1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -252
994. 'Partly-proved' charges
In case the inquiry officer reaches the conclusion that a charge is only partly proved, he must state specifically which part of the charge has been proved and which could not. We have come across reports of inquiry in which the inquiry officer had used the term 'partly proved' without stating anything more to state that the charge had not been proved as alleged. It is a wrong practice and should be avoided. The inquiry officer should specify the portion of the charge which has not been proved.
995. Finding of guilt can be recorded only if evidence exists which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him
Where inquiry officer had held the charged officer guilty “in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced during the inquiry”, the Supreme Court found that in fact, there was no evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct and hence it was a case of no evidence [Sher Bahadur v. Union of India, C.A. No. 5055 of 2002 decided on 16.8.2002).
996. No adverse material against the charged officer should be considered unless brought up during inquiry
It is a settled principle that no material which did not come up during the course of inquiry should be made use of by the inquiring authority while writing his report. In other words, the inquiring authority has to confine himself to the records of the case prepared during the course of inquiry (State of Assam v. M.K. Das, AIR 1970) SC 1255). In this case the Court held that even where there was no apparent reference in the report itself but it is established that the inquiry officer has taken into account some extraneous matter the inquiry shall be vitiated. In the words of the Court:
"It is highly improper for an Enquiry officer during the conduct of enquiry to attempt to collect any materials from outside source and not make that information so collected, available to the delinquent officer and further make use of the same in the enquiry proceedings. There may also be cases where a very clever and astute enquiry officer, may collect outside information behind the back of the delinquent officer and, without any apparent reference to the information so collected, may have been influences in the conclusions recorded by him against the delinquent officer concerned. If it is established that the material behind the back of the delinquent officer has been collected during the enquiry and such material has been relied on by Enquiry Officer, without its having been disclosed to the delinquent officer it, can be stated that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated.”
To repeat, the inquiry officer must scrupulously avoid taking into consideration any material adverse to the charge employee which was not mentioned in the inquiry and disclosed to him for submitting his defence against it. This salutary principle was again re-emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Kurunukar, AIR 1994 SC 1074.
Post a Comment