This presenting officer is appointed by the Disciplinary authority in PNB to " present the case in support of the articles of charge" as per DA Regulation No.6 (6). The PO need not be an employee of the Bank. But he must be a public servant. This provision is made in order to enable Inspectors of CBI to act as presenting officers and present disciplinary cases investigated by the Agency against officers of the Bank. The term public servant is exhaustively defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. How to refer to Indian Penal Code or any other law books? Are you to buy these books whenever you have to make a stray reference to a section or two? No, all bare acts are readily available on the Internet for your reference free of cost. Please refer to web site http://oocities.com/chamberpractice/content.htm for an exhaustive index of all Indian Statutes. Each name of statue in the index is a hyperlink. If double clicked it will jump to a screen containing the text of the relative enactment.

Obligation to conduct a principled inquiry intended to prove the allegations against the delinquent employee, is a forbearance or code of conduct accepted by the employer. He has to necessarily and honestly fulfil this time-consuming and expensive obligation as a compulsory formality. Without passing through these steps the employer is not competent to punish an erring employee. Conducting a proper inquiry and providing due opportunity to the delinquent officer to defend himself against the charge sheet eliminates the remote possibility of arbitrary action on his part. Such an inquiry further safeguards the employer, in the event of a subsequent judicial review of the bonafides of the process in a writ petition filed in a competent court of law by an aggrieved employee. The executive act of punishing an erring employee is no longer a simple subjective decision of the management. It is made a quasi-judicial and objective course of action to be arrived at in a transparent process and through a speaking order.

This is because, if the charge-sheeted employee is able to satisfactorily explain his conduct and to establish his innocence through the process of the fact-finding and truth returning inquiry, he will not be punished, but exonerated. Viewed in this perspective the disciplinary inquiry provides full protection to the innocent employee, despite having been charge-sheeted. The inquiry is therefore not a simple formality but serves a specific need-justified purpose. It has to be conducted with the proper spirit and following the accepted norms. The Inquiry should be conducted not only in a bonafide manner, but should be seen as to have been conducted as such. This implies that everything about an inquiry should be transparent. The PO at the outset should accept this basic culture and philosophy underlying a departmental inquiry. Getting the truth is the purpose of the inquiry and the truth later resolves on merits, whether the employee is to be punished or exonerated. This should be the ethics for the role of the Presenting Officer. He has to prove the charges by establishing the truth through a definitely structured process and not otherwise.

The basic purpose of a departmental inquiry can be read from the DA Regulation No.6 (2). The purpose stated is "for inquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer employee". Search for the truth is the mission of the Departmental Inquiry and not a blind pursuit after the delinquent officer. If the truth is established and allegations are properly proved as per findings, the delinquent officer is awarded penalty. If otherwise, that is, if the inquiry does not prove the truth of the allegations and the officer employee is able to satisfactorily explain his conduct, he is exonerated. In this context it is worthwhile for the PO to learn how the Inquiry Authority will assess the evidence on both sides in deciding if a particular allegation is proved or not.

The E.O will study each imputation one after another and will thereafter consider the evidence adduced by the P.O. He will then consider the evidence by the charged office and assess both cases. That is, the case of the management and that of the defence, on merits. He will arrive at his conclusion thereafter, giving reasons for the same. This is called a speaking order. The PO should give correct and complete material in support of the charges as is available on record. This is the first part of his duty. In the second part, which may be referred as the watchdog function of the PO, he will safeguard the management case from erroneous material being adduced by the charged officer and trying to escape justice by circumventing the issues. But PO will not interfere with the charged officer's efforts or bonafide attempts to furnish satisfactory data/evidence explaining his conduct and projecting his innocence. Do not obstruct fair means by the charged officer, but always prevent unfair means being resorted by him. This is the ethical boundary of the PO's goals in a departmental inquiry. PO should never cross this boundary.

The charge sheet speaks of allegations against the delinquent officer. It does not contain a categorical statement that he has committed any particular misconduct as such at this stage. It only refers to allegations as having been leveled against him. It is obvious the disciplinary authority is not making these allegations, but some other executive authority has referred them to the Disciplinary authority, as the statutory authority to set the disciplinary process in motion. It speaks at the outset "So..and so.. is alleged to have committed " This approach and wording of the basic document (i.e. charge sheet) without any effort to prejudge issues qualifies the inquiry as an open or objective process. An inquiry has been ordered because the disciplinary authority " is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against the employee".

All concerned or connected with a departmental inquiry should respect this core concept to make the inquiry a meaningful and bonafide process. When this is not followed and the goal is pre-set viewing the charged officer as guilty from the beginning and the inquiry is pushed through to establish this as a definite goal, such an inquiry is called a "rubber-stamp" or "empty process". It is the duty of the PO to present and try to prove the charges, but more than that he must have a mindset to follow a bonafide inquiry process and not a "rubber stamp" approach.

Presenting officer should refer to my detailed guidelines on Departmental Inquiry for study of the subject. It may be stated that two cardinal principles of conducting the inquiry are:

1. Following a quasi-judicial approach by those who are responsible for conducting the inquiry.

2. Explicitly allowing the principles of natural justice to the delinquent employee in the different stages of the inquiry.

Both these concepts are explained in detail in my literature. Please visit the pages, if need be to refresh your memory by clicking on the links provided above. PNB has formulated the statutory regulations under provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970, (ACT 5, of 1970). These regulations include PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977 and PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 defining the exemplary conduct that officer employees of the Bank should confirm to and providing a statutory forum to deal with violations of the conduct regulations by the officer employees. The Bank is purported to have followed the implementation in substance of both a quasi-judicial approach and provision of the principles of natural justice to a delinquent officer, called upon to face an inquiry into his conduct under the DA Regulations. The regulations are critically analyzed in terms of both the precepts and the implementation in my different literature.

An objective disciplinary authority or an inquiry authority eager to conform and strictly abide by the ethical standards of their respective offices should recognize that their loyalty is not to the management, but to the Institution overall and primarily to the statutory DA Regulations. None of them need to obey executive orders from the administrative wing not in consonance to their statutory responsibilities. This is the essence of statutory duties. Power and responsibilities of the disciplinary authority, inquiry authority are not derived from a hierarchical administrative setup, but from a statute. But this stand is only partly applicable to the P.O.

PO may have to abide to the administrative order in respect of the administrative part of his duties, i.e. preparatory duties for collection of relevant material in support of the charges. But once the inquiry starts with the coming into operation of action initiated under DA Regulation No.6 (8)(b), the statutory functions of the PO is set into motion. Strict conforming to the statutory regulations is his responsibility and any administrative orders he can accept only, if that does not conflict with his statutory role.

PO has to interact with the administrative officer, who overviewed the disciplinary case and recommended the charge sheet. He has to interact with this level with reference to collection of the material and other information relating to the background of the charge sheet and building the case dairy of the disciplinary case.

What are the resources of knowledge that a P.O. should possess? What ethics he must follow and what objectives he should set for himself? Broadly he must acquaint himself with adequate knowledge of :

1. Essential requisites of a Departmental Inquiry

2. Basic principles of 'Quasi-judicial approach' to be adopted in a departmental inquiry. Essentially this stipulate that no one interested in a case can act as the disciplinary authority or inquiry authority and that the case should be decided after hearing the 'other side' i.e. defence of the charged officer. Findings should be stated with accompanying reasons, i.e. stated by way of speaking orders. This is adhering to the dictum that justice should not only be done, but properly shown to have been done through a transparent and perceivable manner.

3. The 'principles of natural justice' which should be extended to the charged officer to make the inquiry a bonafide process and not an empty formality. PO should not do anything to vitiate this primary obligation of the management

4. Essential provisions of the PNB officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1977, in particular the Regulations Nos. 6(6), 6(13), 6(14), l 6(16), and 6(18) that directly relate to the P.O. However the PO has to acquaint with all regulations referring to the charged officer in the DA Regulations to participate effectively his watchdog functions in the inquiry. The role of the P.O. ends with the submission of presenting officers brief as per DA Regulation No.6 (18). But a simple knowledge of the different process for the disposal of the case and the subsequent avenues to the charged officer under DA Regulation No.17 (Appeal) and No.18 (Review) will help the P.O. to perform his job more carefully and methodically understanding the implications in its totality.

5. In case of defective presentation and consequent lapses in the report of the inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority under Regulation No, 7(1) may order a fresh inquiry. PO should safeguard that such a contingency does not arise on account of any deficiency in presentation on his part.

6. The PO should know the basic investigation procedure. He must be able to logically and chronologically present the evidence on record in support of the allegations and to examine and cross-examine witnesses. This can be done with adequate prior preparation, with an intrinsic understanding of the core issues with reference to the disciplinary case. In short he must be well acquainted with the disciplinary case and all relevant facts about the same. This will enable him to cross-examine the defence witness in a competent manner.

7. The presenting officer must also be well versed with the provisions of the Conduct Regulations of the Bank

8. Instructions issued by the Bank (Book of Instructions and instructions through circulars) from time to time relevant to the job performance by the delinquent officer, in particular relating to those transactions included in the in the charge sheet.

How to implement the objectives set and equipped further with the knowledge resources. There must be a methodology or strategy of performing the duty. The DA Regulations do not explain the meaning and content of the words "to present the case". There is neither guideline on the ethics of the job, nor even the methodology of executing the job. There are some references under Regulations 6(13), 6(14), l 6(16), 6(18) indicating specific functions to be fulfilled by the presenting officer. However you may not get wiser for an effective discharge of your assignment with only these guidelines. PO has to equip himself with much more by way of a job chart on the complexities of departmental inquiry to discharge his duties without erring on either side. Obviously these inputs cannot be forthcoming directly by reading simply the text of the DA Regulations.

The duty of the PO, is to present the evidence in support of the articles of charges in order to establish the truth. The inquiry should not result in the charged officer getting exonerated due to the failure of the P.O. to effectively present available evidences on record or to prevent the charged officer from misleading evidence and confusing issues. Otherwise if the charged officer is able to explain his conduct cogently before the inquiry authority and is acquitted, the PO is not at fault and still deemed to have discharged his duty properly. The charges could not be proved because of the inherent weakness of the charge sheet case and not due to failure of the P.O. In other words if the case against the charged officer is weak or deficient inherently, the PO should not labour unethically to prove the charges by extraneous means. Lack of strength of a charge sheet cannot be compensated by the over-strength (or over action) of presentation by the PO.

The responsibilities of the P.O in a nutshell are two fold:

1. Present the case of the management as per all the evidences on record.

2. Prevent the charged officer from misusing the forum of the inquiry and building his defence otherwise than through bonafide efforts. This watchdog function commences from the very beginning of the inquiry, when the CO submits his list of documentary and oral witness with a statement of their relevancy.

After receipt of the order of his appointment as PO from the Disciplinary authority until the PO submits his brief of the management's case, there are six stages to be covered by him in the life cycle of a departmental inquiry. PO has specific responsibilities at each stage.

The different stages of duties to be performed by a P.O. in the life cycle of a departmental inquiry are as under:

1. Case preparation (preparation of the case dairy) on receipt of appointment order as P.O. from the disciplinary authority, ending with fixing of the preliminary inquiry;

2. Preliminary inquiry;

3. Completion of post-preliminary inquiry of extending facilities to the charged officer to prepare his case leading to commencement of Regular inquiry;

4. Presenting management case at the regular inquiry;

5. Watchdog functions when defence presents its case;

6. Submitting PO's brief;

The bank incurs considerable expenditure in conducting a departmental inquiry. This is unavoidable, but efforts should be made by the inquiry authority and PO to expeditiously complete the inquiry, without diluting the provisions of providing natural justice to the CO. The CO, who is under cloud on account of the charge sheet, must normally welcome a quick and just disposal. Delay defeats justice and it is not in the interests of anyone.