Based on the provisions of the DA Regulations of the organization you represent, the inquiry is to be conducted. However the DA regulations of all Public Sector Organizations and Government Owned Bodies are modeled on the CCS (CCA) Rules,1965. They are all nearly identical. The CVC adopts a common inquiry procedure through their Commissioners of Departmental Inquiries in respect of inquiries of all public servants. Certain preliminary guidelines needed at the outset when the officer was appointed as IO and the facilities to be provided to the charged officer to know the the material on which the imputations are based and also to prepare his defence have been covered already in the earlier two pages.

The different stages and steps for a departmental inquiry are provided in detail in the page Life Span Cycle -1 and Life Span Cycle -2 dealing with inquiry procedures. In the present page only salient information forming essential additional guidelines to the inquiry officer during regular inquiry are covered.

No doubt evidences are recorded and got signed by all including the witness concerned and become part of the inquiry. But it is a good practice for an inquiry officer, to note significant facts and arguments relevant to the issues of the charge sheet emanating in the process of the testimony of each witness. While taking notes mark separately significant facts proving/disproving an imputation and significant argument, supporting or rebutting a conclusion. This is in addition to the original analysis of the charge sheet and reply of the charged officer for the charge sheet submitted to the disciplinary authority and identifying the issues involved in the charge sheet to be decided in the inquiry. The inquiry officer was also advised earlier to study the management and defence records (documentary evidence) after these are filed respectively and note the significant facts evidenced therein relevant to the issues of the charge sheet aforesaid. This will alert the inquiry officer when incomplete or mutually contradicting evidences are presented on an imputation by the P.O and later by the CO. Supplementary questions and clarifications can be asked by the inquiry officer in such a situation. He may also call for additional records or witnesses if need be, since only one evidence can be true, and there cannot be both proof and disproof for a single imputation or conclusion. Here the inquiry Officer has to accept the most reasonable argument and discard the other. Recording simultaneous notes will thus keep the inquiry officer to identify areas of apparent conflict in the evidence. The notes will also be very helpful to the inquiry officer at the time of preparation of his final report.

Before the close of the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiry officer may, in his discretion, allow the presenting Officer to produce new oral or documentary evidence not included in the lists of documents and witnesses given to the Government servant with the articles of charge. In such a case the Government servant will be entitled to have, if, he demands it, a copy of the list of further documents proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence exclusive of the date of adjournment and the date to which the enquiry is adjourned. The inquiry officer will also give the Government servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record.

The inquiry officer may also, at his discretion, permit the Presenting Officer, to recall and re-examine any witness. In such a case the Government servant will be entitled to cross-examine such witness again on any point on which that witness has been re-examined.

The production of further evidence and/or re-examination of a witness will not be permitted to fill up any gap in the evidence but only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which had been produced originally. The presenting officer should, therefore, when he finds that there is any lacuna or defect in the evidence and that fresh evidence to remove the defect or lacuna is available or that the position can be clarified by recalling a witness, make an application to the inquiry officer to the effect.

The sequence of actions/steps taken daily in the inquiry proceedings are to be reduced in writing every day. These are called 'order sheets'. The order sheets are to be signed by the inquiry officer and counter-signed by all the other participants to the inquiry, namely, the presenting officer, the charged officer and the defence assisting officer, if any. Copies of the order sheets to be given to each participant. The order sheet should be a true and faithful record of the day's proceedings. It should commence with the date, place and time of inquiry and the persons present (by name & status in the inquiry, i.e. 'CO','PO' etc.) and then follow with the sequence of events that took place on that day. It will also include any procedural objections raised by the CO with reference to the conduct of the inquiry and the ruling if any given by the IO.

Additionally the testimony of each witness for the management or on behalf of the charged officer examined should also be recorded simultaneously and this should be signed by the witness and counter signed by the charged officer, presenting officer and defence assisting officer, as also the inquiry officer.

These records will help to establish the bonafides of the inquiry process adopted and the fact that all proceedings took place in the presence and with active participation of the charged officer. While acting on the report of inquiry submitted by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority would carefully scrutinise that all procedural formalities connected with the conduct of the inquiry were scrupulously followed and the charged officer provided due opportunities and facilities. In case of gross violation of the inquiry procedure, the disciplinary authority may set aside the inquiry conducted and order a fresh inquiry. The inquiry officer has therefore to pay due attention to the procedural requirements of the inquiry, and ensure that these are strictly adhered to.

Detailed procedure to be followed already furnished under profile for P.O. in Page-3 while dealing with Ex-party Proceedings. These should be scrupulously followed.

What if vulgar questions are asked, or questions impeaching the personal character of the witness, which are irrelevant to the inquiry, are asked? The Indian Evidence Act, gives clear guidance. These Sections are covered in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Project Literature on Evidence Act, included as a subject in the Legal Supplement. A hyperlink is provided to the subject and you may visit and view the contents of Chapter-5. Once you become familiar with the provisions of parallel law, its adaptation will be easier in a commonsense-backed departmental inquiry. Avoid the technicalities of the law, but accept the core spirit thereof. The question of examination and cross examination of witnesses in a departmental Inquiry is covered in this web site in a separate page for guidance of all participants concerned. This is also added as the last page of the profile of IO.

Questions are intended to be asked to bring material facts, to bring about the truth, to demolish the falsity and to establish the veracity or otherwise of witnesses. Though not directly applicable, The Indian Evidence Act under Sections 135 to 166 covers this topic, and knowledge of the provisions will be extremely useful to the different participants of a departmental inquiry.

This part of the Act (also its last part) deals with the Examination of witness and covers -

• the manner in which a witness is to be examined by the party who calls him,

• What kind of question can be put to him? and

• What kind of questions cannot be put to him? and

• How the opposite party can test the veracity of deposition? and

• How his credit-worthiness be impeached

While the technicalities of the Act need not be brought in an inquiry conducted departmentally, those parallel provisions, which are relevant and appealing to the commonsense of the inquiry officer are useful as guidance material.

1. Witness to character can be cross-examined and re-examined (Sec.140)

2. Leading Questions may be asked in cross-examination (Sec.143)

3. A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing and relevant to matters in question (sec.145)

4. Other Lawful Questions-

   • Questions to test the veracity of the witness

   • to discover who he is and what his position in life, or

   • to shake his credit, by injuring his character

1. Questions not be asked without reasonable grounds. In other words one cannot embark on a 'fishing expedition' (Sec.149)

2. Indecent and Scandalous questions cannot be asked (Sec.151)

3. Questions intended to insult or annoy, or questions needlessly offensive in form cannot be asked (Sec.152)

While under examination, a witness may refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned. The writing could also relate to those made soon after the transaction. When the original of such document is not produced, but a copy has been produced, the witness may refresh his memory by referring to the copy.

Of course the truth is to be proved, but this statement does not make you wiser, since truth is abstract and we do not know at this stage, what the truth is. It will be worth while to learn a few basic concepts from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The report of the Inquiry Officer is called a fact-finding report. What are facts? And how to find them?

Fact:
Is anything capable of being perceived by the senses or any mental condition of which a person is conscious.

But we are not concerned with any and every facts. What are appropriate facts for the inquiry and with particular reference to the charge sheet?

Facts-in-issue:
This means those fact(s), which by itself or in combination with other facts proves or disproves the existence or non-existence of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in the Inquiry. That is, it forms the subject matter of the proceedings (inquiry), in other words the disputed allegations in the charge sheet. The PO has to prove the facts-in-issue and the charged officer is interested in disproving/explaining them satisfactorily i.e. "disarming" the facts-in-issue.

Relevant fact:
One fact is said to be relevant to another, when it is connected with the other. In other words relevant facts are connected or background information to the allegations/imputations. Some of them may not be disputed.(e.g "that the charged officer worked in a branch in a particular year". This is a relevant fact intended to amplify the subsequent fact-in-issue that at that branch the charged officer committed a particular misconduct, which would become a fact-in-issue, if disputed.

Evidence may be given not on any or every facts, but only pertaining to "facts-in-issue" and "relevant facts" (i.e. facts that go to materially support or amplify "facts-in-issue"). "Facts-in-issue" (otherwise called the "imputations") are to be proved or disproved. All evidences to be brought in only with this goal. All evidence brought in must confirm to the standard 'relevant fact'. Relevancy of evidences to the facts-in-issue (imputations) is a very important criteria and meticulously insisted in an inquiry, so that the inquiry does not shift outside of its domain. The charged officer, while submitting the list of defence evidence to the inquiry officer, has to explain the relevancy of each and every witness and documents that he proposes to introduce and the Inquiry Officer will carefully scrutinise the same, before permitting such evidence to be introduced in the inquiry. Similarly the authenticity of the evidences (documents) introduced by the P.O. will be scrutinised with equal care by the charged officer, and he can object and "impeach" those documents that are not material to the inquiry.

To learn more on the concept "Relevant Facts" you must study chapter II (Sections 5 to 31) of the Indian Evidence Act. For the benefit of the viewers of this web site, Indian Evidence Act is comprehensively discussed in six parts under the Project Literature on Law (also called Legal supplement)

(http://in.oocities.com/kstability/projects/law/index.html).

If an Inquiry Officer after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an enquiry ceases to function as Inquiry Officer for any reason, and a new officer is appointed as Inquiry officer for conducting the inquiry, the new Inquiry Officer in his discretion may proceed with the enquiry de novo, or from the stage left by the predecessor and act on the evidence already recorded by his predecessor or the evidence partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by him, depending upon the stage at which the previous Inquiry Officer ceased to function.

However, if the new Inquiry Officer is of the opinion that a further or a fresh examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice, he may recall the witness or witnesses for examination, cross-examination and re examination in the manner provided.

The question of stay or adjournment of oral inquiries in disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Inquiring Authorities, when the delinquent officer goes to a court of law, has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Law. The proceedings need not be adjourned or stayed in the following circumstances :-

1. On receipt of notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code;

2. On receipt of intimation that the impugned officer proposes to file a writ petition;

3. On receipt of a mere show cause notice (or Rule NISI) from a court asking :-

   1. why the petition should not be admitted; or

   2. why the proceedings pending before Disciplinary Authority/ Inquiring Authority should not be stayed; or

   3. why a writ or an order should not be issued?

The proceedings should, however, be stayed only when a court of competent jurisdiction issues an injunction or clear order staying the same.