Hamza Abdussalam (T-C) 07 January 2012

Disciplinary proceedings ccs cca 1965

In a departmental enquiry under rule14 for major penalty a prosecution witness during the course of hearing deposed that the Inquiry officer(I.O) is the president of his association,i.e a rival association of the charged employee. The charged employee(C.E) raised a point in the defense/reply brief. The I.O in his inquiry report opined that objection by the C.E should have been raised right at the time of deposition by PW (When it came to the knowledge of the C.E that the I.O is the president of a rival association and he would be biased & will cause prejudice and should not have waited till filing defense brief) rejected the said reference as belated.The Disciplinary authority (D.A) upheld the view expressed in the inquiry report of the I.O when the C.E raised it in his representation against the report of enquiry. Is there any case precedence for the above situation favouring the C.E?

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate) 08 January 2012

Allegation o fbias should have been raised at the earliest time. You have a created a very serious shortocming in your defence. You would have been better heard had bias petition been moved by you (even if rejected) immediatley when the siad witness deposed. The decision of the IO and DA is sustainable in eye of law. This is a common mistake that the charged officers do. When their Def Asstt advise for bias petiton at appropriate time, they do not agree for the fear of annoyance of IO and repent when the Io had shown bias and protected due to non-raising of the plea in time. However if the IO was really biased either he would have followed the procedure meticolously or would have left many loopholes which can be basis of appear to Appellate Authority under rule 27. Please get such appeal drafted by knowledgeable person.