167. Knowledge Spectrum – Discipline – EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 84.
255, "The astonishing amount of perjury in courts of law is a sad commentary on human veracity. In spite of the oath, more untruths are probably uttered in court than anywhere else. This deviation from veracity ranges from mere exaggeration all the way to vicious perjury. Much of this untrue testimony grows directly out of human nature under unusual stress and is not an accurate measure of truth-speaking general. In order to shield a friend or help one to win in what is thought to be a just cause, or because of sympathy for one in trouble, many members of the frail human family are inclined to violate the truth in a court of law as they will not do elsewhere."
In the words of Osborn (The problem of proof - Albert S. Osborn, PP 22, 23, New York, Matthew Bender and Co. 1926 - quoted in (2) ibid, P.226).
The above stated nature of human beings makes the task of the functionaries in Disciplinary Proceedings all the more challenging. Culling out truth from the conflicting statements of the contesting parties is perhaps the most challenging part of the assignment of the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority. This complex process is known as evaluation of evidence.
Evaluation of evidence is perhaps the most complex and challenging area in the gamut of activities during departmental proceedings. Skill in evaluation of evidence is required to be possessed by almost all the functionaries. Presenting Officer is required to evaluate evidence and present his version in the brief of the PO. Inquiring Authority is required to evaluate evidence to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the charges are proved. Disciplinary Authority is required to make first hand appraisal of evidence and take a view as to whether the Inquiring Authority's conclusion are acceptable. Appellate Authority is also required to perform the above function.
Although skill can be developed through exercises, case studies, etc. in this chapter an attempt is being made to provide the underpinning knowledge necessary for evaluation of evidence.
256. What are the various types of evidence led in departmental proceedings?
Generally two types of evidence are led in departmental evidence viz.
(a) documentary evidence and
(b) oral evidence.
In contrast, in criminal trials certain objects (such as weapons or clothes worn by the victim, etc.) may also be produced as evidence and these are known as Exhibits.
257. What is the role of evidence in deciding the case?
Following are some of the cardinal principle in drawing conclusions in judicial/quasi judicial proceedings:
(a) (b) Conclusions must be based on evidence There is no room for conjectures or surmises in drawing conclusions Reliance must be placed on the evidence made available to the Charged Officer during the inquiry No evidence behind the back of the Charged Officer. Decision making authorities should not import personal knowledge into the case
Post a Comment