Subject:- Drafting of charge sheet.

     Inadequate skill in drafting the charge sheet is one of the reasons, which help the charged officials to get away with lapses/misconduct committed by them.  Many cases fail before the Courts of Law just because of the defective framing of charge sheets. It has been observed by the Commission that the charge sheets are sometimes framed in a very general way and the existing practice with regard to framing of charges and imputations vary widely. Sometimes the charge itself is  framed in a very general way,  only pointing out that the official concerned has acted in an unbecoming manner or has shown lack of devotion to duty or has acted without integrity.  The real issues, in such circumstances, are to be found in the statement of imputations.  It has also been observed by the Commission that the Organisations/Ministries etc. while framing the charge sheets list serious irregularities/charges in the imputations but do not mention the same in the articles of charge.  Many a times the charges are not framed in accordance with the advice given by the Commission, thereby diluting the central issues.

      2. Rule 14(3)(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules stipulates that "the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into distinct articles of charge"  should be drawn up by the against a Government servant.  This would mean that no charge can be proper or complete of the allegations/imputations.  Therefore, the spirit of all conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules imply that there should be a specific finding on each allegation made against the officer.  At the end, the 10 must then apply his mind to come to conclusion as to whether the charge as a whole has been proved wholly, partially or not at all.

      3. It has to be understood that the statement of imputations/allegations annexed are supplementary/supportive material to the charge sheet they are details of facts/evidence to support the charges  made, and should contain names of witnesses/documents in support of the charges.  That is, the statement of imputations is to make the basis of the charge, allegation-wise precise and specific and should include details of what exactly each witness/documents is going to prove regarding every charge.  Each charge should also have a separate statement of imputations of misbehavious/misconduct. The common failing of listing out one long statement of misconduct/misbehaviour out to be avoided.

       4. The Commission has also issued instructions earlier which are reproduced in Para 14.1 to 14.3 of Chapter X of Vigilance Manual Part I stipulating that the articles of charge should be framed  have also been indicated therein.  Similarly, the common  mistakes, which have been noticed by the Commission in   framing the charge sheet, have also been incorporated in Para 12.13 of the special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Banks and Para 20.1.3 in the Special chapter in PSEs.  These are reproduced below:-

"Special care has to be taken while drafting a charge sheet. A charge of lack of devotion of duty or integrity or unbecoming    conduct  should be clearly  spelt out and summarised in the Articles of charge.  It should be remembered that ultimately the 10 would be required to give  his specific findings only on the Articles as they appear in the charge sheet. The Courts have struck down charge sheets on account of the charges framed being general or vague (S.K. Raheman Vs State of Orissa 60 CLT 419).  If the charge is that the employee acted out of an ulterior motive that motive must be specified (Uttar Prasesh Vs Salig Ram AIR 1960 All 543). Equally importantly, while drawing a charge sheet, special care should be taken in the use of language to ensure that the guilt of the charged official is not pre-judged or  pronounced upon in categorical terms  in advance (Meena Jahan Vs Deputy Director, Tourism 1947 2SLR 466 Cal).  However, the statement merely of a hypothetical or tentative conclusion of guilt in the charge, will not vitiate the charge sheet (Dinabandhu Rath Vs State of Orrisa AIR 1960 Orissa 26 cf.   Also Powari Tea state Vs. Barkataki (M.K.) 1965 Lab LJ 102)".

        5. Notwithstanding the extant instruction/guidelines many orgnisations continue to make avoidable mistakes while framing the charge sheets. Therefore, it is reiterated that the extant instructions on the subject as stated in the aforesaid paras may be followed carefully while drafting the charge sheet, in order to avoid subsequent difficulties.  The CVOs of the Organisations/Ministries ect. should ensure that these instructions are implemented scrupulously.

       6. In addition as already summarised above, an 10 is required to give his finding in respect of each article of charge and reasons thereof.  As the articles of charge are definite and distinct substance of the statement  of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, the findings on each articles of charge have to be inter-alias based on statement of imputations.  Therefore, the Inquiry officers are required to record their findings in respect of each allegation framed in support of an article of charge in order to ensure that in inquiry reports do not suffer due to deficiencies.

      7.   All CVOs may ensure strict compliance of the above instructions, CVOs are also instructed to carry out an exercise on their own in respect of cases where the Commission has tendered its first stage advice  to ensure that the articles of charge and statement of imputations are in conformity with the advice.  The CVOs of Ministries can also check charge sheets in a random manner during their visits/inspection.

       8.  This instruction is available in the website of CVV at http://CVC.nic.in

                                                                                                                                             
                                                     (N.VITTAL)
                                                    CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION