Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 29 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 29 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION

(Selective Judgments )

11. It was contended that regard being had to the preliminary proceedings, the accused employee should be taken to have known all about the charges. It was held that whether he knew it or not, he must again be told of the charges which must be specific and all particulars must be stated, without which a man cannot defend himself. It is obvious, therefore, that there was no duty cast upon the accused employee to connect the charge-sheet with any previous proceedings.

[A.R. Mukherjee v. Eastern Rly. (1962) 2 LLJ 537; AIR 1961 Cal. 40.]

12. Confession at the stage of preliminary investigation will not obviate regular inquiry

If any statement is made during preliminary inquiry, then its copy should be supplied to the employee concerned and he should be given a chance to explain or rebut the said evidence. In the absence of any such inquiry it will not be fair to strain the facts and to hold that in view of the admissions the inquiry will not serve any useful purpose.

[Jagdish prasad Saxena v. State of M.B., AIR 1961 SC 1070; (1963) 1 LLJ 325.]

13. Records of the preliminary inquiry/investigation may not be produced during departmental inquiry if the same are not proposed to be relied upon to prove the charges

The evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry is to enable the employer to make up his mind whether to proceed against the delinquent employee or not and if it is not produced during departmental inquiry then there is no defect.

[Indreswar v. Union of India, AIR 1959 ASS 112.]

14. Where the investigating officer's report on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings were started was not made available but there is nothing to indicate that the Inquiry Officer placed any reliance on that report, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice.

[ Nripendra Nath Bagchi v. Government of W.B, (1961) 2 LLJ 312;AIR Cal. 1.]

15. Records of the preliminary inquiry/investigation should be open to inspection by the charged employee if the same are proposed to be relied upon to prove the charges

When copies of statements recorded during preliminary inquiry were not supplied in spite of request and the statements were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer, then principles of natural justice are violated.

[D.S. Nadkarni v. S.K. Sukhtankar, (1973) SLR 615 (Bom. H.C.).]

16. Since statements recorded at preliminary stage do not form part of the formal inquiry proceedings they cannot be utilized at that stage unless they are brought on record and are used either for corroborating or contradicting any witness whose evidence was recorded at preliminary stage. If the Inquiry Officer wants to use them they must be used with the full knowledge of the delinquent employee, otherwise the inquiry will be vitiated.

[Choudhury v. Union of India, AIR 1956, Cal. 662.]

17. The preliminary inquiry report was made the basis of the regular departmental inquiry but the copy of the preliminary inquiry report was not supplied to the charged employee. It was held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the employee was prejudiced by non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. It was held that in judicial and quasi judicial inquiry, any material that is used against the accused to his prejudice has to be brought to his notice so that he may have his own say in that regard. Therefore, when the preliminary inquiry report was the basis of the regular departmental inquiry non-supply of copy of such report vitiates the inquiry for violation of the principles of natural justice.

[D.C. Aggrwal v. S.B.I., 1991 Lab IC 1618 (P. & H. High Court).]

18. When the Inquiry Officer has looked to the report of investigating officer and collected information which influenced his determination and when the Investigating Officer himself appeared as a witness during inquiry to explain certain points the refusal to permit inspection of the report resulted in violation of the rules of natural justice.

[Director, P.&T. v. N.G. Majumdar, 1974 Lab IC 1484 (Cal. H.C.).]