1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -220
845. Reasons in case of refusal to be recorded and communicated to the employee
The proviso to Rule 14(12) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 states :
“Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such of the documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case.”
Provisions to the same effect are found in proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. Adverting to these provisions, the Calcutta High Court in Union of India v. Achin Kumar Dey, 1990 Lab. IC 1704, held that the requirement is mandatory and the failure to give reasons would be fatal to the action taken. Further, the reasons given by the inquiry officer must be descriptive enough to disclose his mind. In the words of the Court:
“The proviso to sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the said Rules cannot but be treated as mandatory and the failure to give reasons would be fatal to the action taken. The expression that the document “not consider or not relevant” does not conform to the requirement of sub-rule (6) of Rule 9 of the said Rules. The decision of this Court in Nripendranath Tarafdar v. Union of India (1981 Lab. IC 1268) and the Collector of Customs v. Biswanath Mukherjee (1974 Cal. LJ 251) apply squarely to the present on hand.” (para 41 on page 1712)
Inspection by the charged officer
846. After the defence documents have been received by the inquiry officer, he shall arrange for their inspection or taking extracts there from by the charged employee. He may even take defence assistance for the same. But, this must be completed sufficiently before the date for regular hearing is fixed when the witnesses are to be examined. The rules, generally provide that it must have been done at least three clear days before the witnesses are examined.
Grievance regarding non-supply of defence documents permitted by inquiry officer
847. Where though some of defence documents permitted by the inquiry officer had not been supplied but the charged officer continued with the inquiry and cross examined the witnesses without making any grievance, his representation made about a month after the inquiry had closed was rejected by the inquiry officer holding it was with the sole intention to stall inquiry. The Supreme Court upheld the decision (Syed Rahimuddin v. D.G., C.S.I.R., C.A. No. 9472 of 1996 d. 11.1.2002).
Post a Comment