Vague disciplinary charges and withheld material invalidate removal where fair opportunity to defend is denied.

A prior writ judgment under Article 226 had finally decided the competence of the industrial reference, and because that decision was not challenged further, the same parties were bound by it and the issue could not be reopened. On the disciplinary action, the removal order failed because the charges were mostly vague, lacking particulars of persons, acts, dates, or documents, and the supporting material was not disclosed. A later show-cause notice did not cure the earlier denial of a meaningful opportunity to answer definite charges. The Tribunal was therefore justified in setting aside the removal, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the competence of the industrial reference was barred by the finality of the earlier writ judgment; (ii) whether the order removing the employee from service was invalid because the charges were vague and the material supporting them was not disclosed, resulting in denial of a fair opportunity.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the competence of the industrial reference was barred by the finality of the earlier writ judgment.

Analysis: The earlier writ proceeding under Article 226 was an independent proceeding and the High Court had finally decided the competency of the reference. The appellant did not challenge that judgment further. Since the same parties were bound by that final decision, the issue could not be reopened in the present appeal.

Conclusion: The challenge to the competence of the reference was barred and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order removing the employee from service was invalid because the charges were vague and the material supporting them was not disclosed, resulting in denial of a fair opportunity.

Analysis: The charges, except one, were stated in general terms without particulars of persons, acts, dates, or documents. The supporting material was not furnished. Although the employee was not entitled to insist on representation by a stranger to the society, that circumstance did not cure the defect in the disciplinary process. A later show-cause notice could not make good the earlier absence of a meaningful opportunity to answer definite charges supported by disclosed material. The removal was therefore inconsistent with the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The order of removal was invalid and the Tribunal was justified in setting it aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision setting aside the removal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary removal cannot stand where the charges are vague and the material supporting them is withheld, because a fair opportunity to defend requires specific allegations and disclosure of the basis of those allegations.

---