HAND BOOK
ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES, INQUIRING
AUTHORITIES AND PRESENTING OFFICERS
Contents
No. Subject Page
1. Object of the Hand Book
2. Importance of Procedure, in Disciplinary Proceedings
3. Article 311 of the Constitution
4. Rules 20, 21 of AP. CS. (CCA) Rules
5. Conduct Rules
6. Government servant
7. Application to other Services and Undertakings
8. Basis for Disciplinary Proceedings
9. Disciplinary Authority, King-pin
10. Drawing up of Charge-sheet
11. Delivery of the charge sheet together with copies of documents and
statements of witnesses
12. Serving of charge sheet
13. Articles of charge
14. Specimen Article of charge
15. Statement of Imputations
16. Witnesses
17. Documents
18. Memorandum
19. Action on receipt of statement of defence
20. Where the Charged Government servant pleads guilty
21. Appointment of Inquiring Authority
22. Appointment of Presenting Officer
23. Defence Assistant
24. Defence documents
25. Documents which are not relevant
26. Documents, where privilege is claimed
27. Privileged Documents, examples
28. Charge-sheet etc forwarded to Inquiry Officer
29. Evidence on behalf of Disciplinary Authority
30. New evidence on behalf of Disciplinary Authority
31. Summoning of Witnesses
32. Examination of witnesses of Disciplinary Authority
33. Cross-examination of Witnesses
34. Re-examination of Witnesses
35. Examination of Witness by Inquiry Officer
36. Where a witness turns hostile
37. Recording of Evidence
38. Defence of Government servant
39. Evidence on behalf of Government servant
40. Government servant questioned on evidence
41. Oral Arguments/Written Briefs
42. Requests, Representations etc during Inquiry
43. Daily Order Sheet
44. Report of Inquiry Officer—Factors for consideration
45. Charge where proved in-part
46. Where a different charge is proved
47. Inquiry Report—what it should contain
48. Record of Major Penalty Proceedings
49. Inquiry Officer to forward record of inquiry to Disciplinary
Authority
50. Inquiring Authority, functus officio
51. Functions and Powers of Inquiring Authority
52. Action on Inquiry Report
53. Further Inquiry
54. Disciplinary authority disagreeing with the Inquiry officer,
need not contest the conclusions
55. Imposition of Penalty
56. Order on Inquiry Report
57. Orders where charges held not proved
58. “Show Cause Notice”
59. Consultation with the Vigilance Commission
60. Consultation with Public Service Commission
61. Consultation with Anti-Corruption Bureau
62. Inquiry Report etc, furnishing of copy to ACB
63. Special Provisions of procedure
64. Ex parte inquiry
65. Change of Inquiring Authority
66. Where Disciplinary Authority is not competent
67. Higher authority which instituted proceedings alone
competent to impose even a minor penalty
68. Common Proceedings
69. Time limits
70. Related issues of disciplinary proceedings
71. Evidence Act
72. Principles of Natural Justice
73. Standard of proof
74. Order passed by Inquiry Officer not appealalbe
75. Adjournments
76. Stay by Court
77. Further inquiry, where order set aside on technical grounds
78. Fresh Inquiry, in case proceedings are quashed by court on technical grounds
79. Procedural defect after conclusion of Oral Inquiry—
Fresh proceedings from the stage of defect
80. Role of Disciplinary Authority, the sole Judge
81. Action against Disciplinary Authority for lapses in conducting Proceedings
HAND BOOK
ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS FOR
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES, INQUIRING
AUTHORITIES AND PRESENTING OFFICERS
1. Object of the Hand Book
The procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (“CCA Rules” for short) for
imposition of major penalties on “Government servants” of the Andhra Pradesh State,
.is set out here, for the guidance of the disciplinary authorities, inquiring authorities
and presenting officers, who are the primary functionaries dealing with disciplinary
cases.
2. Importance of Procedure, in Discsiplinary Proceedings
Disciplinary proceedings lay down the procedure that is required to be
followed by the competent authorities for the purpose of establishing the truth or
otherwise of an allegation of misconduct leveled against a Government servant, and
in the event of the Government servant being held guilty of the charge, to impose on
him a prescribed penalty, in strict conformity with the provisions of the APCS (CCA)
Rules, 1991 applicable to him. If the departmental authority holds the inquiry in
violation of the prescribed procedure, the findings and the decision are liable to be set
aside by the departmental authorities and courts. More cases are lost for technical
lapses, few for want of proof. It is so, because “some”: evidence is sufficient to
sustain the charge and judicial review does not interfere with the findings of fact
arrived at in disciplinary proceedings and it is confined to examination of the
decision-making process. Hence, it is necessary that the functionaries charged with
the task of conducting disciplinary proceedings should equip themselves with a
thorough knowledge of the procedural requirements; and the Hand Book with the
ready-at-hand, easy-to-refer information will be found invaluable.
3. Article 311 of the Constitution
The Procedure that is required to be followed in imposing major penalties on
civil officials is laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Article is
extracted below.
311. “Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil
capacities under the Union or a State :- (1) No person who is a member of a
civil service of the Union or an All-India Service or a civil service of a State
or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or
removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in
rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges
against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of
those charges:
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any
such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence
adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person
any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed.
(Provided further . . . )
(3) If, in respect of . . .”
Government servants (the subject of the study) are “civil officials” mentioned
in Article 311 of the constitution, and the constitutional provisions laid down there
under would apply to Government servants of the State.
Article 311 of the Constitution, extracted above, lays down that--
(i) an inquiry should be conducted;
(ii) the civil official should be informed of the charges against him;
(iii) he should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of those charges;
(iv) a penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during
the inquiry;
(v) he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to
that by which he was appointed.
Explaining the above constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court held that
the rules of natural justice require that - -
(i) charged employee should be given notice of the charges he is called
upon to explain and the allegations on which those were based;
(ii) evidence should be taken in the presence of the charged employee;
(iii) he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses;
(iv) he should have an opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on
which he relies. No material should be relied against him without
giving him an opportunity of explaining such material..
Non-compliance with the constitutional requirements or deviation there from
will render the proceedings null and void.
4. Rules 20, 21 of AP. CS. (CCA) Rules
The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 in turn elaborated the
procedure required to be followed, step by step, stage by stage, under Rules 20 and
21.and the procedure laid down under the said rules meets the constitutional
requirements.
5. Conduct Rules
The AP CS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 lay down principles as to what the
Government expects the Government servant to do and not to do, and Rule 3 thereof
stipulates that the Government servant shall maintain absolute integrity and devotion
to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Rule 3 is a
potent frequently used provision covering a wide range of misconducts like bribery
and corruption, forgery and misappropriation, theft and rape.
6. Government servant
“Government servant” means a person as defined under clause (e) of
Rule 2 of the AP CS (CCA) Rules, 1991, viz. (i) a member of a Civil Service of the
State or holder of a Civil post in connection with the affairs of the State, including
such Government servant whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the
Government of India, Government of another State or a company, corporation or
organisation owned or controlled by Government of Andhra Pradesh or a local or
other authority or (ii) a member of a Civil Service or holder of a Civil post under the
Government of India or Government of another State, whose services are temporarily
placed at the disposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh or (iii) a person in the
service of a local or other authority, whose services are temporarily placed at the
disposal of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
Thus, the term Government servant includes those whose services are lent to
or borrowed from Government of India, Government of another State or a company,
corporation or organization owned or controlled by Government of Andhra Pradesh
or a local or other authority.
The CCA Rules, however, do not apply to casual employees, those liable for
discharge on less than one month’s notice and members of the All India Services.
7. Application to other Services and Undertakings
The Government servants of the State are governed by the APCS (CCA)
Rules, 1991 and the AP.CS. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. and employees of other Services
and State Public Sector Undertakings are governed by the respective Rules and
Regulations applicable to them. For instance, members of the All-India Services ie.
the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest
Service are governed by the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
and the All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
The basic structure and the underlying principles are the same and the
procedure can be suitably moulded to meet the requirements of any particular
Service or Undertaking.
8. Basis for Disciplinary Proceedings
Disciplinary proceedings are instituted commonly on the basis of material
secured in what is known as a preliminary enquiry conducted by the department on
receipt of a complaint and at times on the basis of a well-documented allegation
straight away without conducting a preliminary enquiry. Disciplinary proceedings
are taken up also as an outcome of an enquiry or investigation conducted by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau or any other investigating agency.
Disciplinary proceedings are not exploratory; prima facie material should be
available for their institution.
The basis of initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be questioned.
There is no question of failure to follow procedure as no procedure is prescribed. The
Government servant has no right of being heard. or any other right during the
preliminary enquiry stage
The material secured during the preliminary enquiry cannot be the basis for
imposing a penalty; it can be the basis only for deciding the course of action,
whether to drop action or start action.
It may be noted that ‘enquiry’ in ‘preliminary enquiry’ is spelt with the letter
’e’ while ‘inquiry’ in ‘regular inquiry’ is spelt with the letter ‘i’ as a standard
practice in jurisprudence, and ‘enquiry’ indicates enquiry conduced prior to
institution of formal proceedings while ‘inquiry’ indicates regular inquiry conducted
after institution of the disciplinary proceedings.
9. Disciplinary Authority, King-pin
The disciplinary authority is the king-pin around whom the disciplinary
proceedings revolve from commencement to conclusion.
Disciplinary authority does not necessarily mean an authority competent to
impose the penalty of dismissal; he is an authority competent to impose any of the
penalties, as defined under clause ( c) of Rule 2 of the CCA. Rules.
10. Drawing up of Charge-sheet
The Disciplinary Authority or the cadre-controlling authority draws up or
causes to be drawn up a charge sheet containing the following :
(i) articles of charge containing the substance of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehavior in a definite and distinct form;
(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in
support of each article of charge, which shall contain
(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or
confession made by the Government servant;
(b) a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the
articles of charge are proposed to be sustained, .
11. Delivery of the charge sheet together with copies of documents and
statements of witnesses
The disciplinary authority shall deliver the charge sheet or cause it to be
delivered to the Government servant together with copies of the said documents and
copies of statements recorded, if any, of the said witnesses
12. Serving of charge sheet
The drawing up and delivery of the charge sheet is a significant land-mark as
it marks the commencement of the proceedings. The best way of serving the charge
sheet is personal service by delivering it under acknowledgement. In the alternative,
the charge sheet may be sent to the Government servant by registered post
acknowledgment due to his last known address,. failing which it may be exhibited on
the notice board and published in the official gazette and put in the news papers.
Endorsements on postal letters “not found”, “not traceable”, “not known”, “left” do
not amount to service, but an endorsement “refused” does. The Supreme Court laid
down, in the cases of Delhi Development Authority vs. H.C. Khurana, 1993(2) SLR
SC 509 and Union of India vs. Kewal Kumar, 1993(2) SLR SC 554 that charge sheet
is issued when it is framed and despatched to the employee irrespective of its actual
service on the employee.
13. Articles of charge
(i) Article of charge is the prima facie proven essence of the allegation
setting out the nature of the accusation in general terms, such as obtaining illegal
gratification, acceptance of sub-standard work, false measurement of work executed,
execution of work below specification, breach of a conduct rule etc. A charge should
briefly, clearly and precisely identify the misconduct/misbehaviour committed and
the Conduct Rule violated. It should give the time, place, persons and things
involved so that the Government servant has a clear notice of his involvement.
It should be unambiguous and free from vagueness.
(ii) The articles of charge should preferably be in the third person.
(iii) A separate article of charge should be framed in respect of each
transaction/event or a series of related transactions/events.
(iv) If, in the course of the same transaction, two or more misconducts are
committed, each misconduct should be specifically mentioned.
(v) If a transaction/event shows that the Government servant must be
guilty of one or the other of misconducts depending on one or the other set of the
circumstances, then the charge can be in the alternative.
(vi) Multiplication or splitting up of charges on the basis of the same
allegation should be avoided.
(vii) The terms delinquent and accused suggest prejudging the issue and are
inappropriate, and terms like public servant, employee or simply Government servant
should be used instead.
(viii) Charge should not contain expression of opinion as to the guilt of the
Government servant. It should start with the word “that” to convey that it is only an
allegation and not a conclusion.
(ix) Charge should not relate to a matter which has already been the subject
matter of an inquiry and adjudication, unless it involves technical considerations.
(x) There should be no mention of the penalty proposed to be imposed
either in the articles of charge or the statement of imputations.
14. Specimen Article of charge
A specimen of an article of charge ia a case of bribery is given below :
“That Sri (name and designation of the Government servant at the time of
framing of the charge), while functioning as (designation at the time of the
misconduct) from …. to (period ) demanded and obtained an amount of Rs.5,000
as illegal gratification from Sri (name ), contractor, (address) on at
(date and time ), in his office (mention any other place) promising to pass his bill of
execution of work (give the name of the work) without objections threatening
otherwise to withhold payment, which constitutes misconduct of failure to maintain
absolute integrity and devotion to duty and commission of an act unbecoming of a
Government servant, in violation of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 3 of the APCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
Quite often expressions like moral turpitude, habitual corruption are freely
used in the articles of charge without basis in the mistaken impression that such
expressions bolster up the charge. They are purposeless and out of place and should
be given up unless they are ingredients of the charge.
15. Statement of Imputations
Statement of imputations should contain all relevant facts given in the
form of a narration and should embody a full and precise recitation of specific relevant
acts of commission or omission on the part of the Government servant in support of
each article of charge including any admission or confession made by the
Government servant and any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into
consideration. It should be precise and factual. It should mention the
conduct/behaviour expected or the rule violated. It would be improper to furnish the
report of the Investigating Officer as a statement of imputations. It would not be
proper to mention the defence and enter into a discussion of the merits of the case to
support the imputations inspite of the likely version of the Government servant. All
material particulars such as dates, names, places, figures and totals of amounts etc
should be carefully checked with reference to documents, statements of witnesses and
other record and their accuracy ensured.
The statement should not refer to the preliminary enquiry report unless relied
upon or the Anti-Corruption Bureau Report of enquiry/investgation or the advice of
the Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Department or any such agency or functionary.
It would be convenient to draft the statement of imputations of
misconduct or misbehavior first and based thereon to frame the articles of
charge and pick up the witnesses and documents therefrom.
16. Witnesses
In the course of the preliminary enquiry, a number of witnesses are usually
examined and their statements recorded. The list of such witnesses should be
carefully checked and only such of them who can give evidence to substantiate the
charges should be included for examination during the oral inquiry. Others
considered necessary may be included. Care should be taken to see that the list of
witnesses is complete. Copies of the statements recorded, if any, of the listed
witnesses should be furnished to the Government servant with the charge sheet.
Statements of those not relied upon by the disciplinary authority need not be
furnished.
17. Documents
A list of documents containing evidence in support of the allegations should
be prepared. Individual documents should be listed. .Mere mention of a file is not
proper, unless the whole file is relevant. and relied upon. It should be seen that the
list of documents is complete. . Copies of the listed documents should be furnished
with the charge sheet.
18. Memorandum
The charge sheet is served on the Government servant with a memorandum indicating that he is being proceeded against under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991, which gives him notice that major penalty proceedings are instituted against him.
He is required to appear before the disciplinary authority on a date to be specified not exceeding 10 working days and submit a written statement of defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. He is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of the articles of charge not admitted by him and that he should specifically admit or deny each article of charge. He is also informed that if he fails to submit the statement of defence or fails to comply with the provisions of the Rules at any stage, the inquiry may be held exparte. He is warned against bringing influence to bear on the authorities onpain of action for misconduct under Rule 24 of the AP CS (Conduct ) Rules, 1964.
It should be signed by the disciplinary authority and where Government are the disciplinary authority, by an officer who is authorised to authenticate the orders on behalf of the Governor.
19. Action on receipt of statement of defence
On the date fixed for appearance, the Government servant shall submit the
written statement of his defence. On a consideration of the statement of defence and
examination of the Government servant, the Disciplinary authority can take the
following course of action:
(i) He may review and modify the articles of charge, in which case a fresh
opportunity should be given to the Government servant to submit a
fresh statement of defence.
(ii) He may drop some of the charges or all the charges, if he is satisfied
that there is no further cause to proceed with.
(iii) He may, where he is of the opinion that imposition of a major penalty
is not necessary, impose a minor penalty, on the basis of the record.
But he shall not do so where the charged Government servant has not
offered a detailed explanation to the charge in the expectation that he
could let in his defence in the course of the inquiry.
(iv) The disciplinary authority shall return a finding of guilty on such of
the charges as are admitted.
(v) Inquiry need be conducted only into such of the charges as are not
admitted.
(vi) The disciplinary authority may conduct the inquiry himself but should
refrain from doing so, unless unavoidable.
(vii) He may appoint an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges. He
should do so only after consideration of the statement of defence and
fulfillment of the other tasks assigned to him.
20. Where the Charged Government servant pleads guilty
The disciplinary authority shall ask the Government servant whether he is
guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of
charge, the disciplinary authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the
signature of the Government servant thereon. The disciplinary authority should give a
finding of guilty on such of the charges as are admitted. The admission should be
unequivocal, unqualified and unconditional. He may take evidence as he may think it
fit. Where the Government servant pleads guilty to all the charges, the
disciplinary authority may act in the manner laid down in Rule 21.
21. Appointment of Inquiring Authority
Where the Government servant appears before the disciplinary authority and
pleads not guilty to the charges or refuses or omits to plead, the disciplinary authority
shall record the plea and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon and
may decide to hold the inquiry itself or if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint a
serving or a retired Government servant as inquiring authority for holding the inquiry
into the charges.. Though the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules,1991 permit such an
inquiry being held by the disciplinary authority itself, the normal practice is to
appoint another officer as Inquiry Officer. The officer selected should be of
sufficiently senior rank and one who is not suspected of any prejudice or bias against
the charged Government servant and who did not express an opinion on the merits of
the case at an earlier stage. The inquiring authority could also be the Chairman,
Commissionerate of Inquiries or a member thereof provided he is a serving or a
retired Government servant.
22. Appointment of Presenting Officer
The disciplinary authority may also appoint a Government servant or legal
practitioner as Presenting Officer to present the case on his behalf in support of the
articles of charge before the Inquiring Authority. Ordinarily, a Government servant
belonging to the departmental set up who is conversant with the case will be
appointed as the Presenting Officer except in cases involving complicated questions
of law where it may be considered desirable to appoint a legal practitioner to present
the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The Presenting Officer should be
senior in rank to the charged Government servant. An officer who made the
preliminary enquiry into the case should not be appointed as Presenting officer as bias
may be attributed to him. Government instructed that in all cases investigated or
enquired into by the Anti–Corruption Bureau, the Bureau shall nominate an officer
other than the one who investigated or conducted the enquiry in the case, and the
disciplinary authority shall appoint him as the Presenting officer.
The Presenting Officer should ensure that the prescribed procedure
is followed and raise written objections against any irregularities and acts of
prejudice on the part of the Inquiry Officer then and there and report to the
Disciplinary Authority promptly for taking up the matter with the Government.
The Presenting Officer should be supplied with copies of the documents and
other relevant papers. He may also be given custody of the original documents
sought to be produced in support of the charges. If the Government servant has
submitted a written statement of defence, the Presenting Officer will carefully
examine it. If there are any facts which the Government servant has admitted in his
statement of defence without admitting the charges, a list of such facts should be
prepared by the Presenting Officer and brought to the notice of the Inquiring authority
at the appropriate stage of the proceedings so that it may not be necessary to lead any
evidence to prove the facts which the Government servant has admitted.
23. Defence Assistant
The disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the
inquiring authority and the Presenting Officer on the Government servant and inform
him that he may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the
case on his behalf, but he may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless
the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or
the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits,
and ask him to finalise the selection of his defence assistant before the
commencement of the proceedings and adjourn the case to a date not exceeding five
days for the said purpose.
The charged employee is entitled to have a Government servant as his
Defence Assistant, subject to restrictions imposed under the Rules.
He has no right to have a particular employee as defence assistant, if the
controlling authority is unable to spare his services for the purpose. No permission as
such is required for the charged employee to take a Defence Assistant or for the
employee concerned to function as a Defence Assistant. It is enough if the
controlling authority is intimated of the fact.
If the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal
practitioner, the Government servant will be so informed by the disciplinary authority
so that the Government servant may, if he so desires, engage a legal practitioner to
present the case on his behalf before the Inquiring Authority. The Government
servant may not otherwise engage a legal practitioner. In other cases, the Government
servant may avail himself of the assistance of any other Government servant as
defined in rule 2(e) of the A.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. However, he
cannot take the assistance of a Government servant who has two pending disciplinary
cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. He may also take the assistance of a
retired Government servant. He may take the assistance of a Government servant
posted at any other station only if permitted by the inquiring authority. He shall not
take the assistance of a Government servant who is dealing in his official capacity
with the case of the particular inquiry or any officer to whom an appeal may be
preferred .
24. Defence documents
The disciplinary authority shall inform the Government servant to submit
within five days a list of documents, which he requires to be discovered or produced
by Government for the purpose of his defence indicating the relevance of the
documents so required.
25. Documents which are not relevant
The disciplinary authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to
requisition such of the documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case.
The disciplinary authority shall on receipt of the notice for the discovery or
production of documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in
whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the
production of the documents by such date as may be specified in such requisition.
26. Documents, where privilege is claimed
On receipt of the requisition, every authority having the custody or possession
of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the disciplinary
authority, provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the
requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that the
production of all or any of such documents would be against the public interest or
security of the State, shall submit the fact to the Head of the Department or to the
Secretary of the Department concerned for a decision in the matter. Such decision
shall be informed to the disciplinary authority and where the decision is to withhold
production of all or any of such documents, the disciplinary authority shall on being
so informed communicate the information to the Government servant and withdraw
the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of such documents and
where the decision is against withholding the production of all or any of such
documents, every authority having the custody or the possession of such
requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the disciplinary authority.
27. Privileged Documents, examples
The following are examples of documents, access to which may reasonably be
denied:
(i) Reports of a departmental officer appointed to hold a preliminary
enquiry and reports of enquiry/investigation of Anti-Corruption
Bureau:
These reports are intended only for the disciplinary authority to satisfy himself
whether departmental action should be taken against the Government servant or not
and are treated as confidential documents. These reports are not presented before the
Inquiry Officer and no reference to them is made in the statement of imputations. If
the Government servant makes a request for the production/inspection of the report of
preliminary enquiry by the departmental officer or the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the
Inquiry Officer should pass on the same to the disciplinary authority concerned, who
may claim privilege of the same in public interest.
(ii) File dealing with the disciplinary case against the Government servant:
The preliminary enquiry report and the further stages in the disciplinary action
against the Government servant are processed on this file. Such files are treated as
confidential and access to them should be denied.
(iii) Advice of Vigilance Commission:
The advice tendered by the Vigilance Commission is of a confidential nature
meant to assist the disciplinary authority and should not be shown to the Government
servant.
(iv) Character roll of the Government servant:
The character/confidential roll of the Government servant should not be shown to him.
If preliminary report of enquiry is referred to in the article of charge or statement of allegations, it has to be made available to the Government servant. A copy of the First Information Report registered by the Police, if any, may be made available to the Government servant, if asked for.
28. Charge-sheet etc forwarded to Inquiry Officer
The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the inquiring authority--
(i) a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior;
(ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant;
(iii) copies of the statements of witnesses referred to in sub-rule (3);
(iv) copies of documents referred to in sub-rule (3);
(v) evidence proving the delivery of copies of the documents referred to in
sub-rules (3) and (4), to the Government servant, and
(vi) a copy of the order appointing the Presenting Officer.
The disciplinary authority shall also forward to the inquiring authority
documents received under clause (g) of sub-rule (5) as and when they are received.
After receiving the documents mentioned under clause (a) of sub-rule (7) the
inquiring authority shall issue a notice in writing to the Presenting Officer and also to
the Government servant to appear before him on such day and at such time and place
specified by him which shall not exceed ten days.
The Presenting Officer and Government servant shall appear before the
inquiring authority on the date fixed under sub-rule (8).
If the Government servant informs the inquiring authority that he wishes to
inspect the documents mentioned in sub-rule (3)of rule 20 for the purpose of
preparing his defence, the inquiring authority shall order that he may inspect the
documents within five days and the presenting officer shall arrange for the inspection
accordingly.
The inquiring authority shall call upon the Government servant whether he
admits the genuineness of any of the documents, copies of which have been furnished
to him and if he admits the genuineness of any document it may be taken as evidence
without any proof by the concerned witness.
The inquiring authority shall adjourn the case for inquiry to a date not
exceeding ten days for production of evidence and require the Presenting Officer to
produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge.
29. Evidence on behalf of Disciplinary Authority
On the date fixed for recording the evidence, the oral and documentary
evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced
by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The evidence shall be recorded as far as
possible on day-to-day basis till the evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority is
completed.
The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer
and they may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. The
Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on
which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the
permission of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such
questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.
30. New evidence on behalf of Disciplinary Authority
If it appears necessary before the closure of the case on behalf of the
disciplinary authority, the inquiring authority may, in its discretion, allow the
presenting officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the
Government servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any
witness.
In such case the Government servant shall be entitled to have a copy of the
list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for
three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of
adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned.
The inquiring authority shall give the Government servant an opportunity of
inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record.
New evidence shall not be permitted or called for and witness shall not be
re-called to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only
when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced
originally.
The procedure mentioned above is elaborated below.
31. Summoning of Witnesses
It is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to take all necessary steps to secure the
attendance of witnesses of both sides. The Inquiry Officer, however, would be within
his right to ascertain in advance from the charged Government servant what evidence
a particular witness is likely to give. If the Inquiry Officer is of the view that such
evidence would be entirely irrelevant to the charge against the Government servant
and failure to secure the attendance of the witness would not prejudice the defence,
he should reject the request for summoning such a witness. In every case of rejection,
the Inquiry Officer should record the reasons in full for doing so. The Supreme
Court, in the State of Bombay vs. Nurul Latif Khan, AIR 1966 SC 269, have
observed that if the Government servant desires to examine witnesses whose evidence
appears to the Inquiry Officer to be thoroughly irrelevant, the Inquiry Officer may
refuse to examine such witnesses but in doing so he will have to record his special
and sufficient reasons.
The witnesses whom the charged Government servant proposes to examine,
other than those who are found not relevant, should ordinarily be summoned by the
Inquiry Officer. It is, however, not obligatory for the Inquiry Officer to insist on the
presence of all such witnesses cited by the charged Government servant and to hold
up proceedings until their attendance has been secured. The inability to secure
attendance of a witness will not vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the
Government servant was denied reasonable opportunity. The Inquiry Officer
conducting an inquiry has no power to enforce the attendance of witnesses under the
provisions of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, unless the Andhra Pradesh
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of
Documents) Act, 1993 are applicable and specifically extended to the particular
inquiry. If they are official witnesses, the Head of Department or Head of Office may
be approached.
The notices addressed to the witnesses will be signed by the Inquiry Officer.
Those addressed to witnesses who are Government servants will be sent to the Head
of Department/Office under whom the Government servant, who is to appear as
witness, is working for the time being, with the request that the Head of
Department/Office will direct the Government servant to attend the inquiry and to
tender evidence on the date and time fixed by the Inquiry Officer.
Non-compliance with the request of the Inquiry Officer by the Government
servant summoned would be treated as conduct unbecoming of a Government servant
and would make him liable for disciplinary action.
The notices addressed to non-official witnesses will be sent by registered post
acknowledgment due.
In cases emanating from the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the notices addressed to
non-official witnesses may be sent to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau
for delivery to the witnesses concerned. The Presenting Officer, with the assistance
of the Investigating Officer of the Anti-Corruption Bureau will take suitable steps to
secure the presence of the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority on the date
fixed for their examination.
32. Examination of witnesses of Disciplinary Authority
On the date fixed for the inquiry, the Presenting Officer will be asked to lead
the presentation of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
The Presenting Officer will draw the attention of the Inquiry Officer to facts
admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, if any, so
that it may not be necessary to lead any evidence to prove such facts. The Presenting
officer should discuss with the defence assistant and arrive at an understanding in the
interest of speedy progress of the proceedings.
The documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be
proved will then be produced by the officer having custody of the documents or by an
officer deputed by him for the purpose. The documents produced will be numbered
as Ex.S1, Ex.S2 and so on. The Presenting Officer should not produce the documents
as in that event he places himself in the position of a witness and the charged
Government servant may insist on cross-examining him.
The inquiring authority shall call upon the Government servant whether he
admits the genuineness of any of the documents, copies of which have been furnished
to him, and if he admits the genuineness of any document it may be taken as
evidence without any proof by the concerned witness. Here also, the Presenting
officer should convince the charged official/defence assisant of the futility of seeking
formal proof of undisputed documents.
The witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses furnished to the Government
servant with the articles of charge will then be examined, one by one, by or on behalf
of the Presenting Officer. The witnesses may be numbered as S.W.1, S.W.2 and so
on.
During the examination-in-chief, the Inquiry Officer may not allow putting of
leading questions in a manner which will allow the very words to be put into the
mouth of a witness which he can just echo back.
33. Cross-examination of Witnesses
The right of the Government servant to cross-examine a witness giving
evidence against him in a departmental proceeding is a safeguard implicit in the
reasonable opportunity to be given to him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
But the rules of evidence laid down in the Evidence Act are, strictly speaking, not
applicable and the Inquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer and the charged
Government servant are not expected to act like judge and lawyers. The scope and
mode of cross-examination in relation to the departmental inquiries have not been set
out anywhere. But there is no other variety of cross-examination except that
envisaged under the Evidence Act. It follows, therefore, that the cross-examination in
departmental inquiries should, as far as possible, conform to the accepted principles
of cross-examination under the Evidence Act.
Cross-examination of a witness is the most efficacious method of discovering
the truth and exposing falsehood. During the examination-in-chief, the witness may
say things favourable to the party on whose behalf he tenders evidence and may
deliberately conceal facts which may constitute part of the opponent’s case. The art
of cross-examination lies in interrogating witness in a manner which would bring out
the concealed truth.
Usually considerable latitude is allowed in cross-examination. It is not limited
to matters upon which the witness has already been examined-in-chief, but may
extend to the whole case. The Inquiry Officer may not ordinarily interfere with the
discretion of the cross-examiner in putting questions to the witness. However, a
witness summoned merely to produce a document or a witness whose examination
has been stopped by the Inquiry Officer before any material question has been put is
not liable to cross-examination. It is also not permissible to put a question on the
assumption that a fact was already proved. A question about any matter which the
witness had no opportunity to know or on which he is not competent to speak may be
disallowed. The Inquiry Officer may also disallow questions if the cross-examination
is of inordinate length or oppressive or if a question is irrelevant. It is the duty of the
Inquiry Officer to see that the witness understands the question properly before giving
an answer and of protecting him against any unfair treatment.
34. Re-examination of Witnesses
After cross-examination of witness by or on behalf of the Government
servant, the Presenting Officer will be entitled to re-examine the witness on any
points on which he has been cross-examined but not on any new matter without the
leave of the Inquiry Officer. If the Presenting Officer has been allowed to re-examine
a witness on any new matter not already covered by the earlier examination/crossexamination,
cross-examination on such new matter covered by the re-examination,
may be allowed.
35. Examination of Witness by Inquiry Officer
After the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of a witness, the
Inquiry Officer may put such questions to the witness as he may think fit. The
witness may then be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant with
the leave of the Inquiry Officer on matters covered by the questions put by the
Inquiry Officer.
36. Where a witness turns hostile
If a Government servant who had made a statement in the course of a
preliminary enquiry changes his stand during his examination at the inquiry and gives
evidence which is materially different from his signed statement recorded earlier, the
Inquiry Officer may permit the party calling the witness to treat him as hostile and
cross-examine him, when there is anything on record or in the testimony
of the witness to show that there is material deviation.
Government Servants are liable to be proceeded against for
misconduct in violation of rule 3(1), (2) of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules,
1964, where, having given a statement under sec.164 Cr.P.C. or having given a
signed statement or being signatories to a mediators report as panch
witnesses, deviate from the same materially in a departmental inquiry.
37. Recording of Evidence
Disciplinary proceedings are held in camera; they are not open to the public.
A typist may type the deposition of witness to the dictation of the Inquiry
Officer. The deposition of each witness will be taken down on a separate sheet of
paper at the head of which will be entered the number of the case, the name of the
witness, his age, parentage, calling etc about his identity. No oath is administered to
witnesses.
The deposition will generally be recorded as narration but on certain points it
may be necessary to record the question and answer verbatim.
As examination of each witness is completed, the Inquiry Officer will read the
deposition as typed to the witness in the presence of the Government servant and/or
the defence assistant or his legal practitioner as the case may be. Verbal mistakes in
the typed depositions, if any, will be corrected in their presence. However, if the
witness denies the correctness of any part of the deposition, the Inquiry Officer may,
instead of correcting the deposition, record the objection of the witness. The Inquiry
Officer will record and sign the following certificate at the end of the deposition of
each witness:
“Read over to the witness in the presence of the charged officer and
admitted correct/objection of witness recorded”
The witness will be asked to sign each page of the deposition. The charged
Government servant when he examines himself as defence witness, should also be
required to sign his deposition. If a witness refuses to sign the deposition, the Inquiry
Officer will record this fact and append his signature.
If a witness deposes in a language other than English but the deposition is
recorded in English, a translation in the language in which the witness deposed should
be read to the witness by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer will also record a
certificate that the deposition was translated and explained to the witness in the
language in which the witness deposed.
Copies of the depositions will be made available at the close of the inquiry
each day to the Presenting Officer as well as to the charged Government servant.
The documents exhibited and the depositions of witnesses will be kept in
separate folders.
38. Defence of Government servant
When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant
shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing as he may prefer and to
submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf for which purpose the case
may be adjourned to a date not exceeding five days. If the defence is made orally, it
shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record. In
either case, a copy of the statement of defence and the list of defence witnesses may
be provided to the presenting officer.
The case shall be adjourned to a date not exceeding ten days for production of
defence evidence.
39. Evidence on behalf of Government servant
The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced.
The documents produced by the defence will be numbered Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and so on
and the witnesses who give oral evidence will be numbered as D.W.1, D.W.2 and so
on.
Each witness will be examined by the Government servant or on his behalf by
his Defence Assistant or legal practitioner as the case may be. The witness may be
cross-examined by the Presenting Officer and may then be re-examined by or on
behalf of the Government servant on any points on which the witness has been crossexamined
but not on any new matter without the leave of the Inquiry Officer. After
the examination and cross-examination and re-examination of a witness, the Inquiry
Officer may also put such questions to him as he may think it fit. In that event the
witness may be re-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant and
cross-examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer with the leave of the Inquiry
Officer on matters covered by the questions put by the Inquiry Officer.
The Government servant may offer himself as his own witness. In that case,
he may allow himself to be examined by his Defence Assistant or legal counsel as the
case may be. In such a case the Government servant will be liable to
cross-examination by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and examination by the
Inquiry Officer in the same way as other witnesses. If the Government servant does
not offer himself as his own witness, this fact may not be relied upon by the
Presenting Officer to deduce therefrom his guilt in any way.
The record of their depositions will be made and signed and made available
to the parties concerned in the same way as described in the above paragraphs.
If the charged Government servant wants to examine the Presenting Officer
as a defence witness, there can be no objection in principle in accepting the request.
In such an event, he cannot function simultaneously as a Presenting Officer while
deposing as a defence witness and another officer can be authorised to cross-examine
him. He can resume his functions as Presenting Officer after his examination as
defence witness was over. The inquiry officer may consider changing the
presenting officer in case his testimony is against the interests of the case of the
disciplinary authority.
40. Government servant questioned on evidence
The inquiring authority may after the Government servant closes his case and
shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on
the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for purpose of enabling the
Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against
him.
This is an important provision but seldom complied with. Failure of the
Inquiry Officer to question the charged official on the ircumstances appearing against
him and eliciting his explanation would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity
to the charged official to defend himself. The use of the expression ‘circumstances
appearing against him’ twice is significant.
For instance, in a case of bribery, the complainant may have deposed that the
charged official visited him at his residence on a particular day at a particular time
(where the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification took place later). The
inquiry officer is required to put this circumstance to the charged official and seek
his explanation. It is up to him to deny the visit outright or admit it and explain it
away as a courtesy call. All such circumstances should be put to the charged official
and his explanation sought.. It is not an empty formality. It enables the Inquiry
officer to hold a circumstance as incriminating in the absence of plausible
explanation,and helps him in assessing the truthfulness or otherwise of witnesses
and veracity of the defence version...
But, if the Charged official has examined himself as a witness, the inquiry
officer has discretion whether or not to question him, as the charged official had
opportunity to explain such circumstances on his own while deposing as a witness
and the charged official may question the charged official if any circumstance
remained unanswered.
41. Oral Arguments/Written Briefs
After the completion of the production of evidence on both sides, the Inquiry
Officer may hear the Presenting Officer and the charged Government servant or
permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire. In the
case of written briefs, the Presenting Officer should submit his brief first and furnish
a copy thereof to the charged Government servant and the charged Government
servant will thereafter submit his written brief. The charged official should be
furnished a copy of the brief of the presenting officer, so that he gets an opportunity
to meet the contentions raised therein by the Presenting officer; Otherwise, it will
amount to the inquiring officer hearing the presenting officer behind the back of the
charged official and denial of opportunity to the charged official to defend himself.
42. Requests, Representations etc during Inquiry
Representations are made by both sides during the course of the inquiry. The
Inquiry Officer should pass appropriate orders assigning reasons especially when the
orders have an adverse effect on the charged official and place them on record. This
record comes in handy to meet any contention of the charged official of denial of
opportunity to defend himself.. One word orders, “rejected”and the like will not serve
the purpose.
43. Daily Order Sheet
The Inquiry Officer should maintain Daily Order Sheet in which should be
recorded in brief the day-to-day transaction of business including date, time,
venue of inquiry and progress of inquiry. A gist of the representations made and the
orders passed thereon should also be recorded therein.
44. Report of Inquiry Officer—Factors for consideration
The findings of the Inquiry Officer must be based on evidence adduced during
the inquiry and in respect of which the Government servant had an opportunity to
rebut. While the assessment of documentary evidence should not present much
difficulty, to evaluate oral testimony the evidence has to be taken and weighed
together, including not only what was said and who said it, but also when and in what
circumstances it was said, and also whether what was said and done by all concerned
was consistent with the normal probabilities of human behavior. The Inquiry Officer
who actually records the oral testimony is in the best position to observe the
demeanor of a witness and to form a judgment as to his credibility. Taking into
consideration all the circumstances and facts, the Inquiry Officer as a rational and
prudent man has to draw inferences and record his reasoned conclusion as to whether
the charges are proved or not.
The Inquiry officer should discuss and assess the evidence on record and give
reasons for his findings. Mere incorporation of extracts of statements of witnesses or
a summary of the evidence does not meet the requirements.
The Inquiry Officer should take particular care to see that no evidence, which
the charged Government servant had no opportunity to refute, is relied on against
him.
Findings should be based on the evidece adduced during the inquiry and
brought on record. He should not take any extraneous material not forming part of the
proceedings into consideration or import his personal knowledge to the inquiry.
Evidence of a hostile witness need not be disregarded totally and can be taken
into consideration.
No material from the personal knowledge of the Inquiry Officer should be
imported into the case.
There is no question of giving benefit of doubt. The proof required is
preponderance of probability
45. Charge, where proved in-part
The Inquiry Officer should give findings whether the charged
Government servant is guilty of the charge or not guilty. He may give a finding
that the charge is proved in part, if the charge is not proved in its entirety and only
some of the aspects of the charge are proved.
46. Where a different charge is proved
If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry
establish any article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, it may
record its findings on such article of charge, provided that the findings on such article
of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has either admitted
the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity
of defending himself against such article of charge.
The inquiry officer can give a finding where a charge different from the
charge framed is proved, provided the charged official has admitted the facts or he
had an opportunity of defending himself.
An illustrative example can be a case of bribery where the charge of the
charged official demanding and accepting of a bribe may not have been established
but a charge of placing himself under pecuniary obligation with a person with whom
he is having official dealings may have been established on the basis of admitted facts
and the defence set up by the charged official that the bribe amount represented
repayment of a loan taken earlier or a loan advanced by him at the trap time as in
such a case both the stipulations are fulfilled.
47. Inquiry Report—what it should contain
The report of the Inquiry Officer should contain:
(i) an introductory paragraph in which reference is made about the
appointment of the Inquiry Officer and the dates on which and the
places where the inquiry was held;
(ii) the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct
or misbehaviour;
(iii) charges which were admitted or dropped or not pressed, if any;
(iv) charges that were actually inquired into;
(v) the defence of the Government servant in respect of each article of
charge
(vi) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge
(vii) findings on each article of charge. and the reasons therefore..
48. Record of Major Penalty Proceedings
The Inquiry Officer may maintain the record in a major penalty proceedings in
the following folders:
(i) a folder containing:
(a) list of exhibits produced in proof of the articles of charge;
(b) list of exhibits produced by the charged Government servant in his
defence;
(c) list of witnesses examined in proof of the charges;
(d) list of defence witnesses.
(ii) a folder containing depositions of witnesses arranged in the order in
which they were examined;
(iii) a folder containing exhibits;
(iv) a folder containing daily order sheet;
(v) a folder containing written statement of defence, if any, written briefs
filed by both sides, applications, if any, made in the course of the
inquiry with orders thereon and orders passed on any request or
representation orally made.
49. Inquiry Officer to forward record of inquiry to Disciplinary
Authority
The Inquiry Officer, where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, will
forward to the disciplinary authority his report together with the record of the inquiry
including the exhibits. Spare copies of the report may be furnished, as many copies
as the number of charged Government servants, and one more copy for the
Anti-Corruption Bureau in cases investigated by them.
(a) the report prepared by the Inquiring Authority;
(b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government
servant;
(c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the
inquiry;
(d) written briefs, if any, filed by the presenting officer or the Government
servant or both during the course of the inquiry; and
(e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring
authority in regard to the inquiry.
50. Inquiring Authority, functus officio
The Inquiry Officer, after signing the report, becomes functus officio and
cannot thereafter make any modification in the report.
51. Functions and Powers of Inquiring Authority
The following are the functions, which an Inquiry Officer will have to
discharge, and powers, which he can exercise in the conduct of an inquiry:
(1) There should be a proper order of appointment issued by the
Disciplinary authority in respect of the inquiry in his favour and the
Inquiry Officer should check up the order to satisfy himself that it is
properly worded and signed by the competent authority.
(2) A Government servant (superior in rank), serving or retired, can be
appointed as Inquiry Officer.
(3) Inquiry Officer can proceed with the inquiry, except when there is a
specific order of stay issued by Court.
(4) Inquiry Officer is a delegate of the Disciplinary Authority.
(5) Inquiry Officer cannot delegate power of conducting inquiry.
(6) Inquiry Officer is not subject to the directions of the Disciplinary
authority or his own superior officers in the conducting of the inquiry.
(7) A witness cannot be Inquiry Officer.
(8) Inquiry Officer should stay the proceedings where bias is alleged
against him and await orders of competent authority. Bias should have
existed before the enquiry had started. There is no question of bias in
official functions.
(9) He should check up whether the enclosures to the charge memo and
other records are received.
(10) Venue of inquiry should normally be the place where witnesses and
documents are readily available, but any other place can be fixed
according to the requirements of the case and convenience of the
parties.
(12) He should arrange for production of documents required by the
charged employee for his defence. He can reject the request to
summon documents considered not relevant to the inquiry, and in such
a case he should record reasons for rejecting the request. Where the
competent authority claims privilege, he is bound by such decision and
he cannot demand their production.
(13) Inquiry Officer can reject the request to call any witnesses cited by the
charged official, if their examination is considered irrelevant or
vexatious or causes harassment or embarrassment.
(14) Inquiry Officer may summon defence witnesses and write to the
employer and not merely leave it to the charged employee to produce
them.
(15) Charged employee can examine himself as a witness in his own behalf
in which case he can be subjected to cross-examination on behalf of
the disciplinary authority.
(16) At the preliminary hearing, he should apprise the charged employee,
the defence assistant, if any, and the presenting officer, of the
procedure of the inquiry and draw up a programme in consultation
with them.
(17) The charged employee may be asked whether he would admit the
genuineness and authenticity of the listed documents, and admitted
documents may be marked as exhibits straightaway. This would
obviate the necessity of examining witnesses to prove them.
(18) Depositions of witnesses may be recorded in a narrative form.
Wherever considered necessary, question and answer may be recorded
verbatim. The statement should be read over to the deponent, and
corrections if any made in the presence of both sides. The signature of
witness should be obtained on each page and the Inquiry Officer
should also sign on each page. At the end, the Inquiry Officer should
record the following certificate:
“Read over to the witness in the presence of the charged officer and
admitted by him as correct/Objection of the witness recorded.”
(19) During the examination of a witness, the Inquiry Officer should see
that the witness understands the question before answering. If he gives
evidence in a language other than English, it shall be correctly
translated into English and recorded, unless recorded in the language
spoken. If the witness deposes in a language other than English and
the deposition is recorded in English the deposition should be
translated in the language in which it is made and read over to the
witness and a certificate recorded as follows:
“Translated and read over to the witness in -- (mention the language)
and admitted by him to be correct.”
(20) Leading questions i.e. questions suggesting answers to the witness
should not be allowed in chief-examination or re-examination, unless
such questions relate to matters which are introductory or undisputed
or which have already been sufficiently proved.
(21) Inquiry Officer may record the demeanour of the witnesses wherever
considered necessary and discuss it in his report.
(22) Inquiry Officer may put such questions, as he deems fit, to witnesses
for obtaining clarification on any point, but he shall not cross-examine
witnesses.
(23) The Inquiry Officer may permit the party calling a witness to treat him
as hostile and cross-examine him, when the witness deviates from his
previous statement or from the material on record. In such a case, the
Inquiry Officer should discuss the evidence of such hostile witness
while rejecting or accepting it, in the inquiry report.
(24) Where a number of witnesses to an incident or any aspect are cited in
the charge sheet, there is no obligation to call all of them. Presenting
Officer has discretion as to which of them should be called and the
Inquiry Officer cannot interfere with his discretion unless it is shown
that there is some oblique motive for not examining them.
(25) Combined statements of two or more witnesses should not be
recorded. Separate statement should be recorded of each witness.
(26) No other witness or outsider shall be allowed during the examination
of each witness.
(27) Previous statements recorded during preliminary enquiry,
investigation, trial cannot be relied upon, unless those witnesses are
produced for cross-examination.
(28) Inquiry Officer has no power to compel the attendance of witnesses
and production of documents, unless the provisions of the
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and
Production of Documents) Act, are applicable and specifically
extended to the inquiry. If they are official witnesses, the head of the
department or office may be requested. Action can be taken against
official witnesses for failure to appear.
(29) Before the close of the evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority,
the Inquiry Officer may in his discretion allow the Presenting Officer
to produce evidence not included in the list and may himself call for
new evidence or recall and reexamine any witness. In such a case he
shall make available to the charged employee a list of the further
evidence and allow him to inspect the documents and adjourn the
inquiry. He may also allow the charged employee to produce new
evidence, if he is of the opinion that production of such evidence is
necessary in the interests of justice.
(31) Inquiry Officer should examine the charged employee on the
circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on record to
enable him to explain them.
(32) Inquiry Officer cannot cross-examine the charged employee or put
incriminating questions.
(33) Arguments may be heard on both sides. Where written briefs are
submitted, it is necessary that a copy of the brief of the Presenting
Officer is furnished to the charged employee before the latter is asked
to submit his own.
(34) Inquiry Officer is well within his right to regulate the inquiry in such a
manner as to cut out delay, but in the process cannot refuse oral or
documentary evidence relevant to his case which the charged
employee wants to lead in his defence. He can check and control
cross-examination of witnesses, if made in irrelevant manner.
(35) Inquiry Officer examining himself as a witness cannot continue as
Inquiry Officer.
(36) Where there is no provision for appointment of a Presenting Officer or
where a Presenting Officer is not appointed, Inquiry Officer can
discharge the functions of Presenting Officer.
(37) Adjournment may be granted where there are weighty reasons and the
Inquiry Officer is satisfied about the genuineness and bonafides of the
request. Reasons for rejecting the request for adjournment should be
recorded and a mention made in the Daily Order Sheet.
(38) Representations received from both sides should be kept in separate
files.
(39) A daily order sheet should be maintained where the day-to-day
transaction of business including date and time, venue of inquiry and
brief particulars of progress of inquiry should be recorded.
(40) A gist of representations and requests of charged employee and
Presenting Officer and orders passed thereon should be recorded in the
Daily Order Sheet.
(41) Orders passed by the Inquiry Officer on any issue in the course of the
inquiry, are not appealable.
(42) Where, during the course of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer is
succeeded by another Inquiry Officer, the successor shall proceed with
the inquiry from the stage at which it was left by the predecessor,
unless he considers it necessary to recall and reexamine any of the
witnesses already examined.
(43) Inquiry Officer should not take any extraneous material or material not
brought on record in the inquiry, into consideration.
(44) Inquiry Officer should not refer to the preliminary enquiry report or
report of investigation by the police or nay other record or documents,
when they are not part of the record of inquiry.
(45) Inquiry Officer should not make any reference to the advice of any
legal or other officer, or act on such advice.
(46) Inquiry Officer should not impart his personal knowledge into the
inquiry.
(47) For any decision taken and orders passed on any matter in the course
of the inquiry, cogent reasons should be given in justification in
writing and placed on record.
(48) Inquiry Officer should discuss and assess the evidence, oral and
documentary, on record and give reasons for the findings arrived at by
him. Mere incorporation of extracts of statements or a summary of
evidence does not meet the requirements.
(49) Findings on the charges should be based entirely on the evidence
adduced during the inquiry.
(50) Inquiry Officer should give his findings on each charge.
(51) Inquiry Officer cannot recommend penalty.
(52) The approach of the Inquiry Officer in arriving at a decision on any
issue should be that of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of
the matter.
(53) Inquiry Officer should just do what is “lawful” without being
“legalistic”.
52. Action on Inquiry Report
On receipt of the Inquiry Report and the record of inquiry from the Inquiry
officer, the Disciplinary Authority can take action as follows:
The report of the Inquiry Officer is intended to assist the disciplinary authority
in coming to a conclusion about the guilt or otherwise of the charged official. The
findings of the Inquiry Officer are not binding on the disciplinary authority and it can
disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and come to its own assessment of
the evidence forming part of the record of inquiry.
The disciplinary authority will examine the Inquiry report and the record of
inquiry carefully and dispassionately and satisfy itself that the charged official has
been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
The disciplinary authority will consider whether the procedure laid down has
been complied with and whether such non-compliance if any has resulted in violation
of any provisions of the Constitution or in miscarriage of justice
The disciplinary authority will record its tentative findings in respect of each
article of charge whether, in its opinion, it stands proved or not. The disciplinary
authority must apply its mind to all relevant facts which are brought out in the inquiry
report and other case record for arriving at an opinion as to the tentative findings on
the charges.
53. Further Inquiry
If the disciplinary authority considers that a clear finding is not possible or
that there is any defect in the inquiry, for instance where the Inquiry Officer has taken
into consideration certain factors without giving the charged official opportunity to
defend himself in that regard, or where there are grave lacunae or procedural defects
vitiating the inquiry or the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the
inquiry was not made in conformity with the principles of natural justice, the
disciplinary authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case
to the Inquiry Officer for further inquiry and report. He cannot appoint a different
inquiry officer for the purpose. The Inquiry Officer will, thereupon, proceed to hold
further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services
(CCA) Rules, 1991..
The disciplinary authority cannot remit the case for further inquiry for the
reason that the inquiry report has gone in favour of the charged official or that it
does not appeal to him or for the purpose of inducing the inquiry officer to fall in line
with him. In such cases, the disciplinary authority can, if it is satisfied on the
evidence on record, disagree with the Inquiry Officer and arrive at his own findings
54. Disciplinary authority disagreeing with the Inquiry officer, need not
contest the conclusions
On the question of the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings of
the inquiring authority, the Supreme Court held, in the case of High Court of
Judicature at Bombay vs Shashikanth S. Patil, 2000(1) SLJ SC 98, that the reasoning
of the High Court that when the Disciplinary Committee differed from the finding of
the inquiry officer it is imperative to discuss the materials in detail and contest the
conclusion of the inquiry officer, is quite unsound and contrary to the established
principles in administrative law. The Disciplinary Committee was neither an
appellate nor a revisional body over the Inquiry Officer’s report. It must be borne in
mind that the inquiry is primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a
reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and also to afford the
punishing authority with the materials collected in such inquiry as well as the views
expressed by the inquiry officer thereon. The findings of the inquiry officer are only
his opinion on the materials, but such findings are not binding on the disciplinary
authority as the decision-making authority is the punishing authority and therefore
that authority can come to its own conclusion ofcourse bearing in mind the views
expressed by the inquiry officer. But it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority
should “discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the inquiry
officer”. Otherwise the position of the disciplinary authority would get relegated to a
subordinate level.
He shall forward a copy of the inquiry report to the Government servant
requiring him to submit his written representation or submission. Where the
inquiring officer holds the charge as not proved and the disciplinary authority holds a
contrary view the reasons for such disagreement should also be communicated to the
charged official.
He shall consider the representation of the charged official, if any, before
proceeding further.
He may impose a minor penalty, even though the disciplinary proceedings are
instituted for imposition of a major penalty.
(vi) Where the authority is not competent to impose a major penalty, it
shall forward the record of inquiry to the authority competent to impose a major
penalty and the latter authority may act on such record.
He may impose any of the major penalties.
It is not necessary to give an opportunity of making a representation on the
penalty proposed to be imposed .
The penalty imposed should be commensurate with the gravity of the charge
established.
The order passed by the disciplinary authority is in exercise of
quasi-judicial powers vesting in him. He should apply his mind and arrive at
his own decision on findings of guilty or otherwise and on quantum of penalty and
pass a self-contained speaking order and record reasons wherever he differs
with the findings of the inquiry officer. Disciplinary authority should not call
for remarks or seek the views of Head of Department or of any officer or of the
Anti-Corruption Bureau.
55. Imposition of Penalty
The penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of the
charge established. Rule 9 of the A.P.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules, 1991 has a
specific provision that in proven cases of bribery and corruption, a penalty
of dismissal or removal from service should normally be imposed. To ensure a
clean and efficient administration, Government directed that in all proven cases of
misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery, outraging the
modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed.
Government further laid down that disciplinary action should be taken against the
officials where a minor penalty is imposed in cases of the type mentioned above, in
violation of the proviso to rule 9 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. (G.O.Ms.No.2
G.A.(Ser.C) Dept. dated 04-01-1999, Circular Memorandum No.698/Special.B3/99-1
G.A (Spl.B) Dept. dated 30-08-1999)
“Warning”, “let off”, “to be more careful in future” and the like are not
penalties specified under rules 9 and 10 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991. The
disciplinary authority should impose a specified penalty in case he is held guilty of
the charge or exonerate him in case he is held not guilty of the charge.
56. Order on Inquiry Report
After considering the advice of the Public Service Commission, where the
Public Service Commission is consulted, the disciplinary authority will decide
whether the Government servant should be exonerated or whether a penalty should be
imposed upon him and will make an order accordingly. The penalty imposed can be
minor or major.
In arriving at a finding on the articles of charge and deciding the quantum of
penalty, the disciplinary authority should take into account only evidence adduced
during the inquiry and which the Government servant had the opportunity to rebut.
The order should be signed by the disciplinary authority competent to impose
the penalty.
57. Orders where charges held not proved
Having regard to its own findings on the articles of charge, if the disciplinary
authority is of the opinion that the articles of charge have not been proved and that the
Government servant should be exonerated, it will make an order to that effect and
communicate it to the Government servant together with a copy of the report of the
Inquiry Officer, its own findings on it and brief reasons for its disagreement, if any,
with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
58. “Show Cause Notice”
Article 311(2) of the Constitution was amended in 1963 making it necessary
to give the Government servant concerned a reasonable opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. The Article was further
amended in 1976 dispensing with the need to give such an opportunity. As from
3-1-77, when the amendment came into force, it was not necessary to give
opportunity to the Government servant of making representation on the penalty
proposed to be imposed.
Still where the inquiry is conducted by an officer other than the disciplinary
authority himself, it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the
Inquiry Officer’s report to the charged officer and give him an opportunity to make a
representation against the contentions raised in the report (not against the proposed
penalty) before taking a decision on the charges.
It may be noted that there is no need to give the Government servant a show
cause notice against the penalty proposed to be imposed or a show cause notice
against the report of inquiry as such. Communication of a copy of the inquiry report
is for the limited purpose of enabling the Government servant to submit his written
representation on the report for the consideration of the disciplinary authority. before
arriving at a finding on the charges. The use of the expression ‘show cause notice ‘
while communicating a copy of the inquiry report is misleading and should be given
up.
59. Consultation with the Vigilance Commission
The advice of the Vigilance Commission shall be sought both before arriving
at a provisional conclusion upon receipt of the inquiry report and after receiving the
submission of the charged officer if any and before arriving at a final conclusion
regarding the findings on the delinquency and the penalty to be imposed on the
charged officer. The disciplinary authority shall give due consideration to the advice
of the Commission. Deviation if any from the advice shall be made only after
obtaining orders of the Chief Minister through the Minister concerned and the Chief
Secretary to Government. Though the advice of the Commission is not binding on
the disciplinary authority or the Government such deviation from the advice of the
Commission will be included in the Annual Report of the Commission.
60. Consultation with Public Service Commission
In cases in which it is necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service
Commission, the record of the inquiry together with relevant documents will be
forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Public Service Commission for advice,
and its advice taken into consideration before imposing the penalty. While referring
the case to the Public Service Commission, particulars should be furnished in the
proforma prescribed.
61. Consultation with Anti-Corruption Bureau
The Supreme Court held in the case of State of Assam vs. Mahendra Kumar
Das, AIR 1970 SC 1255, that the inquiry is not vitiated if consultations are held with
the Anti-Corruption Branch, if the material collected behind the back of the charged
officer is not taken into account and the inquiry officer is not influenced.
62. Inquiry Report etc, furnishing of copy to ACB
Government decided that a copy of the inquiry report along with the order of
the disciplinary authority on the inquiry report in cases where the inquiry has been
instituted based on the report of the ACB, should be furnished to ACB and that it is
not necessary to furnish the whole record of disciplinary proceedings, that the ACB
should not reopen or review the action taken by the disciplinary authority and they
can be utilised only for internal analysis and record. (G.O.Rt.No.977 G.A. (Spl.B)
Dept. dt. 26-2-2003)
The order made by the disciplinary authority will be communicated to the
Government servant together with:
(a) a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer;
(b) a statement of findings of the disciplinary authority on the inquiry
officer’s report together with brief reasons for its disagreeement, if
any, with the findings of the Inquiry Officer;
(d) a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Public Service Commission
and where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the
Public Service Commission a brief statement of the reasons for such
non-acceptance.
A copy of the order will be sent to:
(i) the Vigilance Commission, in cases in which the Vigilance
Commission had given advice;
(ii) the Public Service Commission in cases in which they had been
consulted;
(iii) the Head of Department or Office where the Government servant is
employed for the time being unless the disciplinary authority itself is
the Head of Department or Office; and
(iv) the Anti-Corruption Bureau in cases investigated by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau.
63. Special Provisions of procedure
The procedure required to be followed in the normal course for imposition of
major penalties on Government servants under rules 20 and 21 of the AP CS (CCA)
Rules, 1991 is dealt with above. There are certain special provisions of procedure
laid down under the said rules to cater to developing situations and they are dealt
with below.
64. Ex parte inquiry
Where the Government servant to whom a copy of the articles of charge has
been delivered does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the
date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the disciplinary
authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of rule 20 of the
CCA Rules, the disciplinary authority may decide to hold the inquiry ex parte or if it
considers it necessary so to do, appoint an inquiring authority for the purpose.
Occasions may arise when the charged Government servant fails, omits or
refuses to be present during the inquiry proceedings despite proper notice to him.
Under such circumstances the inquiry officer is left with no alternative but to hold the
proceedings ex parte in the absence of the Government servant. Where the
proceedings are held ex parte, the inquiry officer should record the reasons why he is
proceeding ex parte.
In ex parte proceedings, the inquiry will have to be held, ie. witnesses and
documents should be produced and evidence recorded as in the normal course.
Notice of each hearing should be sent to the Government servant and he is at liberty
to take part in the inquiry at any stage of the proceedings. If he has not attended the
inquiry at a particular stage, it does not take away his right to attend the inquiry at any
subsequent stage.
It shall not be necessary to recall witnesses examined in his absence or repeat
the proceedings conducted ex parte already lawfully..
The practice of granting adjournments routinely should be given up and resort
had to ex parte proceedings in deserving cases. Judicious application of the
provision will have a salutary effect in speeding up proceedings.
In the case of U.R. Bhatt vs Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1344, the Spreme
Court held that when the appellant declined to take part in the proceedings and
remained absent, it is open to the Inquiry Officer to proceed on the materials which
were placed before him. When the Inquiry Officer had afforded to the public servant
an opportunity to remain present and to make his defenee, but because of the
conduct of the appellant in declining to participate in the inquiry, all the witnesses of
the State who could have been examined in support of their case were not examined
viva voce, the Inquiry Officer was justified in proceeding upon the materials placed
before him
It may be noted that delivery of the articles of charge to the Government
servant is a pre-condition to invoking the provision of ex parte proceedings, as
metioned under sub-rule (6) of rule 20.
65. Change of Inquiring Authority
Whenever an inquiring authority after having heard and recorded the whole or
any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is
succeeded by another inquiring authority which has and which exercises, such
jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the evidence so
recorded by its predecessor, or partly recorded by its predecessor, and partly recorded
by itself,. provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that
further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been
recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine
and re-examine any such witnesses.
As such, in the event of a change in the inquiry officer, it is not necessary to
start the inquiry afresh.
66. Where Disciplinary Authority is not competent
A disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the penalties on a
Government servant can institute disciplinary proceedings against any such
Government servant and a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the
minor penalties may institute proceedings for the imposition of any of the major
penalties notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent to impose
any of the major penalties as per Rule 19 of the CCA Rules.
In this regard there is a matching provision under sub-rule (16) of Rule 20 of
the CCA Rules that where a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the
penalties specified in clauses. (i) to (v) of rule 9 and rule 10 but not competent to
impose any of the penalties specified in clauses. (vi) to (x) of rule 9, has itself
inquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of any charge and that
authority, having regard to its own findings or having regard to its decision on any of
the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it is of the opinion that the
penalties specified in clauses. (vi) to (x) of rule 9 should be imposed on the
Government servant, that authority shall forward the records of the inquiry to such
disciplinary authority as is competent to impose the last-mentioned penalties.
The disciplinary authority to which the records are so forwarded may act on
the evidence on the record or may if it is of the opinion that further examination of
any of the witnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witnesses and
examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witnesses and may impose on the
Government servant such penalty as it may deem fit in accordance with the Rules.
This provision meets the legal requirement in the event of such a situation
developing of a disciplinary authority competent to impose a minor penalty alone
instituting proceedings for imposition of a major penalty due to unforeseen
circumstances but it may not be treated as accepted procedure, for administrative
considerations.
67. Higher authority which instituted proceedings alone competent to
impose even a minor penalty
If the disciplinary proceedings have been instituted by a higher authority
competent to impose a major penalty and on receipt of the report of the Inquiry
Officer, it appears that a minor penalty will meet the ends of justice, the final order
imposing a minor penalty should be passed by the same higher disciplinary authority
which had initiated the proceedings and not a lower disciplinary authority though it
may be competent to impose a minor penalty.
68. Common Proceedings
Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the
Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal
from service on all the Government servants may make an order directing that
disciplinary action against all of them be taken in a common proceedings under rule
24 of the CCA Rules. If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal
from service on such Government servants are different, an order for common
proceedings may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the
others. The order should specify—
(i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the
purpose of such common proceedings;
(ii) the penalties which such disciplinary authority will be competent to
impose;
(iii) whether the proceedings shall be instituted for a major penalty or a
minor penalty.
Common proceedings cannot be instituted if one of the Government servants
involved has retired from service. Proceedings against the retired person will have to
be held under rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and against
the persons in service in terms of rule 24 of the CCA Rules. Th e oral inquiry against
them in such a case should be entrusted to the same Inquiring Authority. Common
proceedings when once commenced can however be continued even if one of the
persons retires from service in the course of the proceedings. The proceedings will
have to be suspended if one of them dies or is dismissed or removed or compulsorily
retired from service.
In the case of Vijay Kumar Nigam vs State of ,MP, 1997(1) SLR SC 17, the
Supreme Court held that taking into account the statement of the co-charged official
in common proceedings in adjudging misconduct, is not objectionable.
A common proceedings against the accused and accuser is an irregularity and
should be avoided.
There may be cases where two or more persons concerned therein are
governed by different disciplinary rules. In such cases, proceedings will have to be
instituted separately in accordance with the respective Rules applicable to each one
of them and such public servants cannot be dealt with in a common proceedings.
However, it will still be advantageous, if the inquires are entrusted to the same
inquiry officer.
Where two or more Government servants are involved in a case, it should be
the endeavour to deal with them in a common proceedings as the advantages are
innumerable.
69. Time limits
The CCA Rules fixed time limits .for various stages of action; for instance 10
working days is the time-limit for appearance of the charged Government servant and
submission of his statement of defence, under sub-rule (4) of rule 20. These
time-limits are not observed, not even taken note of.
The proceedings should be conducted as per the time schedule, granting
extensions of time only where justified. Where the charged official fails to comply
with the requirements without valid reasons, the disciplinary authority/inquiry officer
may pass over to the next stage.
But abnormal delays, in fact, take place on the part of the disciplinary
authorities themselves from the stage of institution of the proceedings, in framing of
charges, securing documents and the like.. The disciplinary authority/Inquiry officer
should feel responsible and pay adequate attention and take timely action. .
70. Related issues of disciplinary proceedings
The following are some related issues having a bearing on disciplinary
proceedings.
71. Evidence Act
The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code
are not applicable to the departmental enquiries. The spirit of these enactments
should, however, be followed in departmental enquiries. The Inquiry Officer should
afford reasonable opportunity to both sides to present their respective cases including
full opportunity for cross-examining witnesses..
72. Principles of Natural Justice
The following are the two important basic Principles of Natural Justice:
(i) No one can be a judge in his own cause
(ii) Hear the other side.
The first principle means that the disciplinary authority and the inquiring
authority should be free from bias. The second principle stipulates that the charged
official should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.and this operates
throughout the proceedings from the beginning to the end.
73. Standard of proof
The standard of proof required in a departmental oral inquiry differs
materially from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. The Supreme Court
has given clear rulings to that effect that a disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal
trial and that the standard of proof required in a disciplinary inquiry is that of
preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the
proof required in a criminal trial. (Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 SLR SC
355; State of A.P. vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 and Nand Kishore Prasad
vs. State of Bihar, 1978(2) SLR SC 46)
Thus, material found not sufficient for proof in a criminal trial can be held
sufficient in a departmental proceeding, .and consequently a fact which is not proved
in a criminal trial may be held proved in departmental proceedings.
The departmental authorities, if the inquiry is properly held, are the sole
judge of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be
based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be
permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under
Article 226 of the constitution. (State of AP vs S. Sreerama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723).
The Supreme Court held, in the case of Union of India vs Harjeet Singh
Sandhu, 2002(1) SLJ SC 1, that if two views are possible, court shall not interfere by
substituting its own satisfaction or opinion for the satisfaction or opinion of the
authority exercising the power, in judicial review.
The Supreme Court held in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union of India,
1995(6) SCC 749, that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court/Tribunal in its power of review does
not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence.
74. Order passed by Inquiry Officer not appealable
An order passed by the Inquiry Officer on any issue in the course of the
inquiry, any order of an interlocutory nature or of the nature of a step-in-aid of the
final disposal of a disciplinary proceedings, is not appealable as specifically provided
in the CCA Rules and hence the question of granting an adjournment on account of
going in appeal against such an order, does not arise.
However, when bias is alleged, inquiry officer should stay the proceedings
and await orders of the competent authority, as bias is alleged against him and his
deciding the issue himself would amount to his being a judge in his own cause.
75. Adjournments
An adjournment may be granted where there are weighty reasons and the
inquiry officer is satisfied about the genuineness and bona fides of the request. The
charged official has no right to an adjournment as a matter of course. The inquiry
officer may pass over to the next stage and consider proceeding ex parte in case of
default by the charged official.without valid reason.
76. Stay by Court
Proceedings need not be adjourned or stayed in the following circumstances—
(i) on receipt of a notice under sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code;
(ii) on receipt of intimation that the impugned officer proposes to file a
writ petition;
(iii) on receipt of a mere show cause notice (or rule nisi) from a court
asking --
(a) why the petition should not be admitted; or
(b) why the proceeding pending before disciplinary
authority/inquiring authority should not be stayed; or
(c) why the writ or an order should not be issued.
The proceedings need be stayed only when a court of competent jurisdiction
issues an injunction or clear order staying the same.
No disciplinary proceedings, however, should be started subsequent to the
initiation of the court proceedings, if they have the effect of deterring or intimidating
the petitioner from proceeding with the court case.
77. Further inquiry, where order set aside on technical grounds
Where the order of the court setting aside the order of the disciplinary
authority imposing a penalty is on merits on consideration of facts, it is binding and
should be complied with unless it is taken up in appeal to a higher forum. But when
the court has passed the order purely on technical grounds without going into the
merits of the case, it is open to the competent authority on a consideration of the
circumstances of the case to hold a further inquiry against the official on the
allegations on which the penalty was originally imposed and rectify the procedural
lapses and comply with the requirements and pass a proper order. Same is the
position where the order of the disciplinary authority is set aside by the departmental
appellate authority. The provisions of deemed suspension under sub-rules (3), (4) of
rule 8 of the CCA Rules bear this out
78. Fresh Inquiry, in case proceedings are quashed by court on technical
grounds
The Supreme Court held, in the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma
vs State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1334, that where departmental proceedings
are quashed by civil court on technical ground of irregularity in procedure and where
merits of the charge were never investigated, fresh departmental inquiry can be held
on same facts.
79. Procedural defect after conclusion of Oral Inquiry--
Fresh proceedings from the stage of defect
If the oral inquiry has been held properly, a defect in the subsequent
proceedings will not necessarily affect the validity of the oral inquiry Where the order
of dismissal was set aside on the ground that it was made by an authority subordinate
to the competent authority in contravention of Art. 311 of the Constitution, fresh
proceedings could be restarted from the stage at which the oral inquiry ended.
80. Role of Disciplinary Authority, the sole judge
In a departmental action, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge and he is
in the picture throughout from the beginning to the end. The disciplinary authority
verifies the allegation by conducting a preliminary enquiry himself or getting it done,
decides on instituting disciplinary proceedings, frames charges against the
Government servant, considers the statement of defence and decides to hold an
inquiry and conducts a regular inquiry or gets it done by appointing an Inquiry
Officer for the purpose and appoints a Presenting Officer to present the case in
support of the charges on his behalf and the Presenting Officer examines witnesses in
support of the charges on behalf of the disciplinary authority, obtains representation
of the charged Government servant on the inquiry report and finally arrives at a
finding of guilty even in disagreement with the finding of the Inquiring Authority and
imposes a penalty. The disciplinary proceedings are thus entirely different from a
criminal trial, where the prosecuting authority appears before a neutral third-party
Judge or Magistrate.
81. Action against Disciplinary Authority for lapses in conducting
proceedings
Government decided that in all cases where the circumstances leading to a
Government servant’s reinstatement reveal that the authority which terminated his
services, either willfully or through gross negligence, failed to observe proper
procedure as laid down in the CCA Rules, before terminating his service, proceedings
should be instituted against such authority under rule 20 and the question of
recovering from such authority the whole or part of the pecuniary loss arising from
the reinstatement of the Government servant should be considered. (Memorandum
No.380/65-1 G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dated 24-02-1965)
The High Court of Rajastan held, in the case of Dwarakachand vs State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1958 RAJ 38, that if a superior officer holds the inquiry in a very
slipshod manner or dishonestly, the State can certainly take action against the
superior officer and in an extreme case even dismiss him for his dishonesty.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, in the case of S. Venkatesan vs
Union of India, 1999(2) SLJ CAT MAD 492, held that disciplinary authority can be
proceeded against in disciplinary action for misconduct of imposing a lenient penalty.
Government ordered that cases relating to corruption are to be dealt with
swiftly, promptly without delay and the appropriate authorities should find out and
deal with the persons responsible as and when delay is found to have been caused
during the inquiry. (G.O.Rt.No.1699 G.A. (Spl.C) Dept., dated 15-04-2003)
Hyderabad (I.V.RATNA RAO)
Date.30.04.2004 CONSULTANT
A.P.VIGILANCE COMMISSION
No comments:
Post a Comment