When there is a proposal for action against a public servant the following two ingredients must be present:

1. A bonafide complaint. It should be expressed in specific and clear terms. The complainant should disclose his identify. It should not be an anonymous or pseudonymous complaint.

2. An objective (fact finding) investigation resulting in an investigation report. The investigator should conduct the investigation methodically (i.e. with an open mind and without pre-drawn conclusions). He must scrutinize the relevant transactions analytically in all aspects looking at events as happening chronologically and comparing at each state, what has been done, with what should have been done as per set procedures or rules. The investigator should scrutinize the role of all persons involved, and wherever deviations are noted by him, he should look to the deviations in terms of adverse effects if any. All circumstances appearing against individual employees should be discussed with them and their defence stated should become the part of the investigation report. The report will be deemed one-sided if the view-point of the employees deemed at fault is not obtained and included in the investigation report.

3. He will draw the report in the first part giving a brief history of the events and in the second part the list of deviations noted and the adverse consequences in the form of imputations of misconduct keeping in view the provisions of the conduct rules. Trivial and insignificant or routine irregularities normally observed in the usual course of business transactions should not be loaded in the investigation report, but only material lapses of serious nature should be listed.(If considered necessary the investigating officer can submit separate list of minor or procedural irregularities observed by him, that could not got removed by the persons responsible at the spot). If there are more than one omission or lapse separate imputations should be listed for each in the report. As far as possible documentary evidences should be collected to prove each imputation separately. However where there are gaps and documents are not readily available for such, and production of oral evidence is necessary, these should also be gathered. Persons listed, as oral witnesses should be examined as part of the investigation and the recorded statements of their evidence appended to the report.

4. The investigation and disciplinary action etc. all are intended in the ultimate analysis to protect the interests of the Institution (Bank). Therefore it is customary to provide opportunities to the delinquent officer to remove on spot such of these minor irregularities, as possible and the list of such irregularities got removed can be appended to the report. The same remarks apply to such other serious omissions or irregularities that are removable. (example incomplete loan documents executed by credit customers. - Prudence demands that you get this irregularity removed by the concerned officer/employee, who attended to completing details in the documents originally, than mentioning it thereafter initiating disciplinary action on the concerned officer.

A carefully and objectively prepared investigation report will serve as a real asset in the subsequent stages. It will enable action to be initiated on all persons held responsible and will not end in pursuing only particular employee on whom a complaint was received, (like dealing with the tip of the iceberg). It will also reduce the occasions for imperfect charge sheets to be issued creating lot of confusion and chaos in later stages. An objective investigation report, which pinpoints factual information and does not load value analysis, is the solid foundation for subsequently building a disciplinary case against persons at fault. Value analysis is a ceiling that hangs without the supporting walls and pillars. These are in other words subjective conclusion not supported by material information. The report overall should be useful and informative for taking corrective steps and safeguarding the interests of the organization, and not solely for initiating action against erring employees.

It will further provide a single life cycle for disciplinary cases from complaint to final action under control of a single authority (Disciplinary Authority) in a regulated time schedule and prevent indefinite piling up of disciplinary cases in the pre-charge sheet stage with the administrative authorities.

Though it is not explicitly stated, the necessity for an investigation is conveyed implicitly, Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 specifying the Procedure for imposing major penalties states as under: -

Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government Servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this or under the Provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 150, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.

We find a parallel provision under Regulation 6 (2) of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations.

The question naturally arises as to how the disciplinary authority is to arrive at " the opinion that there are grounds etc." A disciplinary case being a statutory and objective process, it goes without saying that the disciplinary authority cannot arrive at any such opinion arbitrarily or subjectively.

An objective way of arriving at such an opinion will be to start with a commencing point equal to a complaint or FIR, and followed by an investigation. Such investigation should be conducted by competent person not junior to the delinquent officer. If a junior officer conducts the investigation the report of inspection should be over-viewed by another officer senior in rank to the Delinquent Officer before it is acted upon.

Without such an investigation the disciplinary authority will not have material to satisfy prima facie that misconduct appears to have been committed and the material required to draft the charge sheet as provided under Regulation 14 (3) of CCS (CCA) Rules, which read as under: -

"Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this rule and Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to draw up.....": -

1. the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge;
2. a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each articles of charge, which shall contain-
1. a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the government Servant;
2. a list of documents by which, and a list witness by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained-

The procedure for disciplinary inquiries as set out in the Manual of CVC initiates from the point of Complaint and Investigation. It is necessary to deal with complaint and investigation through administrative guidelines as part Regulation 6 (2) of our DA Regulations (corresponding to Regulation 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules).

Departmental Inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding. When we refer this as a quasi-judicial procedure, it does convey the existence in part of quasi-administrative content in these proceedings. An administrative authority may recommend to the disciplinary authority for issuing a charge sheet against an employee under his control. He may also recommend names of officers considered by him as suitable for appointment as Inquiry and Presenting officers. He may conduct an investigation and collect materials (list of documents and list of witnesses) in support of the charges and furnish the same to the disciplinary authority. The chain of events from the point of time of the happening of the incident which is the subject matter of the charge sheet to the time of issuing the charge sheet by the Disciplinary Authority are all attended administratively, as the DA Regulation is silent on these topics.

The question is should these matters be left to the impulses of individual executives/ departmental heads acting on their own instincts. Any element of subjectiveness crept in these operations, may affect adversely the otherwise objective quality of the proceedings and render them arbitrary. It is therefore necessary that at every stage the administrative guidelines be standardized exhibiting the same substance and character as conceived in the statutory rules. These guidelines to be issued to different persons connected with the quasi-judicial proceedings. Role profile and guidelines or job charts issued to each authority should be carefully prepared in conformity with the overall requirement.