- (1.)The question for consideration is whether a domestic inquiry in which the charges are vague in that they do not particularise the allegations of misconduct, is vitiated by reason of such vagueness
(2.)The petitioner K. Ramani was appointed as the Secretary of the Service Cooperative Society Limited, Karuvatta, whose President is the respondent No. 1 to this petition. Suspicion of misconduct resulted in her suspension from service on 28-10-1969, She did not appear at the inquiry. She was dismissed from service. However, on her application, an industrial dispute I.D. No. 13 of 1980 as to the validity of her dismissal was referred to the Labour Court, Quilon on 7-5-1980. Evidence was recorded. There were 20 charges against the petitioner. The charge Nos. 4, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 16 were held not proved.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that none of the charges ever told the petitioner, what accusation was she expected to meet at the trial and that therefore the inquiry by the Labour Court and the Enquiry officer is vitiated.
The charge No. 1 is that the society's records were not "written properly, truly and correctly". It is not alleged that the petitioner did not maintain the records properly. The charge is worded in passive voice. What was not written properly has not been stated. Did she fail to write the dates correctly, did she neglect to write the account books correctly, or did she omit to maintain the vouchers correctly. The "record" complains nothing. Total absence of particulars.

The second charge is that "the amounts received in the society were entered without correctly writing receipts and is utilised for her own use and only when the President of the committee questioned they were entered". Again, what amounts were received and on what dates, are not mentioned. What is meant by not writing correctly Whether the entries were false, whether they did not represent the correct transaction, is not stated. No one can make out what the maker of the charges meant to convey.

The third charge "huge amounts were kept in hand as balance cash against the society's byelaws and committee decision etc". What were the amounts that were kept, which byelaws were violated, which decisions of the committee were ignored, is not clear. The delinquent is not expected to issue interrogatories and find out what exactly the charge meant.

;