1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -217
QUESTION OF RELEVANCY
QUESTION OF RELEVANCY
Guiding Principle for deciding Relevancy
837. It is the responsibility of inquiring authority to examine request of the charged employee on the basis of relevance mentioned by him and in the light of the nature of the accusations, and to decide which documents are to be allowed for defence.
The guiding principle is that the power to deny access to any document must be exercised in such a manner that it does not prevent the charged officer from defending himself properly or does not cause him any prejudice.
838. Instructions issued by the Government of India
The Government of India have issued detailed instructions on the basis of the decided Case-law vide, the MHA O.M. No. 30/5/61-AVD dated 25.8.1961, which prescribes guidelines to the inquiry officer as below: viewpoint of defence,
(1) relevance of the documents should be looked at from the not of prosecution;
(ii) even if document is slightly or only in someway relevant, it should be allowed;
(ii) in case the relevance is not clear to the inquiring authority at the time when the request is made, the request for access should not be rejected; and
(iv) In case of refusal, reasons should invariably be recorded.
Looking to the great importance of this Government of India order, it is reproduced below, in extenso.
“The undersigned is directed to say that the question often arises whether a particular document or set of documents asked for by a Government servant involved in a departmental enquiry should be made available to him or not; and pending the decision on the question, the submission of the written statement by the Government servant concerned is delayed, in some cases, for months. In view of this and also of the judgment pronounced by the disciplinary authority in Raizada Trilok Nath v. The Union of India, in which it has been decided that failure to furnish copies of documents such as the First Information Report and statements recorded during investigation amounts to a violation of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, the whole question of the extent of access to official records to which a Government servant is entitled under sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law.
2. The right of access to official records is not unlimited and it is open to the Government to deny such access if in its opinion such records are not relevant to the case, or it is not desirable in the public interest to allow such access. The power to refuse access to official records should, however, be very sparingly exercised. The question of relevancy should be looked at from the point of view of defence and if there is any possible line of defence to which the document may, in some way, be relevant, though the relevance is not clear to the disciplinary authority at the time the request is made, the request for access should not be rejected. The power to deny access on the ground of public interest should be exercised only when there are reasonable and sufficient grounds to believe that public interest will clearly suffer. Cases of latter type are likely to be very few and normally occasions for refusal of access on the ground that it is not in public interest should not arise if the document is intended to be used in proof of the charge and if it is proposed to produce such a document before the Inquiry Officer, if any enquiry comes to be held. It has to be remembered that serious difficulties arise when the courts do not accept as correct the refusal by the disciplinary authority, of access to documents. In any case, where it is decided to refuse access, reasons for refusal should be cogent and substantial and should invariably be recorded in writing.
Post a Comment