C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
(Selective Judgments )
1. The preliminary investigation/enquiry
is held when a complaint is received against a particular worker that he has committed
a misconduct, but it is doubtful whether the complaint is true or not and it is
desired that some investigation should be made to decide whether to proceed
with the complaint or to drop the same. Sometimes, even when it is known that
some misconduct is committed, it may not be known as to who has committed the
same for example, in case of theft, sabotage, damage to property. In such
misconducts, it can only be found out after investigation whether any person
can be said to be responsible and whether there is sufficient material to
proceed against him.
The object of preliminary
investigation is not to punish an employee but only to decide whether a regular
inquiry proceeding to punish him should be initiated.
[Champaklal v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1584.]
2. An employee cannot be punished on the
basis of preliminary inquiry report
An officer cannot be punished on the
findings of a preliminary investigation, without holding a disciplinary action
after serving a charge sheet.
[Amalendu Ghosh v. N.E.F. Railway, AIR 1960 SC 992.]
3. Preliminary inquiry is not
quasi-judicial in character
The preliminary inquiry is not
governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
[A.G.Benjamin v. Union of India, (1967) 1 LLJ 718; (1967) 15 FLR 347 (S.C.)]
4. Preliminary inquiry may be held behind
the back of the accused Government servant (ex parte)
If a confidential inquiry is made of
preliminary nature for initiating disciplinary proceedings then the accused
employee is not entitled to any show-cause notice.
[R.P. Sinha v. State of Bihar 1983 Lab IC 700 (Patna).]
5. A preliminary enquiry to frame the
charges can be held ex parte
(Nagendra Kumar Roy v. Port Commissioner, Calcutta, AIR 1955 Cal. 56.]
If the Superintendent of Police
received an anonymous complaint against one of the subordinates and he wanted
to find out before dropping out the matter whether it had any vestige of truth,
then he was not bound to hold an inquiry in the presence of the subordinate
officer.
[Md. Umar v. I.G. Police, (1957) 2 LLJ 470; AIR 1957 ALL. 767.]
6. In such inquiries the delinquent has
no right to be questioned about any material gathered at this stage. He has
also no right to say that he is being condemned behind his back because he is
not being condemned at all; but what is being done is that the superior
authority is endeavouring for its own satisfaction whether there is any
justification for holding a regular inquiry.
[Bhanu Prasad v. State, AIR 1956 Sau.14; Md. Shareef v. Onkar Singh, AIR 1957 All. 217.]
7. Though it might be necessary in such
inquiries to get the explanation of Government servant also, he has no right to
be associated with the preliminary inquiry either under the rules or the
principles of natural justice.
[Ram Singh v. State of Punjab, 67 FLR 763.]
8. Since preliminary inquiry can be held
ex parte no one is bound to attend preliminary inquiry against him. If he does
not attend it, then it can be held ex parte and the person concerned will have
to bear the consequences. It cannot, however, be said that he was guilty of
wilful. disobedience or of an act subversive of discipline.
[Calcutta Port Commissioner v. Workmen Gaz. of India, Pt. 2.5.3.(ii), dated the 25th January, 1964.]
9. Preliminary inquiry is not a must
Even though the rules provide for a
preliminary inquiry that is of a very informal type to enable the
Superintendent to decide whether on the materials before him, any further
action is worthwhile, but when the facts are not in dispute, the omission to
hold preliminary inquiry will not be fatal to subsequent proceedings. The
preliminary inquiry is not in the interest of the delinquent officer but for
the satisfaction of the Department.
[A.N. Singh v. Addl. Supdt. of Police, AIR 1960 All. 304]
10. Preliminary inquiry is no substitute
for departmental inquiry
An officer holding a preliminary
inquiry may observe the principles of natural justice and permit the charged
employee to cross-examine the employer's witnesses and also to produce his
defence. Even though full opportunity might have been given to the charged
employee at the preliminary stage it does not waive the requirement of
affording the said opportunity after a formal charge-sheet is given and it
cannot be said to be merely a duplication and is not, therefore, necessary. A
formal departmental inquiry becomes unnecessary only if the delinquent employee
makes a full confession during preliminary stage, otherwise the formal inquiry
cannot be dispensed with.
[J.N. Biswas v. Superintendent of
Police, AIR 1954 Cal. 383; Meghraj V. State AIR 1956 Raj. 28 (DB).]
Selective judgements of preliminary investigation inspiring sir
ReplyDelete