Duties and liabilities of enquiry officer in departmental enquiry
CHANDAN CHAKRABORTY
(Querist) 29 July 2014
This query is : Resolved
The Enquiry Officer violates the principles of Natural Justice and does not give reasonable opportunity to the Chargesheeted Officer to defend himself in the departmental Enquiry. He openly gives out threat and records such threat in the proceedings. The Enquiry Report was biased and has culminated in punishment. On appeal, the Chargesheeted Officer was absolved of all the charges.
In such circumstances, can the Chargesheeted Officer initiate proceedings against the Enquiry Officer ? And what are the liabilities of the Enquiry Officer - under civil laws and criminal laws ?
Guest
(Expert) 29 July 2014
Legally, you cannot sue the inquiry officer, as defective inquiry is the part of administrative process. However for not observing the set inquiry procedure under discipline rules of the organisation, he can at the most be made liable for disciplinary action to be instituted against him by his own disciplinary authority. So, you can report to his disciplinary authority or the vigil;amce/legal wing of your organisation. However, if you are in Government service, you can also approach to CVC.
However, if you can prove some personal bias or prejudice of the I.O. against you and you have been made to suffer intentionally with the financial loss or peronal reputation, you may try for claiming of damages by filing an application in the court of law.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 29 July 2014
when threats were recorded in the proceedings then why you have not raised bias allegation then and there.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 29 July 2014
Before thinking of any action against Inquiry Officer then you have to get the report quashed.
As on now the competent authority (as told by you) has accepted the report.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 July 2014
Perfectly advised by the expert PS Dhingra ji, agree to it.
Guest
(Expert) 29 July 2014
Mr. Sudhir Kumar,
Your observation, "before thinking of any action against Inquiry Officer then you have to get the report quashed," does not seem to be relevant when the querist has already mentioned that "On appeal, the Chargesheeted Officer was absolved of all the charges."
By the way, in what manner do you think the report of the I.O. can be quashed in the case of a departmental inquiry, if that can be by any way other than an appeal to the appellate authority?
Guest
(Expert) 29 July 2014
Rajendra ji,
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 29 July 2014
Yes, no action lies against the Enquiry officer.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 29 July 2014
But CVC has may not come forward to help in such case.
One has to see entire proceedings and appellate order to come to a conclusion whether at all any action can be tenable against the IO.
Guest
(Expert) 30 July 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
You have not replied my specific query, "in what manner do you think the report of the I.O. can be quashed in the case of a departmental inquiry, if that can be by any way other than an appeal to the appellate authority?"
Moreover, I have not mentioned CVC in my query addressed to you. So, your observation that "CVC may not come forward to help in such case" has neither any relevance to my specific query addressed to you, nor is based on any rule or instructions of the Government of India.
Do you think CVC is bound to ignore any such compaint, if made against the I.O., without calling for the report of the CVO of the organisation on the pointed irregularities, or is specifically barred from directing the disciplinary authority to take disciplinary action on the errant inquiry officer, or if the harassed official is barred from taking up case of bias or prejudice of the I.O. with the CVC under any provision of the rules of Government of India?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 July 2014
He has stated that he was exonerated in the Appeal. Such exoneration happen in scores of cases and in each case IO is not adjudged guilty. If it was a mere case of IO not providing opportunity the case could have been under rule 15 remanded back to the same of different IO.
Unless one see the Appellate order no definite view can be formed regarding the irregularities (what the author says as threats) recorded). It is not clear if the exoneration is on the defective charges or due to IO's follies.
So threads for considering actions again the IO can be seen only in Appellate order.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 July 2014
Re : role of CVC
CVC generally does not interfere where it feels that the irregularity is of administrative in nature (or atleast can be dubbed so).
However even if CVC is not approached or does not take action it is not true that the victim is barred from taking action.
So threads for considering actions again the IO (without/without CVC) can be seen only in Appellate order.
In this case the author has not even stated :-
(i) what were the charges.
(ii) what threats were recorded.
(iii) whether bias allegation was raised on the first available opportunity.
(iv) what were findings of IO
(v) what was submitted against IO report.
(vi) what was the decision of the DA.
(vii)what are the finding of the Appellate Authority.
Guest
(Expert) 30 July 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
Don't try to sidetrack the issue. You have still mot replied my specific query, "in what manner do you think the report of the I.O. can be quashed in the case of a departmental inquiry?"
Was not your post sufficient to mislead and confuse the mind of the querist by stating that, "before thinking of any action against Inquiry Officer then you have to get the report quashed," when you have not yet provided a solution how he could get the report of I.O. quashed and from whom?
By the way, when his appeal has already been decided in his favour, in what purpose your sidetracking queries are likely to serve, like --
"(i) what were the charges."
"(ii) what threats were recorded."
"(iii) whether bias allegation was raised" "on the first available opportunity."
"(iv) what were findings of IO"
"(v) what was submitted against IO report."
"(vi) what was the decision of the DA."
"(vii)what are the finding of the Appellate Authority."
Guest
(Expert) 30 July 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
Any decision on an individual appeal does not adjudge any authority to be guilty even if he is actually guilty. Apeal has to be decided on merits of that particular case in favour or against the applicant. Any case cannot be two-in-one to make hodge-podge of the issues. It is up to the querist to complain and prove the guilt of the I.O. If the charged officer/official observed any guilt that can be a separate case to be investigated separately against the I.O. I suppose, you very well know that even on complaint against the I.O., a case cannot be lauched against him without proper investigation, which takes its own time.
I really wonder, if you believe that the I.O. can be charged merely on the ground that his name appeared in the appeal with allegation of bias or being prejudiced without making any investigation on the issue and without any specific complaint.
However, if you still believe that action against IO can be seen only in Appellate order, can you please quote any rule of the CCS (CCA) Rules or any other rule of the Government of India or any state, which prescribes that if the I.O. is alleged to have done anything wrong or the Disciplinary Authority punishes any official without any offence, the proposed action against them should also be included in the decision of the appellate authority on the appeal, itself?
Mr. Sudhir, here we are supposed to provide solutions to the affected persons, not to create confusions in the mind of the victims. But, I find, you tried only to confuse the victim.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 July 2014
If the larger experience of Mr Dhingra overweights me the I have no remedy.
However my humble experience in disciplinary matters (including in CVC) compels me not to express any (+)/(-)views on the culpability of the IO without knowledge of the points which I raised. These facts as per my wisdom (though lesser than Mr Dhingra) are essential to understand the whole case.
in case either IO or DA happens to be of a powerful service then his exoneration can be re-opened under Rule 29 and he may be fighting in court and enriching layers for the remaining part of his life. He may win in Supreme Court and have his name in the text books.
Guest
(Expert) 30 July 2014
Mr. Sudhir,
Still you try to sidetrack the issue extensively. I never raised the question of (+)/(-)views on the culpability of the IO. My specific point of issue was "how the querist could get the report of the I.O. quashed." But you have not replied so far even on repeatedly asking.
About your reply, "these facts (pertaining to your 7 queries) ...... are essential to understand the whole case." while the querist just asked, "can the Chargesheeted Officer initiate proceedings against the Enquiry Officer? And what are the liabilities of the Enquiry Officer - under civil laws and criminal laws? So, you can well understand, where is need for knowing all the facts about all the processes ranging from IO's proceedings to the decision of the Appellate Authority, where the querist has asked merely for ruling or law position to proceed against the I.O.?
Now, if you have not tried to sidetrack the issue, from where the question of revision under Rule 29 cropped up, when appeal had already been allowed/oreferred in the case and the appellate authority had already disposed of such appeal. By undue reference of the said rule, you have tried to do nothing, except causing undue panic to the querist by stating, "he may be fighting in court and enriching lawyers for the remaining part of his life." You may better review, for yourself, your own knowledge whether rule 29 is attracted in the case or not when appeal had already been allowed to and preferred by the C.O..
Further, by apprising me about your experience in CVC, I am reminded just about the negative attitude of the CVC. As per my experience CVC play the role of catalyst instead of an analyst in most of the cases without going through the facts and merits of the case.
