Supreme Court emphasizes charge-framing focus on alleged misconduct, not truth. Timelines set for enquiry and disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court overturned the Administrative Tribunal's decision to set aside a charge memo issued to an Inspector of Police, emphasizing that the focus at the charge-framing stage should be on whether the charges disclose alleged misconduct, not on their truth. The Court directed the enquiry to proceed within eight months and disciplinary action within three months thereafter.

---

---

Issues involved:
The validity of a charge memo challenged on grounds of vagueness.

Summary:
The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was implicated in a raid where incriminating material suggested misconduct. A charge memo was issued, but the respondent challenged its validity due to vagueness. The Administrative Tribunal set aside the charge memo, citing vagueness of charges. The Supreme Court emphasized that at the charge-framing stage, the focus should be on whether the charges disclose alleged misconduct, not on their truth. The Court overturned the Tribunal's decision, directing the enquiry to proceed within eight months and disciplinary action within three months thereafter.

---