, the charges are very vague. No statements of allegations have been attached to the charges. Each charge runs only to one sentence alone. When the details of the allegations and the particulars of the facts were not furnished to the delinquent, it would be very difficult for him to know the exact allegation made against him. No exact charges were levelled against him so as to defend the same. It is well settled by the Honble Apex Court that the charges should be specific and precise so that the delinquent will be in a position to face the charges. Since in this case all the charges are very vague , the petitioner has not been afforded a fair enquiry and therefore, on this ground also, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner cannot be punished under charges 4 to 13 even though the charges 4 to 13 speak of various allegations. Even the enquiry officer has only held that the petitioner is guilty of negligence, whereas the charges are not for negligences. Therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer under charges 4 to 13 also cannot be sustained. 13. Even the enquiry officer has only held that the petitioner is guilty of negligence, whereas the charges are not for negligences. Therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer under charges 4 to 13 also cannot be sustained. 13. While dealing with the charges, the evidence let in before the enquiry officer and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer, this Court is conscious of the limited power of this Court while exercising its power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as this Court cannot sit as an appellate court to appraise the evidence let in before the enquiry officer to come to its own conclusion so as to substitute the same in the place of the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer, which were later on accepted by the disciplinary authority. But at the same time, it is well settled by the Apex Court more particularly in M.V. Bijlani – Vs. - Union of India and others reported in (2006, 5, SCC 88), that when the charges are so vague and that the findings of the enquiry officer are patently erroneous for want of any evidence against the delinquent, it is the duty of this Court to look into the same and to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer, which were later on accepted by the disciplinary authority. 14. Therefore, keeping in mind the limited power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as I have already narrated, if the charges are perused, evidence let in is analysed and the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer are looked out, I am sure that this Court has to hold that the petitioner is found guilty based on no evidence. In view of the above, I hold that the petitioner cannot be held guilty under any of the charges and so, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. This writ petition is allowed. No costs. 15. At this juncture, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is a civil suit filed to recover the amount from the petitioner and other officials including the printers and the same is pending on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in O.S.No. 107 of 1989. No costs. 15. At this juncture, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is a civil suit filed to recover the amount from the petitioner and other officials including the printers and the same is pending on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in O.S.No. 107 of 1989. Similarly, in respect of the very same transaction, criminal case was registered, final report was filed and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil in C.C.No. 298 of 2006. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it may be clarified that the observations made in the order are only limited to the disciplinary proceedings and the same may not influence the mind of the Courts, which are dealing with the civil suit as well as the criminal case. 16. I find justification in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, it is directed that the observations made in this order to hold the petitioner not guilty of the charges would not in any manner influence the minds of the Civil Court as well as the Criminal Court when they try the respective cases against the petitioner and others. The Courts concerned will independently assess the evidence to be let in before the Courts and decide the same in accordance with law.