1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -233
901. IO cannot play the dual role of the judge as well as prosecutor
After reading the statement of the charged officer the IO started cross examining the applicant by putting various questions within which some incriminating questions were included – validity of the inquiry proceedings – IO cannot play the dual role of the judge as well as prosecutor – inquiry proceedings held invalid and vitiated.
[S.K Mohammed Habibulla V UOI &Ors OA No.423 of 1987 decided on 18.01.88 -1988(2) ATJ 60 CAT Calcutta Bench]
902. Preponderance of probability and not proof beyond doubt
“As disciplinary proceedings in not a criminal case and the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond doubt”
[Sardar Bahadur V UOI SLR 1972 SC 355]
903. “Charge of abetment fails when the substantive offence against the principal offender is not established.”
[Sepoy Haradhan Charkraborthy V U01 &ors ATR 1990(1) SE 297]
904. Prosecution should establish the charges levelled against the delinquent.
It is not the law that in a departmental proceeding, the delinquent officer has any onus of proof. The onus heavily lies on the prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the delinquent. If it fails to discharge the onus, the charge levelled against the delinquent would automatically fail.”
[Sachidanand Singh V UOI &ors: OA NO. 524 OF 1987 of CAT Calcutta Bench 1989 (2) ATJ 428 DOJ 23-02-1989]
905. Appointment of second IO after the first enquiry is illegal
Departmental inquiry – Applicant’s charge not proved in the inquiry – Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the IO – Appointed another IO to inquire into the same charge – second inquiry held illegal – reinstatement ordered.
[S. Nagarajan V GM SP Rly & Ors. OA No. 845 of 1986 CAT Madras Bench 1988 (2) ATJ 496 decided on 22-02-1988]
Post a Comment