The disciplinary authority must have been properly appointed to be competent to exercise the statutory functions, as provided in the DA Regulations. In case he is assigned the job, without the regular eligibility of having been duly appointed to the relevant post by a competent superior, he will be acting ultra vires. Placement in the post as per procedure for a permanent posting alone can statutorily invest him with the powers to act as a disciplinary authority for the specified segment of officers. Thus if the General Manager (Personnel) is the disciplinary authority for a particular grade of officers, only a person appointed permanently to the post of General Manager(Personnel) and properly circulated informing all that he is the General Manager (Personnel), will be eligible to initiate disciplinary cases and issue charge sheets to the concerned grade of officers. In other words, a General Manager, who is not appointed specifically to hold charge of the 'Personnel' functions, or an officer not appointed as General Manager (Personnel), but holding the post in a temporary or ad-hoc arrangement are not competent to issue charge sheets and handle disciplinary cases. This is explained in more detail hereunder.

A Disciplinary Authority or the Inquire Authority can always delegate part or all of their vested administrative or financial functions to other officer employees during their casual or temporary absence from respective offices. But statutory functions cannot be delegated in their temporary absence. A disciplinary authority in terms of statutory requirements has been appointed by the Board of Directors in consultation with the R.B.I and after prior approval of the Central Government, as specified in the schedule to the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1977. This can only be altered by following the same process by the Board. Thus, if the General Manager (Personnel) is the disciplinary authority for a particular category of officers at a time and he proceeds on three months leave, his deputy general manager, or any other general manager can discharge his administrative and financial functions on ad hoc arrangement. But his statutory functions cannot be entrusted unless the temporary arrangement is advised by the Board following the formalities of consulting the RBI in advance, and obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government. Imagine an administrative head of a District Court sitting in the seat of the District Judge in his absence and trying to dispose of the cases listed for the day. This is ultra vires of his powers and illegal. But he is competent, if delegated to exercise all the financial and administrative powers of the District Judge. PNB presently does not adhere to this legal requirement and number of charge sheets are being issued by officiating or provisionally posted zonal managers and general manager (Personnel), who are not duly appointed to these posts. In turn the inquiry officer and presenting officer appointed by a disciplinary authority, who lacks eligibility due to defective appointment will be equally invalid and this would initiate the entire inquiry process. Charged Officer can legally refuse to recognize charge sheets not issued by a competent disciplinary authority.

The overall success of HRD policies, employee morale, productivity, motivation and commitment to the objectives of the organization can be deemed as an index of successful discipline management. This is because discipline management is one of the several integral functions of HRD and general administration. However within the boundaries of the function of DA management, there can be specific parameters. These are explained below.

Such audit is conducted in Government and it is based on the findings of such audit, when the Government comes across serious anomalies in conducting disciplinary cases by different disciplinary authorities, that appropriate guidelines in such matters are being issued. There is a provision in the DA Regulations of the Nationalised Banks also for such audit, but this provision is not explicit and audit is not as a practice conducted. The prospect of a post-facto scrutiny by a higher officer, will infuse more responsibility in the functioning of the disciplinary authority. Also unintended deficiencies in the orders of the disciplinary authority can either be rectified, where the punishments given need modification or it may be plugged in future disciplinary cases.

Such provision for self-initiated review of disciplinary cases is vested in principle with the Review Authority under DA Regulation No.18. As per this Regulation the Review Authority, at its own initiative, can invoke the powers for review within 6 months even if there is no request for review by the delinquent officer. But this provision is optional. It will be ideal that this provision is made compulsory.

Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the reviewing authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such orders as it may deem fit.

While reviewing the standards of handling in respect of each of the authorities can be scrutinised and deficiencies brought out:-

1. The standard of the investigation process

2. The quality of presentation by the P.O.

3. The efficiency of the performance of Inquiry Officer, in terms of time-schedule and standard of his findings

4. Final assessment of the system and its overall efficacy

5. Guidelines for Administrative officers to plug/prevent such misconduct and for rehabilitation of the delinquent officer, in case of punishments other than terminating his service

Such review will act as an in-built process of self-correction of the system and effect progressive improvement in conducting disciplinary cases.

What are failed disciplinary cases? An officer is charge sheeted for grave offences, which if proved he would have been dismissed or removed from service. But then the PO has not been able to prove many of the charges and some of the charges, for which the PO was able to produce material evidence, the officer was able to explain satisfactorily. The Report of the inquiry officer could only highlight, with all struggled efforts that could be commanded, a few residual allegations as proved, and the disciplinary authority, as a face saving measure, imposes a penalty of reduction by one increment. This is a day to day happening in our Nationalised banks conducting disciplinary cases, where unprincipled charge sheets are the order of the day. In such cases the desire and decision to issue the charge sheet prompts the authorities to search for grounds. When the charged officer is meek and unable to protect himself, he becomes a victim of the malaise. But when he is alert, it results in a failed disciplinary case. Inefficiency in investigation and imperfect organizational set up may also result in unprincipled charge sheets.

As an investigating agency CBI will take such a development very seriously, if it were to occasion in a case investigated by their officers. They give importance for thorough investigation. Some times an investigation of an RC is done over a stretched period of six months. CBI gives importance for its good reputation as an expert investigating agency and they do not look favourably at defective investigations. Officers who conduct unprincipled investigations, resulting in a mistaken charge sheet or an unjustified prosecution, are made accountable. If they are on deputation, they may be reverted back to their parent organization (State Police). In other cases they may be transferred to far off places.

Unfortunately nationalised banks do not take cognizance of this phenomenon. Had the investigating officer reported the correct facts, will the charge sheet been issued at all for a major penalty? What is the financial cost and human cost of conducting a disciplinary inquiry for no purpose?

The weapon of conducting disciplinary inquiry is in fact a double-edged weapon. It does cost something to the Institution in all cases. In respect of failed cases, it costs more for the institution and less for the delinquent officer, who may also nurse the feeling that he has been a victim of malice and harassment at the hands of an ungrateful and unrecognising management.

Here again if the court reverses the order of the disciplinary authority on specific procedural or technical grounds, it merely shows inefficiency in conducting inquiry properly. However if the revision order is based on gross irregularity in the inquiry process, it amounts to a stricture on the disciplinary authority and inquiry officer. Why should it happen? How the powers are misused or abused? Some accountability should be enforced, so that the weapon is not improperly put to use and there is no temptation in this direction.

Normally the Association is not to interfere when the employer exercises statutory powers to conduct inquiries and punishing erring officers. But these inquiries have to be conducted with their bonafides above board. Whenever the system is abused and such abuse is exposed, there is fit case for the Association to protest. They should even demand action against erring authorities connected with such disciplinary cases. There are informative chapters on this web-site. The first implies bad faith and second conveys lack of minimum knowledge and efficiency in conducting departmental inquiries.

• Abuse of Power by Management - Incidence of Malice, Malafide and Victimisation in Disciplinary Inquiries

• Deficiencies and Perversities in the system of conducting Departmental Inquiries

There is also a page giving the road-map of an action plan for officers' associations to secure departmental inquiries conducted honestly and in a bonafide manner.