The oral inquiry is concluded and the briefs of both the PO & CO are received. At this stage the IO reaches the last point of his assignment, that is, objectively analysing the volume of evidences presented by either parties and reaching, logical conclusions supported by definite grounds in respect of each imputation of misconduct to be able to record these findings in his report. The sum-total evidence presented are covered in several documents and these are referred as the "Records of Inquiry" as defined in Regulation No.6(21)(ii)(b) to (e) of PNB Officer Employees DA Regulations, 1977.

As far as the management's evidences are concerned these records are linear, i.e. forming a start with a definite beginning and terminate by a clear end through a step by step process with no back-turn at any stage. These records are:

1. Charge sheet - an abstract statement forming the start

2. Listed (Management) documents

3. Statement of listed (management) witnesses duly vetted by cross-examination by CO

4. Facts substantiated in favour of the management case in the cross-examination of defence witnesses by the PO

5. 2 to 4 are intended to amplify the contents of the charge sheet with required proof.

6. Summary of the above in a narrative form in the brief of the PO (the end)

Records of the defence are as under:-

1. Defence statement (PNB DA Regulation No.6(15). This is similar to a counter filed by a defendant in a civil suit in reply to the plaint filed by the plaintiff.

2. Defence documents

3. Facts substantiated in favour of the defence case in the cross-examination of management witnesses by the CO/DAO

4. Defence witnesses duly vetted through cross-examination of PO

5. Oral witness of the charged office, if given as per DA Regulation No.6(16)

6. Defence brief as per PNB DA Regulation No.6(18)

The defence documents are not linear, but circular. What is contained in the defence statement is corroborated by defence evidence and summed up by defence brief. The written statement of reply to the charge sheet submitted by the charged officer to the disciplinary authority is not a record of inquiry, though a copy of this is furnished by the disciplinary authority to both the IO and PO.

There are also supporting or ancillary records of Inquiry, which are neither material records nor deemed as Records of Inquiry, but are intended to evidence the due compliance procedural details of the inquiry, and to prove that the inquiry was conducted as per standards prescribed by the DA Regulations.

Example

1. Daily order sheets

2. Written statement of the charged officer, if received by the inquiry officer from the disciplinary authority

3. Other documents received by the inquiry officer from the disciplinary authority like order of appointment of the inquiry Officer and presenting officer

4. Letter from the charged officer, if any, intimating the name of the defence assisting officer

5. Letter of CO submitting list of defence records and witnesses with justification/relevancy

6. Orders of the IO approving or modifying the same

7. Copies of letters of IO intimating dates of preliminary inquiry and later regular inquiry to PO, CO and DAO

8. Copies of summons forwarded by the IO to both management and defence witnesses

The defence statement is a basic record, just as the charge sheet is one such basic record. Both are the initiators respectively of the management and defence case. As the charge sheet is substantiated by the management documentary and oral evidences, the defence statement has to be substantiated by the documentary/oral evidences to be filed by the charged officer. It may be pointed out that facts/statements mentioned in the defence statements which are not contested by the PO, either in his brief or through the management evidence, form the nature of uncontested statements and can be accepted as evidence, just as imputations in the charge sheet specifically not denied by the charged officer become uncontested imputations and accepted as proved. Otherwise than as provided above the inquiry officer should not accept assertions in the defence statement in favour of the charged officer and give weight for his case. However own evidence testified by the charged officer and allowed to be cross-examined by the PO, forms part of defence records.

Body gestures and spontaneous emotions/reactions displayed during the testimony by different witnesses and by the charged officer, if intelligently followed, reveal significant in-depth data about their the way their minds are working. This is called the demeanor of the witness/charged officer. Though this may not be cited as a material ground, it will convey to the inquiry officer the veracity, disposition or pre-set position of the witness or the charged officer. In other words it may indicate the direction in which the wind is blowing. Some such cases:

1. If the charged officer is hostile and putting obstructionist tactics, IO may presume that he has no strong defence and lack confidence in his case.

2. If the charged officer is seen raising too may procedural issues without material relevance, the same conclusion can be drawn.

3. If the charge officer is generally cool and calm and concentrates on the core issues, he may have a case.

4. If a witness is seen nervous in cross-examination, he may be a coached witness and trying to suppress some information.

5. If a witness shows extremely powerful memory on a particular minor incident, but when cross-examined is not able to recollect attendant facts, he may be a coached witness.

To much, however, should not be relied on the demeanor and taken as a principal logic in arriving at the conclusions by the inquiry officer. Demeanor is generally used as a 'thread' or 'line of scrutiny'. It is a starting point to pursue a particular line of reasoning. Conclusions will be confirmed, if there are supporting additional material.

Once inquiry is completed and both PO and CO submit their respective briefs, the Inquiry officer is possessed of the complete set of the records of the inquiry. His next job is to draft and submit the Inquiry officers report, which should be deemed as the end-product of the departmental inquiry. But this would be possible only if the inquiry officer is able to make a thorough and objective analysis of the entire maze of the records of the inquiry.

It is the responsibility of the charged officer to raise objections on procedural matters etc. at the earliest opportunity. Likewise when certain statements are made against him, he must avail the earliest opportunity to deny/rebut the same. As against this is the concept of "Burden of Proof". What is Burden of Proof?

There are two cardinal principles that a PO/CO must keep in their minds. The first is that your statements/assertions become strong when stated at the earliest opportunity. But in Civil/Inquiry proceedings, there is also what is known as the rule of "the Burden of Proof" (Sec.101 Indian Evidence Act). The meaning of the phrase "burden of proof" is not defined in the Evidence Act. The burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading-the burden, as it has been called, is that of establishing a case. This burden rests upon the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue and not upon the party who denies it; for a negative statement is usually incapable of proof.

The management asserts the positive, i.e. that you are at fault and you, the charged officer pleads the negative, i.e. that you are not at fault. It is for the Management to first put up evidence to show that you are at fault and your responsibility, for response rests only thereafter. Thus the burden of proving the charges against you initially rests with the management. You are, therefore expected not to rebut to the charges at the initial stage, but only to deny the charges and silently listen and understand fully the material that is placed by the management in support of its case against you. Your responsibility for rebutting the charges and vindicating yourselves arises only thereafter. In other words you are to disclose your hands only after the other side first unfolds its hands and allow you to see what all they hold.

The inquiry officer must keep this cardinal rule in mind while assessing evidence. As far as the charge sheet is concerned, it is the duty of the PO to subscribe evidence in the first instance to prove the allegations. If he fails in this in respect of any particular imputation, even if the charged officer offers no explanation against the particular imputation, it cannot held as proved. The benefit in respect of this imputation would go to the charged officer with the description "not proved".

But if the charged officer were to make any assertion about non-provision of a facility or violation of any rule, the burden of proving his assertions shifts to him.

The rule that statements advanced by one side which are not contested by the other party are deemed to have been proved by the Law of default. Thus if the charged officer does not contest an imputation mentioned in the charge sheet, it amounts that he accepts the same. Similarly if the presenting officer does not contest any relevant and material assertion by the charged officer in the defence statement made, (at least in his brief), the presumption will be that the PO accepts the same. The same rule applies to statements in the testimony of respective witnesses.

Thus if the management witness makes an assertion, which the charged officer claims is false, the charged officer may contest the same, even though he is not able to get a direct answer from the witness to establish the point in his favour. In such an occasion the charged officer may simply ask the witness as under - "I say what you have stated is wrong and you know it fully. What have you to explain for this." To such a question the management witness will again assert that he has only told the truth. Such a stand during the examination of a witness either by the CO or PO has the effect of contesting the evidence, when it is considered that the witness is testifying a "perverse" statement i.e. that is he is asserting something as true, though he is fully aware that what he has stated is false.

The demeanor of the witness and overall consideration like personl interest, if any, of the witness concerned etc. should enable the inquiry officer to take a stand either to accept the evidence of such a witness or not. But if the witness is able to corroborate his statement with additional relevant facts, the weightage of acceptance may go automatically in his favour.

The Steps are as under:

1. Collect the entire records of the inquiry (refer PNB DA Regulation 6(20)(ii)(Items b to e). These represent records the inquiry and only the contents of these records are to be referred to and conclusions drawn. It is the job of the IO to extract the truth from the maze of these evidences and his report of findings should be precise, clear and logical, i.e. unambiguous. It should be a speaking order, i.e. all conclusions made are suitably explained with the supporting reasons therefor.

2. Study the respective submissions for each imputation of misconduct. You will find material relating to facts and statements interpreting or explaining facts. The latter are called 'arguments' or 'logic' developed by either side

3. Whether the P.O. has proved the facts or whether the C.O. has rebutted and disproved the facts? When the fact(s)-in-issue relating to a particular imputation/article is proved or disproved conclusively, i.e. if the facts-in-issue have been rebutted and disproved, hold the imputation as disproved, and if the facts-in-issue have been conclusively proved hold the imputation as proved, and proceed to the next imputation. These form categorical proof or rebuttal of such imputations, i.e. proving or dismantling an imputation through merely hard facts. To understand this the allegation is to be split into two parts, (i) the premises and (ii) the conclusion. The premises are proved/disproved through hard facts. The conclusions in the inquiry are sustained through arguments.

Now the IO may refer to imputation No.1 and extract the evidences submitted by the P.O. (from the 3 items of management records of inquiry listed above) and separately prepare the gist of evidences of the charged officer submitted in the 5 items, delete replications and a single point should be taken only once. Now you have the sum total of the evidence (relating to "facts-in-issue" and "relevant facts") for this imputation for assessment as stated earlier. An expert IO can also draw inferences from the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, while deposing, but this can be only deemed as guidance for study of the relative weightage of the evidence as stated earlier. After preparing this analysis sheet, you may score off all items of evidence, which are irrelevant, or disproved. This will leave you a final extract comparatively precise and informative gist for dealing. Similarly the inquiry officer should prepare an Analysis sheet or arguments in support of or against each imputation from the records of the inquiry. The simultaneous notes jotted by the inquiry officer during the process of testimony of witness and analyses of documentary evidences filed will be of great value to prepare the analysis sheet. Keep the Analysis sheets with you and draw out your report, as explained subsequently and submit the same to the disciplinary authority with the records of the Inquiry retaining only the analysis sheet with you. All procedural records of the inquiry except the orders of appointment of the IO & PO may also be forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The procedural records will convey to the disciplinary authority that the Inquiry has been conducted observing due standards as needed.

The Report of the Inquiry Officer has to be conclusive and for understanding the contents, there should be no need to refer to other documents including the charge sheet. The report is based on a four-point approach as provided in Regulation 6(21((i),as under:

1. A gist of the articles of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour

2. a gist of the defence of the officer in respect of each article of charge;

3. a assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge

4. The findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor

When the article of charge consists of more than one imputation, the order of consideration will be imputation-wise and article-wise. The gist of the article of charges referred under sub-item (a) above should be followed by the gist of the evidences produced by the PO in support of the article/imputation.

A ceiling cannot stand aloof in the air. It has to have supporting walls, pillars and foundations. When conclusions drawn are supported by logically discussed analysis of the entire material of the inquiry, the reasons for arriving at a particular conclusion is lucidly explained in the report of the IO. This is referred to as speaking order. Reason for a decision need not be specified in an administrative order, but it has to be necessarily mentioned in a judicial or quasi-judicial order. This gives opportunity for the charged officer to prefer an appeal, if he were to dispute the grounds of the conclusions. It is here you will realise the importance of segregating material facts and arguments as quoted earlier. As the I.O analyses the arguments, and accepts the credible and sustainable arguments and these forms the conclusion for his findings on each imputation. However the IO can use his own words as needed to amplify his points.

Even though the issues may appear to be simple and the finding on an imputation in one way or other may be easily appealing to your instinct or conviction, following a structured and methodical approach is recommended and has its own value and this will stand by you. Even, at the extreme contingency, if your findings are subsequently proved as wrong, you will still be able to know where and how the error has crept in.

Advantages of following a structured procedure by recording a regular analysis sheet and then proceeding to write the Report of the inquiry officer are as under:

1. There is no scope for any material fact or argument advanced by either side during the inquiry getting omitted to be considered by the inquiry officer

2. There is no scope for subjectivity, which is possible when the Inquiry officer writes the report without a preliminary exercise of tabulating the records of inquiry through the analysis sheet

3. There is no scope for external issues or considerations cropping up in the findings

4. Though the system appears as round-about, you will find that you are able to compile your report much quickly. Generally you will be able co complete the report within a week's time after receipt ot the respective briefs.

5. You will also feel after submitting the report that you have done a honest job and this gives you a job satisfaction and a peace of mind, "as you rest your head over the pillow"

Learned judges of the High Court sometimes write judgements stretched to hundred or more pages. So also the reports of expert Commissions appointed by RBI or the Government of India. They all make regular sittings, collect testimony of several persons interested and then compile their report. These reports stand the test of time and become the source of informative literature on the subject. One example, nearer to Bankers, is the Narasimhan Committee Reports. Unless the Report Writer follows a structured procedure for collecting data (evidence) and tabulating it from hundreds of sources in proper and workable form, he will not be able to compile a really informative Report that would bring out all the parameters of the problem posed and address to its workable solution.