1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -189
797. Failure to furnish copy of written brief of Presenting Officer to charged Government servant constitutes denial of reasonable opportunity and renders proceedings invalid. (Collector of Customs vs. Mohd. Habibul Haque, 1973 (1) SLR Cal 321]
798. Basic Requirements for Appraisal of Evidence which cannot be whittled down by Inquiring Authority
Evidence behind the Charged Official's back is flagrant violation of the Principle of Natural Justice.
Inquiring Authority cannot rely on his own evidence.
799.Use of personal knowledge by Inquiring Authority is a serious irregularity. Conclusion/findings must rest on the evidence on record and not matters outside the record.
800. No misreading of evidence.
Findings based on conjectures and flight of imagination of Inquiring Authority and imaginary reasoning would indicate total non-application and misapplication of the mind by the Inquiring Authority and cannot be sustained in the court of law.
Report which is mere reproduction of allegation and summarised version of Presenting Officer and Charged Official cannot aid the Disciplinary Authority who requires good and sufficient reasons to impose penalty.
After holding an inquiry, services of appellant were terminated. The Inquiry Report merely sets out the charges in the first para and then the date on which the inquiry was held, the names of witnesses produced on behalf of the Management followed by a statement that evidence of the appellant and his witnesses was recorded. The report concludes as under : "His non-obeying of the instructions of his seniors and leaving the place of work without proper permission is a serious case of misconduct, negligence of duty and indiscipline. "The Supreme Court observed that no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, it is not an inquiry report at 0 all. The Supreme Court held that there is no application of mind by the Inquiring Authority and that the order of termination is unsustainable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order of termination of the services of the appellant. (Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, 1985 (3) SLR SC 26)
801. Report should not contain recommendations on taking of lenient view of the mitigating factors put on record in report and penalty.
It is not necessary that whatever Presenting Officer argues is always correct. Therefore Presenting Officer's arguments should be checked/ verified with respect to the exhibits/ depositions. It is not that whatever Charged Official contends is always wrong. The contentions should be checked/verified with respect to exhibits/depositions.
802. Findings
If assessment under each charge is logical and lucid, then there is no need of summary. In this situation, following conclusion is sufficient: Article of charge No. : held as proved /disapproved/not approved.
“Law is well settled that in a case of quasi-judicial nature, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority must be specific and pointed. We cannot read into the words used by the inquiry officer and make our interpretation either to support or reject its report. The words used cannot be permitted to be of vague nature which could be open to controversial interpretation.” (J.P. Sharma v. U.O.I. GB CB (1987) P. 196 : (1987) 4 ATC 716).
A halting and inconclusive finding serve no purpose at all. Inquiring Officer must reach clear and conclusive findings.
Post a Comment