1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -194
822. There is nothing wrong if an employee of the management or an officer of the employer is appointed as inquiry officer.
The only precaution to be taken is that the particular officer has no personal bias against the charged employee. In The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union y: Kerala State Cashew Dev. Corporation Ltd., C.A. No. 2521 of 2000 decided on 12.5.2006, the Supreme Court held that the finding of the Labour Court that enquiry was vitiated because it was conducted by an officer of the Management could not be sustained. The Court relied upon its earlier decisions in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court [(1970) 1 LLJ 23) and Saran Motors (P) Ltd. v. Vishwanath [(1964) II LLJ 139]. In the latter case, the Court observed – "It is well-known that enquiries of this type are generally conducted by officers of the employer companies and in the absence of any special bias attributable of a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer."
823. Appointment of whole-time inquiry officers
Some big organizations, may find it to their advantage to have whole-time inquiry officers to conduct departmental inquiries. In other cases, where a departmental officer is entrusted with the additional work of holding an inquiry, he should be temporarily relieved of a part of his duties so that he can devote properly to the work of inquiry which, ordinarily, should have precedence over other normal work
[DOP O.M. No. 39/32/72-Ests. (A), dated 13.12.1972].
824. Appointment of an outsider as inquiring authority
Occasions may arise where the disciplinary authority may consider it appropriate to entrust inquiry to an outsider who may be a consultant or may be having special qualification or experience in service matters or the particular problem under inquiry. The general principle is that if the rules specifically provide that an outsider can be appointed as an inquiring authority, no difficulty shall arise. But, where the rules do not provide for it, an outsider may be appointed as an inquiring authority only after the consent of the employee concerned is obtained and relaxation of the rule is obtained at appropriate level (National High School, Madras v. Education Tribunal, 1992 AIR SCW 359]. There is also no objection in making appropriate payments to him for the services rendered
[Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. Murarilal Bikaneria, AIR 1970 SC 22].
825. Can the officer who held preliminary enquiry be appointed to hold Regular Inquiry
Although it is generally avoided but the position in law is that there is no objection to it provided he has not pre-judged the issues. Thus, in a case where the officer while holding the preliminary inquiry had reached prima facie conclusion only, the holding of regular inquiry by him was upheld by the Bombay High Court [D.A. Koregaonkar v. State, AIR 1958 Bom. 167]. On the other hand, where the officer who held the preliminary inquiry pre-judged the issues and his report indicated that he closed his mind, the holding of regular inquiry by him was quashed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
[Narayana Rao v. State, AIR 1958 AP 636).
Post a Comment