Departmental enquiry
Guest
(Querist) 22 April 2015
This query is : Resolved
I am Inquiry officer in a inquiry the Charged officer has three times requested to postponed the preliminary hearing, which was granted still he says he cannot attend the departmental inquiry becoz he couldn't arrange a defence assistant and he is unable to defend his case.what can be done?
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 22 April 2015
@Author, issue a final notice to the Charged Officer fixing a date with a condition that if he is unable to attend on that date, necessary action will be taken as per rules and under any circumstances the inquiry will not postponed. And obtain his dated signature on the notice copy.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 23 April 2015
Send final notice to arrange for the defense.
Guest
(Expert) 23 April 2015
Don't feel handicapped on account of delaying tactics of the C.O. No extraordinarily long opportunity can be provided to the C.O. merely on his excuse of having not found the defence assistant.
Give final notice for next hearing to the C.O. to attend personally and also give clear direction to nominate his defence assistant by a specific date, failing which ex-parte inquiry would be started. If he does not nominate any defence asistant or does not present himself for inquiry, go ahead with exparte hearings and continue with the inquiry as per procedure. He may join the inquiry proceedings any time, but inquiry would continue from the previous state.
P. Venu
(Expert) 23 April 2015
It is not necessary that preliminary hearing be rescheduled if the CO fails to appear. The IO is empowered to allow the PO to present the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge and adjourn the case for the regular hearing after recording the order allowing the CO to inspect, within the time specified, the documents produced by the PO and also submit the list of defence witnesses and to give notice for the discovery or production of additional documents, if any, required.
You may adopt the above procedure if the CO fails to appear next time and communicate the Daily Order Sheet to the CO.
Guest
(Querist) 23 April 2015
Thanks experts
one more querry whether husband & wife can be Inquiry officer & presenting officer?
Guest
(Expert) 23 April 2015
Although rules are silent on the issue, but both husband and wife, if become I.O. & P.O. in the same case, the position of the I.O. can become vulnerable and finger can be raised any time against the I.O. by the defence side to declare him biased.
Guest
(Querist) 23 April 2015
what if authority have reasons and no options other than to appoint husband & wife as IO & PO?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 April 2015
As far as adjournment of arrangeing DA is concerned, it is clear that arranging suitable DA for first time chargehseeted person is indeed a tough task.
You may give adjournment if the request appears reasonable to you.
As far as husband and wife being IO and PO is cornered, you will not get any precedence because such matter did not perhaps crop up.
I will carry forward the view of Mr DHingra in this regard. It is settled principle that JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DONE.
Presenting Officer has a duty to prove charge and it enhances his/her professional repute and chances of getting further assignment (which is remunerated). It enhances his/her acceptability on posting in the field of disciplinary and vigilance matters which paves a way for enhanced chances of deputation.
If the spuce is IO then the bias allegation (even if not there) is writ large. The IO has a motivation to enhance profession reputation of spouce.
Normally the accused should raise bias allegation at the earliest stage. In such case he can successfully feign ignorance of fact husband and wife being IO/PO (till the time it suit him) and any time raise the bias at any stage during (or after) Inquiry. He can claim that it is only now I learn about the fact.
The deptt is giving undated cheque to him. At presently the administration may be just thinking to be safe as there is no positive rule against husband wife being IO/PO. Unmindful of the fact that this case is going to creat a rule.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 April 2015
Further based and my experience in the field I just cannot agree to the sentence that
"authority have reasons and no options other than to appoint husband & wife as IO & PO? "
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 24 April 2015
Very well explained and advised by the experts, I agree.
Issue final fresh date, even then if the charge sheeted official seeks adjournment and you are not convinced, disallow his request and proceed ex-parte, nothing wrong/invalid.
It shall be advisable to avoid the husband-wife to be appointed and function as IO and PO of the inquiry, which shall be another ground available to the delinquent officer for proving the inquiry as biased, do not invite complicacy and/or embracement.
P. Venu
(Expert) 24 April 2015
The profile of the queriest reveals that he is a non-Gazetted official and it is impossible that he has been appointed the IO; only Gazetted officers are appointed as the IOs. Obviously, the queriest is the CO i.e. the one facing the disciplinary proceedings. It is unfortunate that he is playing hide and seek instead of making a true and full disclosure of the problems he is facing.
Please note that the provisions of the CCS(CCA)Rules impose the mandatory requirement to hold the preliminary hearing within 20 working days of the receipt of the order of appointment of the IO. The failure of the CO to attend the preliminary hearing makes no difference - the inquiry is to be set in motion as the CO has not pleaded guilty.
If the IO & PO happen to be husband and wife, the CO can represent.
However, the approach of the queriest suggests that he is less than forthright even in seeking assistance from this forum.
Guest
(Expert) 24 April 2015
Mr. Rigzin Lamo,
Now your query, "what if authority have reasons and no options other than to appoint husband & wife as IO & PO," makes the query quite irrelevant and hypothetical. Do you think that except the husband and wife there are no other employees to be considered for appointment of I.O. or a P.O.?
Please don't stretch the thread unjustifiably too far, if you don't have any problem in reality pertaining to the appointment of the I.O. and the P.O.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 April 2015
I generalle the plea eto agree with the view of Mr P Venu.
However in the instant case I am forced to express different views.
In the first instance the queries has not given any material to indicate that CCS(CC&A) Rules apply to his organisation.
Further, there is absolutely no limitation in the CCS(CC&A) rules to stipulate that the IO should be gazetted officer only. Many non-gazetted officers act as IOs. Some non-gazetted posts are quite senior.
Rather rules do not even stipulate the IO or PO or both need to be Govt employees.
Further the time limits laid down in Rule 14 of CCS(CC&A) Rules, are minimum period which is open to be extended by the IO on his discretion. I have never seen any PE being completed within 20 days in any case where I had been IO / PO or Defence Asstt.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 April 2015
carrying forward the view of Mr Dhingra, I would add that if really the deptt has no other persons to be appointed as IO/PO. and if they are not able to secure services of other deptt and if they are not able to afford a retired officer or lawyer to be appointed as IO / PO then they should drop the case here itself.
Guest
(Querist) 25 April 2015
sir plz dont be sarcastic
task in defence institutions are assigned according to seniority and six people before the IO were on either one or the other assignment or on leave due to domestic reasons. and seventh & eight position was held by husband & wife.hence both were appointed IO/PO.
moreover while deciding the case for bias the procedure followed & order passed during the departmental inquiry will be seen or that it was handled by husband & wife will be seen?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 April 2015
I have handled scores of the cases of such institutions in different capacity.
I hold the view still there can be no compulsion to appointment husband and wife as IO and PO unless to be done so by ego.
Anyway good help to the delinquent.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 25 April 2015
"moreover while deciding the case for bias the procedure followed & order passed during the departmental inquiry will be seen or that it was handled by husband & wife will be seen? "
JUSTICE SHOULD NOT ONLY BE DONE BUT SHOULD ALSO APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DONE.
IO BEING SPOUSE OF PO BIAS IS WRIT LARGE EVEN IF THE PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED CORRECTLY (WHICH IS RARE)
Even seasoned and well trained IOs also commit errors which help the accused.
Guest
(Expert) 25 April 2015
Mr. Rigzin Lamo,
Through your idiotic type of vague questions, which you have posted subsequently after your initial query has nade me believe that you do not have any problem in reality, but has posted your cademic queries.
In fact you have been stretching the thread unduly too far, as if you wanted to extract replies just to solve some of your academic exercise.
The question arises, where the stage of decision has come to make you know, whether the case for bias would be seen on the procedure followed & order passed during the departmental inquiry or that it was handled by husband & wife?
Question arises, have you stated anywhere earlier about the status of the I.O. & the P.O. and the background for appointment of husband and wife as the I.O. & the P.O.? So on what ground you have preferred to allege of being sarcastic?
MOREOVER, YOUR ORIGINAL QUERY WAS ABOUT DELAY/ POSTPONEMENT OF INQUIRY, WHILE YOU HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY POSTED TOTALLY UNRELATED AND IRRELEVANT QUESTION OF HUSBND AND WIFE BEING I.O. & P.O.?
In fact, you should have been careful to discuss the real problem, which you are actually facing now, not assumptions of the future or the handicapped of the disciplinry authority. You have also intimated anywhere whether besides you as an I.O., your wife is also acting as a P.O. in the case. You have also not stated anywhere if the C.O. has raised any objection about the husband & wife being I.O. & P.O.
So, your query, "what if authority have reasons and no options other than to appoint husband & wife as IO & PO," by all means is premature, academic and vague in nature.
Even on that question I made you aware of the likelihood of your being treated as biased. But still you continued with the thread by raising another supplementary and vague query, "what if authority have reasons and no options other than to appoint husband & wife as IO & PO," which was quite uncalled for. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE OPENED TUTORIALS FOR YOU TO TEACH YOU THE INQUIRY PROCEDURE AND THE PROS & CONS OF THE HUSBAND AND WIFE BEING THE I.O. & P.O. IN A CASE.
THE MORE PATHETIC SITUATION SEEMS PREVALENT IN YOUR OFFICE, IF BEING A CLERK YOU HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS AN I.O. OF THE CASE, WHICH CANNOT BE EXPECTED, EXCEPT FROM SOME IDIOTIC TYPE OF OFFICER OF YOUR ORGANISATION.
MOREOVER, DO YOU ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TIME JUST TO WASTE ON YOUR VAGUE QUERIES AND THEN BE TREATED AS SARCASTIC IF POINT OUT TO YOU THE VAGUENESS OF YOUR QUERIES?
If you intend to get lessons on the inquiry process from any of us, you must also be prepared to pay the fee for a course specially designed for you. Otherwise, your initial query already stands resolved and you did not have any right to raise unrelated vague queries, if you did not have any problem to face.
DON'T BE THANKLESS FOR THE SERVICE BEING PROVIDED TO YOU FREE OF COST BY THE EXPERTS HERE, WHICH OTHERWISE YOU DON'T DESERVE, AS PER MY OPINION.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 26 April 2015
I fully agree with expert advise and opinion of Mr. PS Dhingra.
I would like to add that there is no such dearth of military commissioned/civilian gazetted officers to be appointed as IO and PO in any of the Defence institutions (especially where civilian staff is employed). Moreover, as a SOP on the issue, department/institution/depot or a unit have never appointed husband and wife on the same inquiry. Besides this, a clerk, is never competent and allowed/assigned either as IO or PO for a DE; very strange, unbelievable, ridiculous and idiotic situation has been posted by the author.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
you said
"task in defence institutions are assigned according to seniority and six people before the IO were on either one or the other assignment or on leave due to domestic reasons. and seventh & eight position was held by husband & wife.hence both were appointed IO/PO."
Such nonsence argument is not likely to be bought by any court.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
refer
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/promotion-534836.asp#.VTxLwvCuoVo
In that thread you have stated that
"as per CCS(CCA) Rule Departmental promotion should be held after every six months. "
this clearly and unboudtendly indicates that you are yet to open the book CCS(CC&A) Rules.
You are advised to read rule 14
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
refer
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/enquiry-534811.asp
in that thread you have confessed that it is not your problem and you are not IO you are asking friend's problem.
Why your friend who is incompetent to do job of IO is consulting you a further incompetent person.
This is another irregularity that IO is not exercising his mind ant taking help of a person who himself does not know the rules. You are giving a proof of this irregularity on open net.
Your own knowledge of CCS(CC&A) Rule is that "as per CCS(CCA) Rule Departmental promotion should be held after every six months."
Guest
(Expert) 26 April 2015
Mr. Sudhir,
In this very thread he has stated, "I am Inquiry officer in a inquiry," whereas you have found his contradictory statements in other threads specifically in the thread:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/enquiry-534811.asp
Hope, you are now convinced that he is just trying to make fools of the experts through his own contradictory statements in different threads.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
Mr Dhingra.
Such like persons are not new on this forum. He though trying to make of fool of himself but is proving himself to be one.
Guest
(Querist) 26 April 2015
thanks experts
nothing to say more when you don't want to solve the problem rather object and give personal comments on the querriest.
i know my fault was to discuss two three people's problem simultaneously but I BELIEVED YOU PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO SOLVE ANY AMBIGUITY PERTAINING TO THE CASE. THANKYOU VERY MUCH ITS BETTER I CONSULT A BOOK RATHER THAN EXPERTS WHO WOULD GIVE PERSONAL COMMENTS RATHER THAN SOLUTIONS.
THANKS A LOT
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
You have not projected any problem worth a solution.
You asked about adjournment for appointment of DA. You were advised.
You asked priority of husband and wife being IO PO you were told it is not proper and you raised compulsion of administration and you were told that it is not a tenable argument.
You asked who can summon witnesses, you were told top see rule. Without reading rule you cannot act as IO successfully.
You never said that you have no problem and projecting problem of 2-3 persons without giving facts of either case.
This is a legal forum where legal experts given opinion based on facts before them and will not imagine facts on your behalf.
Guest
(Querist) 26 April 2015
INCONVENIENCE CAUSED IS GREATLY REGRETTED
THANKS FOR UR VALUABLE TIME
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
No inconvenience is caused by you.
We have decided to spare our personal time, electricity, net charges for charity. SO such like reactions like yours is not new.
But most of the persons give real problem with facts get a solution and are thankful.
Guest
(Expert) 26 April 2015
Mr. Rgzin Lamo or whosoever you are,
When you were bent upon cheating even the experts community, from whom you desired help, I wonder, how can you justify your statement, "when you don't want to solve the problem rather object and give personal comments on the querriest."
Why anyone should like to help a person who prefers impersonation and is not sincere with even those from whome he/she expects help. As per your profile, you are a clerk, but you have stated in another thread pertaining to the "inquiry" that you are a Group-B officer, as can be seen in the following link:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Enquiry-534811.asp
How & why anyone should believe you and your statements?
I apprehend that you have created a new profile just recently on 22 April 2015 after you deleted your earlier profile after your bias was pointed out. In a similar fashion as in your another query, you have raised query about the C.O. having not approaching the higher authorities through proper channel. As a proof, your query on the thread noted above is repeated below:
YOUR QUERY:
"According to CCS(CCA)not following channel while preferring an appeal can lead to disciplinary action is the same is possible in case of Disciplinary inquiry if the charged officer do not follow a proper channel while making a representation aginst the order passed by the Disciplinary authority about change of IO?"
In a simiar fashion, you have classified your query in "OTHERS" instead of posting in the right category.
When you don't even have elementary knowledge about service matters, I wonder, with what capability of yours or with what intentions of the disciplinary authority you have been appointed as an Inquiry Officer that anybody can guess.
All these instances clearly finger towards not only your prejudiced actions towards the employee, but also your deceiptful nature towards even the experts from whom you are desirous of getting help. Not even that, even you don't desist from making sarcastic remarks against those who try to guide you rationally in the interest of natural justice, as if you treat the experts your slaves and expect then to suggest you what relishes you the best.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 April 2015
Agreeing with Mr Dhingra I would add that there is a difference between personal views and personal experience.
Whatever I expressed is based on knowledge of rules and log experience in dealing with disciplinary matter in many organisation and primarily for Defence Civilians (whose case, if you are true, dealing for the first and last time).
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 April 2015
fresh thread at
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/false-allegation-535496.asp#.VUIuDvCupVI
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 01 May 2015
Experts Mr. Sudhir Kumar and Mr. Dhingra have very correctly identified the author's mischief, not only in his thread but also by extracting information from other threads of the author. The rightly observed that the author does not deserves any opinion to his false claims and his thankless behavior with the experts.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 02 May 2015
In one of his thread he has given justification of appointing husband wife as IO/PO which is a good piece of comedy.
Facts narrated by him do lead to irresistible conclusions expressed by Mr Dhingra.
