1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -55
Appointment of Inquiry Officer
220. Though the disciplinary authority can hold the inquiry himself also, it is customary to appoint another officer to hold inquiry and submit report to him. The Supreme Court has held that it is desirable that the inquiry officer so appointed holds a rank higher to the charged officer (Pankajesh v. Tulsi Gramin Bank, (1997)7 SCC 68)
221. Consequent upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, W.P (Cri) No. 173-177/1999 decided on 26.4.2004, the Government of India amended Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to the effect that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule 3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority.
222. The person appointed to hold inquiry must have an open mind and be impartial in the subject matter of inquiry. He must not have any personal knowledge of the matter and thus be in position of a witness (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86]. Another essential requirement is that he must not be a person who has prejudged the issues, In one case, where an officer who held the preliminary inquiry and had expressed a definite opinion stating that the accused employee was in fact guilty and deserved to be dismissed after holding an inquiry, the Andhra Pradesh Court held that the officer was not qualified to hold regular inquiry [Narayana Rao v. State, AIR 1958 A.P. 636).
223. In case of, (a) Group ‘A’ Officers of the Central Government; (b) specified officers of the Corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and other local authorities, owned or controlled by the Central Government, inquiry may be entrusted to a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries under the Central Vigilance Commission.
Post a Comment