1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -199
838. Should Inquiry officer recommend Penalty also ?
The Supreme Court has held that unless the statutory rule or the specific order appointing the inquiry officer so requires, the inquiry officer should not make any recommendation about the punishment which may be imposed on the delinquent officer. If, however, the inquiry officer makes such a recommendation, it will be, like his findings on merits of the case, intended merely to supply material for the consideration of the disciplinary authority (Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; A.N.D'Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130]. It may be interesting to mention here that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, vide. Rule 8(25)(e) require that the inquiry officer should make a recommendation on the quantum of punishment also.
839. Inquiry officer may be proceeded against if he fails to follow prescribed procedure
The inquiry officer must follow the prescribed procedure properly. The Government of India have held that failure to follow proper procedure may lead to institution of disciplinary proceedings against the erring departmental officer and the question of recovery from such authority the whole or part of pecuniary loss arising from the re-instatement of the employee concerned should be considered
[MHÄ€ Memos No. F.2/9/59-Ests.(A), dated 27.5.1961 and 30.5.1962]. Re-iterated in DOP&T O.M. No. 42011/15/92-Estt. (A), dated 3.6.1993].
838. Should Inquiry officer recommend Penalty also ?
The Supreme Court has held that unless the statutory rule or the specific order appointing the inquiry officer so requires, the inquiry officer should not make any recommendation about the punishment which may be imposed on the delinquent officer. If, however, the inquiry officer makes such a recommendation, it will be, like his findings on merits of the case, intended merely to supply material for the consideration of the disciplinary authority (Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364; A.N.D'Silva v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1130]. It may be interesting to mention here that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979, vide. Rule 8(25)(e) require that the inquiry officer should make a recommendation on the quantum of punishment also.
839. Inquiry officer may be proceeded against if he fails to follow prescribed procedure
The inquiry officer must follow the prescribed procedure properly. The Government of India have held that failure to follow proper procedure may lead to institution of disciplinary proceedings against the erring departmental officer and the question of recovery from such authority the whole or part of pecuniary loss arising from the re-instatement of the employee concerned should be considered
[MHÄ€ Memos No. F.2/9/59-Ests.(A), dated 27.5.1961 and 30.5.1962]. Re-iterated in DOP&T O.M. No. 42011/15/92-Estt. (A), dated 3.6.1993].
840. Dispute, if any, as to what happened during the course of inquiry
The Supreme Court has held that if any dispute arises as to what happened during the course of the inquiry, the statement of the inquiry officer in that regard is generally taken as correct (Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882).
Therefore, a practice has come to be established that every inquiry officer keeps a record of the work transacted by him on each hearing in the form of a Daily Order Sheet. The signatures of the charged employee and the presenting officer are also obtained on it.
841. Can appointment of Presenting officer be challenged on ground of bias?
No. The reason is that the presenting officer has no role, whatever, in the decision-taking process of the inquiring authority.
However, the authors are of considered opinion that a person who is admittedly and evidently on bad terms with the charged employee should not be appointed as Presenting officer in that case, unless for good reasons.
In a criminal case, decided on 25.3.2004, it was alleged that the Prosecuting counsel was inimically disposed towards the accused, but he failed to show any prejudice that had occurred to him because of the selection of the Prosecutor. Rejecting his plea, the Court observed - "His personal opinion has no place in the decision making process of the court. At the most he may present his case with vehemence and with a touch of vengeance but this would not in any manner either influence the decision making process of the court or would cause any prejudice to the accused in his defence. This, however, does not mean that we approve the fact that a person who is admittedly on bad terms with the accused should be appointed as a prosecuting counsel unless for good reasons." (Varada Rama Mohana Rao v. State of A.P., Crl. A. No. 121 of 1998 decided by Supreme Court on 25.3.2004]
Post a Comment