What is a vague charge

17. What is a vague charge? Any charge which is deficient in the details relating to the misconduct may be described as a vague charge. Such a charge shall have the effect of vitiating the proceedings. Dismissing the appeal with cost, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Sherif, 1982(2) SLR SC 265: AIR 1982 SC 937: “3. After hearing counsel appearing for the State, we are satisfied that both the appeal Court and the High Court were right in holding that the plaintiff had no reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges levelled against him and he was prejudiced in the mattes of his defence. Only two aspects need be mentioned in this connection. Admittedly, in the chargesheet that was framed and served upon the plaintiff no particulars with regard to the date and time of his alleged misconduct of having entered Government Forest situated in P.C. Thatia District Farrukhabad and hunting a bull in that forest and thereby having injured the feeling of one community by taking advantage of his service and rank, were not mentioned. Not only were these particulars with regard to date and time of the incident not given but even the location of the incident in the vast forest was not indicated with sufficient particularity. In the absence of these plaintiffs was obviously prejudiced in the matter of his defence at the inquiry. Secondly, it was not disputed before us that a preliminary inquiry had preceded the disciplinary inquiry and during the preliminary inquiry statements of witnesses were recorded but copies of these statements were not furnished to him at the time of the disciplinary inquiry. Even the request of the plaintiff to inspect the file pertaining to preliminary inquiry was also rejected. In the face of these facts which are not disputed it seems to us very clear that both the first appeal Court and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was denied reasonable-opportunity to defend himself at the disciplinary inquiry; it cannot be gainsaid that in the absence of necessary particulars and statements of witnesses he was prejudiced in the matter of his defence. In the recent case of Anil Gilurker Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank and Anr. [JT2011(10)SC373] Decided On: 15.09.2011 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: 7. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations reproduced above would show that only vague allegations were made against the Appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the Appellant have not been mentioned.