2. The disciplinary authority who had suspended a delinquent employee himself conducts the Inquiry. The employee resists it on the plea that Disciplinary Authority had already pre-judged the issue. Is he correct? Give reasons.
3. A Deputy Secretary was assaulted by some rowdy employees who were later charge sheeted. An Under Secretary who was also a victim was appointed Presenting Officer during Inquiry. The Deputy Secretary was listed as witness. Is the Procedure correct?
4. An under Secretary who was appointed I.O. in a disciplinary case was also an eyewitness. When his turn came he requested the Presenting Officer to record his statement. The Presenting Officer in turn requested his colleague to act as Presenting Officer. After making statement and facing detailed cross-examination by the Defence Assistant of Charged Officer the Under Secretary proceeded further as I.O.. What was the defect in the procedure adopted by the Under Secretary?
5. In an Inquiry, the I.O. read out to the charged employee a statement made by a person during preliminary investigation and asked him what he (charged employee) had to say in the matter without producing the person who had made the statement. Is the procedure correct?
6. On the very first day of hearing in an inquiry, Charged employee expressed no confidence in the I.O. on the plea that 3 years ago I.O. had spoiled his ACR. IO continued with the proceedings on the plea that he had to fulfil the mandate given to him by the Disciplinary Authority. Is the action of the IO correct?
7. During the course of a disciplinary inquiry, the I.O. received a detailed Confidential report from CBI, about the conduct and character of charged employee. Inquiry Officer relied on this information and proved the charges against the delinquent employee. Was he correct? Give reasons for your answer.
8. In an Inquiry, the I.O. ruled that the charges framed against the delinquent employee could not be proved as the evidence adduced by Presenting Officer was not adequate. However, disciplinary authority was of the view that inference drawn by IO was not correct. He, therefore, ordered a fresh inquiry and also warned the previous I.O. for dereliction of duty. Is the action of Disciplinary Authority correct? Give reasons.
9. In the course of inquiry, the IO called some more witnesses other than those listed in the charge sheet. He did not examine some of the listed witnesses as he considered them irrelevant and ruled that their examination would be a waste of time. Is this action justified?
10. Mr. A was charge sheeted for unauthorised absence for a period of over 6 months and also insubordination. He participated in the first 3 hearings of the inquiry and thereafter raised an objection that I.O. was favouring the Presenting Officer. He made a representation to the Disciplinary Authority for change of I.O.. And made it clear that he would not participate in the proceedings till the I.O. was changed. Disciplinary Authority did not change the Inquiry and passed a speaking order to this effect. The Charged Officer continued to abstain from the proceedings. However, he was keeping track of the developments. As he was not appearing before the I.O., the latter decided to proceed ex-parte. When the case of disciplinary proceedings was over, Mr. A appeared and requested the I. O. to record his defence statements. I.O. did not permit him on the plea that once ex-parte proceedings had commenced, the Charged Officer lost his right to participate. I.O. accordingly, concluded the proceedings and submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges against Mr. A were proved. Was the I.O. correct?
11. Mr. X was charge sheeted for manipulating entries in a bill and overcharging a customer. Original bill was cited as document based on which the chargé was to be proved. An I.O. was appointed. During the inquiry, Mr. X insisted on production of carbon copy of the bill in question. This was not allowed on the ground that when original bill had been inspected by Mr. X, no useful purpose would be served by examining the carbon copy of the same. After following the procedure, I.O. held Mr. X guilty. Comment on the propriety of the ruling given by the Inquiry Officer.
12. Mr. PQR was charged with beating a peon who had come to
deliver Dak. An I.O. was appointed to conduct inquiry. Mr. PQR. cited names of
3 witnesses, one of whom was a private person who had come to meet him on that
day and was present on the scene. Other two were employee of another division
of the corporation at Nasik. While considering the request of Mr. PQR to
examine these 3 witnesses, Inquiry Officer requested the Charged Officer to
cite local witnesses. According to the I.O., he could not summon witnesses from
out station, as he had no power to sanction Travelling Allowance. As regards
the private party, the I.O. felt that being an interested party, he may not be
reliable. Thus the inquiry was concluded without these witnesses and the
Charged Officer was found guilty. Comment on the correctness of the procedure.
OPEN - CCA Rules - References (open)
