PO should imbibe the spirit of an investigating officer in the pre-preliminary inquiry stage It is a fact-finding stage. Get everything about the case, look at everything and satisfy that the case is complete for presentation. If however there are gaps or discrepancies get them rectified them at this stage.

During preliminary inquiry he must accept the spirit of the inquiry officer (a moderator) and extend meaningful cooperation to the Charged Officer. We will conduct the inquiry later, but before that understand that these will be the material that we will show against you at the Inquiry. Now come prepared for the inquiry and receive all reasonable material that you need. It is also a loud message that inquiry, as the forum to arrive at the truth will also hear the other side.

During the regular inquiry the PO should act as a principled prosecutor. Norms and ethics of duty should predominate. He has to present his side of the evidence to the Inquiry Officer. He must protect his evidence from the sway of cross-examination by the Charged officer. He must also act as a watchdog and prevent charged officer to resort to evidence, which is not true, or methods, which are not principled. He is pro-management and never anti-charged officer. His role is that of a watchdog and not that of a bloodhound. He must cooperate with inquiry officer and maintain good standards and decorum in the conduct of the inquiry. His aim is to establish the inquiry as a bonafide process and also at the same time to complete the inquiry within the schedule of time.

In this context, it is advisable to understand the different types of misconduct for which charge sheets are issued. Broadly misconduct that is perpetuated by the Charged Officer may be of two categories. The first category is those willful acts executed with full knowledge. There is intent of the CO behind his action or CO has willfully committed acts of misconduct. All acts of misbehavior and corrupt practices by a CO fall under this category. Generally these delinquent officers will not have public sympathy in their favour. On the contrary a management will be criticized if it goes soft on these offenders. There will be no burden of conscience for the presenting officer in presenting these cases before the Inquiry Authority.

But there are other cases where misconduct is not caused willfully or with intent towards it by the charged officer, but that CO suffers as a victim in the context of fraud committed by others. A customer presents a forged cheque and the charged officer has unsuspectingly passed the same. He is charge sheeted for negligence departmentally, after filing FIR on the customer who cheated the bank. On the one hand the officer is negligent and his negligence has caused loss or risk of loss to the bank. On the other hand, he still commands sympathy of the society of co-officers, as an unfortunate victim. Punishing him sets a wave of demoralization amongst co-officers. This is a problem of human resource management.

In this case proving the charge is one duty and that of punishing the delinquent officer is a different duty thereafter. The second is the domain of the Disciplinary Authority and not that of the PO. PO has to perform his duty as per rules. He can feel sympathy to the CO in his hearts of heart, but he should neither express it or be influenced by this emotion, in the discharge of his core duties. But every authority can help helpless victims without disregarding its duty. Passion is wrong and not compassion expressed (not in words) but in your attitude, though not in the discharge of the core duties. Here the CO cannot deny his misconduct or the allegation of negligence in the performance of duty against him. He can only mitigate a harsh punishment by bringing attendant grounds that may dilute his misconduct and earn him a lenient view in the minds of disciplinary authority. The PO in this case may only lend negative support to the collateral attempts of the CO by not interfering in these submissions and leaving them to the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority as competent to decide. While still holding to the stand that the CO has committed an act of negligence, PO should not put road blocks in the way of the disciplinary authority to view the case compassionately and award lenient punishment. This has to be based on the records of the inquiry. On the core issue there can be no compromise. PO will not yield that the charge is not proved 100%, but he will not interfere with regards to attendant pleas by the CO to lighten his negligence. This is defined as acting as a watchdog and not as a bloodhound. This is common ethics for all audit functions, where one oversees and pinpoints weak areas in the work of another.

However in such conditions, and in such conditions alone, an inquiry can be initially deferred and attempts should be first made to book the real culprit, who had committed forgery and get him punished and try to secure the money lost restored, if possible. The case against the negligent officer can be pursued conveniently after the main case for cheating the Bank against the main culprit is closed. This will also mitigate the burden of suffering on the charged officer. This may result in the recovery of full or part of the amount defrauded. Further time is a healer and a gift of nature in this context. In a comparatively remote context extending clemency based on the overall record of the officer is seen as more appropriate, than within the proximity of the occurrence, when memory of the event is still 'hot'. However these steps are beyond the scope of the Presenting officer. He can only sail with the boat and be aware of the remedies. Please refer to my literature 'Integrity in Public Life and Services' for a detailed study of different grades of negligence in the performance of service. And the effects they bring.