Departmental inquiry
Guest
(Querist) 14 April 2015
This query is : Resolved
1. Whether regular hearing can take place every day basis and if not then how may days gap is admissible?
2. If a charged govt servant alleges bias against the inquiry officer after 3 1/2 months but he has not followed proper channel and has directly sent his request to reviewing Authority.and the inquiry officer & the disciplinary authority are informed by the reviewing authority to stay the proceedings then what options are left with the inquiry officer?
Guest
(Expert) 15 April 2015
First of all your query is of academic type, as it does not give description of the real problem.
Secondly, you have not mentioned whether you are a charged Government servant, inquiry officer or a disciplinary authority on whose behalf you have asked the question.
However, about your first question, regular hearing can be held continuously on day to day basis even without any break. Rest depends upon the convenience of the I.O. to spare time out of his regular day-to-day duty and the exigency of service.
So far as your second query is concerned an appropriate reply depends upon your reply to the above questions.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 15 April 2015
academic query.
Guest
(Querist) 16 April 2015
sir I am the Inquiry Officer and now the Disciplinary Authority has informed me in writing to stay the proceedings till further instructions
Guest
(Expert) 16 April 2015
You have to abide by the instructions of the disciplinary authority to stop the inquiry.
Even otherwise also, as an inquiry officer, you were obliged to stop the inquiry immediately on receipt of a copy of the representation about bias, if received, from the charged official till further instructions of the disciplinary authyority.
The C.O. can directly correspond with the disciplinary authority, who issued charge sheet against him.
Guest
(Querist) 17 April 2015
but sir the Charged officer has neither send the copy of representation either to the inquiry Officer nor to the disciplinary
authority he has directly sent the representation to the Reviewing
authority.and the reviewing authority has asked the disciplinary authority to give para wise reply of the representation by the charged officer( although both disciplinary authority & Inquiry officer do not have the copy of representation hence they have asked the reviewing authority to send a copy so that we could reply) what can be done in this regard?
although prior to this two of his representation about bias were
rejected by the disciplinary authority.
Moreover, the Charged officer is so clever that in his letter he writes copy to Disciplinary authority but he never sends such copy to the disciplinary authority? what can be done how to prove that?
as six month of inquiry will be complete in june and there is long list of 21 witness. who'll & how to check the cunning motives of the charged officer and bring it to the front?
Guest
(Expert) 17 April 2015
You have to abide by the ordders of the disciplinary or reviewing officer having no concern whether the C.O. has sent representation to the D.A. or directly to the Revewing Authority. You cannot resume inquiry without the orders of the Disciplinary Authority or his higher authority in the hierarchy of the Discipline/ inquiry rules. It is the prerogative of the Reviewing Officer to take action or not on the direct representation. The I.O. and the Disciplinary Authority can, however, make a mention in comments about not sending the representation through them. Any action depends upon the prerogative of the Reviewing Authority, wom th representation was addressed.
Comments, if sought from you as an I.O., will have to be made only on those paras, through which bias is indicated and actually are related to your own working in the capacity of an I.O., as per rules or not. You have to conduct inquiry, as an impartial authority. As a partial I.O., it is not compulsory for you to prove the articles pf charge, if not established during the inquiry proceedings.
About the deadline of 6 months, that is a part of guideline, which can be adhered in normal course, when the process of inquiry is not hindered or delayed on the part of the C.O.
Guest
(Querist) 18 April 2015
sir
can you please tell me what should have been the proper channel followed by the Charged officer to appeal against the Inquiry officer. or he can directly appeal to the reviewing authority?
and can charged govt servant challenge the order passed by the Disciplinary authority against the appeal to the reviewing authority?
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 19 April 2015
@Anita,
As IO you are expected to know the procedure of conducting the inquiry, if do not know, you should seek guidance from your seniors.
The delinquent official has to deal through proper channel with appointing authority and not reviewing authority.
Your query is vague regarding challenging the order of disciplinary authority against the appeal...????
Guest
(Querist) 19 April 2015
sir actually the question was connected with my previous querries. I am conducting an inquiry which has been stayed because the CO has alleged bias against the IO but he has not informed the IO or Disciplinary Authority. he has directly approached the Reviewing Authority for the stay?
that's why I wanted to know what should have been a proper procedure for the CO to file his appeal?
as disciplinary Authority had rejected his two previous appeal against the IO so this time he didn't inform the IO & Disciplinary Authority and the IO has been instructed directly from the superiors to stop?
Guest
(Expert) 19 April 2015
Ms. Anita manjeet Singh,
It seems you are not aware of the rules and process of departmental inquiry. Before starting inquiry, you should have gone through the rules of inquiry first. If you were not aware of the rules of inquiry, taking up the inquiry against the official was not at all justified on your part. I.O. is not required to form any opinion merely on going through the charge. It was the duty of the presenting officer on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge.
Further, about your question why the C.O. did not send his representation through proper channel or has not informed you or the D.A., it was none of the business or concern of the I.O., as you were not justified on your part to go outside the scope of duties and responsibilities of the I.O.
How the C.O. corresponds to which authority has no relevance with the duties and responsibilities of the I.O. So, your present query and insistence to know why the C.O. approached the reviewing authority direct and not going through proper channel gicves an ample hint about the element of bias against him on your part. That gives a clear indication about your inclination to prove the charge by hook or by crook or to get another charge framed against him, instead of dopting impartiality in the inquiry process.
It also seems that you were not aware of the fact that a P.O. is appointed to prove the charge on behalf of the D.A., not the I.O., with the help of documents and evidence of the witnesses in the case. The I.O. has to act as an impartial judge of the case in departmental inquiry process by hearing both sides, specially giving adequate opportunity of defence to the C.O., without any bias or prejudice equally towards the C.O. as well as the prosecution.
Naturally, if the C.O. had already represented twice against your attitude, as an I.O., and the D.A. had rejected his representation at both the occasions by not changing the I.O., that clearly indicates about bias of both the I.O. as well as the D.A. In that case, why you should expect the C.O. to send his representation through proper channel?
The. C.O. has the right to approach the D.A. directly for the purpose of justice towards him. If he does not get justice from even the D.A., he can approach the reveiwing/ appellate authority directly against the orders of the D.A.
So, there was nothing wrong on the part of the C.O. in getting himself heard by the reviewing authority. As an I.O., you should not have been worried or have any concern about how he could get the orders from the reveiwing authority. You and the D.A. both have to abide by the orders of the reviewing authority and justify your stand against the complaint of the C.O.
THERE SHOULD BE NOTHING PERSONAL IN ANY DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY CASE. ONLY NATURAL JUSTICE SHOULD BE THE AIM OF ONE AND ALL.
Guest
(Querist) 19 April 2015
thanks sir for ur valuable guidance.
sir
my querry may seem awkward but intentions were not bad. I am trying to follow the priciple of Natural justice in every possible way so as to provide the maximum possible opportunity to the deliquent to defend his case.
Guest
(Expert) 19 April 2015
Ms. Anita Manjeet Singh,
Sorry to point out, your statement, I am trying to follow the priciple of Natural justice in every possible way so as to provide the maximum possible opportunity to the deliquent to defend his case," does not match even slightly with the nature of query by insisting time and again to question about the action of the C.O. about not adopting the proer channel route.
In fact, that did not show any inclination about natural justice on your part against the C.O. Your action showed as if you were worried only about the position of the disciplinary authority, when you did not have any concern about channelling of the representation by the C.O.
Now, what should anyone think about your intentions when you have deleted your account from this site?
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 19 April 2015
Well advised by Sh. PS Dhingra, I agree.
However, account of member (Ms. Anita Manjit Singh) has been deleted and we should have ignored the query.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 23 April 2015
Expert Mr. Dhingra has given a fitting reply to the author whose account stands deleted. I fully agree with his views.
