In the last chapter we considered some of the fundamental requirements of a departmental inquiry. We will now study the more advanced features.

1. Both are statutory proceedings and are based on same spirit to punish the guilty and protect the honest/law abiding.

2. Judicial review of proceedings by High Court is commonly available under both.

1. Offence/allegation presumed to be proved, if attendant facts are proved. There is no compulsion on the part of the prosecutor/presenting officer to prove motives or guilty mind. Burden of proving his innocence and of explaining the circumstances appearing against him satisfactorily is on the accused/delinquent employee.

2. The accused/delinquent employee can offer his own evidence in his favour under both proceedings

This is a drawback of departmental inquiries. Neither the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal Rules) 1969 or the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 expressly provide as a necessary ingredient that a prescribed investigation should be properly conducted and disciplinary action should be initiated only on the strength of the findings of such an investigation. It is not also provided that the disciplinary authority should take cognisance of the disciplinary case at the point of FIR (receipt of a complaint).However an objective investigation serving as a fact-finding source is essential for starting a bonafide disciplinary case. This point in detail is discussed in the article"Need for Objective Investigation before Starting a Disciplinary Case"

It is also important to study how inquiries are conducted for employees of central services as a model or example to benefit from their experience. It will be also useful that various administrative guidelines issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms to officers handling disciplinary cases be considered for evolving objective traditions, equity and fairness in the DA Regulations of nationalized banks.

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

1. A recognisable complaint. A self-initiated action by the management without a basis or supporting circumstances may be mistaken as an instance of subjectiveness or personal bias on the part of the charge sheeting authority against the charge sheeted officer.

2. An independent preliminary investigation resulting in a fact revealing report and establishment of prima facie case against the delinquent officer. The investigator should conduct the investigation methodically (i.e. with an open mind and without pre-drawn conclusions).

The report of a carefully and objectively conducted investigation 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 lead to pursue only the particular employee on whom a complaint was received. It will also reduce the occasions for imperfect charge sheets to be issued creating lot of confusion and chaos in later stages.

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

The Disciplinary Authority has the role involving himself in the initial and terminal stages of the inquiry. Guidelines to the Disciplinary Authority should include the consideration that should weigh in issuing or not issuing a charge sheet, and of issuing a charge sheet, when warranted only after conclusion of a proper investigation report and making available to him the investigation report, evidencing the committal of a prima facie misconduct as explained above. In other words the Disciplinary Authority should issue a charge sheet only after studying the material placed before him and satisfying the existence of prima facie of lapses, having been committed by the delinquent officer to warrant issue of a charge sheet. Special areas of his role:

1. Arriving at the decision to initiate disciplinary action on the basis of the complaint, investigation report or such other records placed before him

2. Carefully drafting the charge sheet, in particular, approving the articles and imputations, and the management evidences to be produced. Please refer to detailed guidelines for drafting Charge Sheets.

3. Appointing competent officers as Inquiry & Presenting officers to conduct the oral inquiry

4. Providing second stage reference to the charged officer on receipt of the report of the inquiry officer by forwarding the report and asking for his comments on the findings

5. And the most important- deciding the type and quantum of punishment, if to be imposed after the inquiry, as per Inquiry Officer's Report, and issuing the charge sheet accordingly

To further improve the system a preliminary report should be sent to the Disciplinary authority even at the stage, when a complaint against an employee is received and investigation ordered there against. In that case the investigation should be completed within a time frame and if there is no case made out against the employee as per findings of the investigating officer, the gist of the findings should be communicated to the Disciplinary Authority to close the case. This will prevent administrative officers from withholding disciplinary cases at their level indefinitely. There must a definite time frame from the point of view of receipt of the complaint in a disciplinary case and not from the point of view of charge sheet. In other words, the scope of functions of the disciplinary authority to extend from taking cognisance from the stage a complaint is received against an officer.

Charge sheets cannot be issued and inquiries cannot be ordered suited to the convenience and pleasure of the executive authorities. An employee should not be kept indefinitely under suspense and a time frame should be accepted to decide whether to initiate a disciplinary proceedings or not within say three months after completion of the Investigation and submission of Investigation Report by the Investigating Officer. In this context, I quote the following provision of Indian Penal Code contained in Section 468.

These limitations do not come in the way of prosecution under prevention of corruption act, where the punishment in all cases can be beyond three years.

Limitation can however be made applicable to cases of administrative lapses and unintentional procedural lapses in a departmental proceeding. In other cases if disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated after one year of detection or three years of occurrence, reasons for the delay should be satisfactorily explained by the administrative head, who recommends charge sheeting the employee alleged to have erred. The aim should be towards prompt and quick action. It defeats the purpose of the system, if an officer is charge-sheeted five years after he is alleged to have committed an omission and the disciplinary proceedings end in awarding a minor penalty. Time renders matter stale. Delay in such matters defeats justice and holds an officer in eternal suspense.

When an employee is promoted it should be on the basis of the totality of his performance and suitability. Any lapses committed by him in the existing post have to be disposed by considering appropriate actions therefor, before he is promoted. Normally after promotion to a higher post, the officer/employee should not be called upon to account for his actions before promotion, unless some material, serious in content, warranting such action comes to surface, afresh after his promotion. The dictum on which this is based is that "one cannot be simultaneously approbated and reprobated",/P>