TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -256
1007. The Inquiry Officer must ensure:
(a) if the inquiry was held ex-parte he should mention full circumstances in which there was no option to him but hold inquiry ex-parte. The reason is that when the inquiry is held ex-parte, onus to justify such an action lies on the person who held the inquiry;
(b) if some defence document or witness was not allowed, he should give reasons for disallowance;
(c) the report contains reference to any other important order passed by inquiry officer;
(d) specific mention in report if Written Brief had not been submitted by a party. and
(e) that report of inquiry is submitted by him as expeditiously as may be. The CVC has prescribed a time-limit of 30 days in which report has to be submitted.
1008. The Inquiry Officer must avoid :
(a) indecisiveness. Adequate guidelines have been given in the preceding pages, especially in chapters relating to 'Recording of Evidence' and 'Evaluation of /Evidence', for the inquiry officer to assess the evidence recorded by him and to reach definite conclusions;
(b) recommendation as to penalty. It is not the function of inquiry officer to suggest a penalty where he holds the charge to have been proved, unless the rules specifically require him to do so. Most of the rules do not contain such a requirement; and
(c) making disparaging remarks. As a rule, the inquiry officer must not make disparaging remarks against any person or institution in its report. The purpose for which an inquiry officer is appointed is to bring on record the evidence supporting or against the charge or allegations made against an employee. The report of inquiry must limit itself to the fulfilment of this objective. It is no business of the inquiry officer to make remarks against any person or institution.
But, where despite our above caution the inquiry officer is unable to refrain himself from making disparaging remarks, he must keep in mind the following three points prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, (1964)2 SCR 363, as relevant to be considered by the judicial officers while making disparaging remarks:
"(a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining of defending himself;
(b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and
(c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve."
Post a Comment