Whatever precautions your observe, there is no full-proof safety-net and at some stage or other there may be symptoms of crisis engulfing you in your career, unless you are

1. either a total non-performer and shirks responsibility, or

2. You are entrusted with a job of symbolic responsibility that exposes you to no risk at al

I referred about preventive strategies in the previous chapter. When prevention fails what you should do? We know that a cyclone or storm does not strike all of a sudden. Things start brewing and developing and climaxing into the storm. When crisis prevention is not possible, learn crisis-management. I will call the second stage as pre-emptive strategies. That is, ward off the crisis, before it could surface out.

We must start taking safeguards when the threat perception is perceived, but not after the threat emerges out. This is the pre-emptive stage. Many problems can be solved and a contingency of getting charge sheets warded off, if we are alert and active in this stage. If it is not possible to completely eliminate the problem, we can definitely dilute the crisis and make it less hazardous.

The disciplinary case commences not with the issue of the charge sheet, but in fact on receipt of the complaint against the CO and the decision to investigate the same. In fact , if the CO is alert, and gets wise according to the saying that "coming events cast forth their shadow", he can reasonably foresee trouble to brew much in advance, when some transaction in which he is connected or concerned brings adverse results and therefore becomes liable for a possible future inquiry. From this moment CO should start working for his safeguards and protection and cause steps to pre-empt the crisis. This is the pre-emptive stage. However the emphasis in the pre-emptive stage is primarily to ward off crisis with reference to the Institution he serves, which eventually indirectly amounts to working for his own safeguard.

One who faces risk in management, should build instinct expertise in risk management. There is no business venture, which can be managed without accepting reasonable risks. In fact business is a trade off between risks and reward. I have already explained preventive safeguards in the previous chapter for bank officers, who face a multitude of what may be identified as "white-collar threats"

When some thing goes wrong why the employer (say MYBANK) charge sheets the charged officer? This is because what had happened has jeopardised the interests of the Bank. The employer feels that things have gone wrong only because the charged officer has not acted prudently. Even when some things had not yet gone wrong, the occurrence of a potential threat of damage or loss may induce the employer to take such a critical view. But this is a progressive or phased development, as the crisis appears, brews and develops into a full-scale threat or damage, when an investigation, to find out how things went wrong may be ordered, as a prelude to find a scapegoat.

The best defence is try to undo the damage of threat of potential damage to the employer. This the CO can partially or substantially accomplish in the initial stage, in the normal manner of carrying out his functions, utilising the available resources of the employer at his command. This is the phase in which the interests of both the employer (Institution) and the charged officer coincide, as the charged officer has not yet been indicted. The employer is still a "nurturing parent", but after ordering an investigation he becomes a "doubting parent" and when charge sheet is issued he is a "critical parent". But still he is your parent and you must know how to remain in his fold and not allow him to discard you from being his ward.

You have a better scope to rectify omissions initially, but the position changes once an investigation is ordered. At this stage the CO may not even be able to get access to the records relevant to the transactions. When the going is not turned bad, rectify what are termed as "irregularities", as many of them as possible. When the investigator enters the field subsequently, he will not come with a one-point programme of looking into a single transaction, of which someone has complained or where potential damage is feared. He comes most probably to show his expertise in "fault-finding". Do not get nervous, but update all collateral records, remove all procedural irregularities. Wherever certain matters were not reported to controlling office, like MIS reports, submit them immediately; reply to audit correspondence, and secure a transparency of your functioning. Remember you have not been indicted at this stage, make use of this "asset" to the full extent, looking things and representing things from the angle of securing the interests of the Institution (employer), but simultaneously working equally for your own protection. You can demolish more than 50% of the case against you, if you fully make use of opportunity at this stage.

You are eligible to engage a Defence Assisting Officer (DAO) only after an inquiry is ordered. But if you happen to have a colleague officer, capable, trustworthy and willing to help you, you enlist informally his services for assisting you to building effective defence from the pre-emptive stage itself. You can nominate him as your DAO, eventually, when the inquiry is ordered. Even if he is not permitted to act as DAO, he can still lend his support, without participating in the inquiry. If at any stage, you feel that this web site will be of help to you, please act as per Message to Charged officer in this web site.

Certain steps that you have taken earlier may appear to be not wise in a retrospective examination of the past. Here you have to calmly ponder and question your sub-consciousness,- "if it is wrong, why was it done by me or in other words what are the considerations that prompted me to do the same". Recap your memory and review past happening sequentially without leaving any incident or happening, whether important or trivial. You will be able to recollect, many links that reveal the bonafide circumstances in which you had acted, and how unexpected subsequent developments have turned the tide against your original projections. There would be several right steps that you have initiated. There will be several reasons or factors to justify your action. Keep a record of all these things in the case dairy to be described hereafter. Memory fades fastly and you are likely to forget significant developments in your favour later. This record will act as a ready-reckoner to you, for a quick reference whenever warranted.

Had you followed my 20-Point Service Code, you should have kept a memorandum in your file explaining these considerations and you must also have reported to your controlling office. If you had not done these originally, at least do it now, at the earliest, but definitely not after the investigation. This is because the "investigation" can be deemed as a bridge that is going to divide you from your employer, and your credibility thereafter is likely to be put into "store", that is, it may get blocked. The explanations you mention in the normal course in the pre-investigation stage are more likely to be studied without any prejudice on you and stand better acceptability, than when a charge sheet is issued or an investigation is ordered and you tender the same explanation. This is due to the credibility-gap that will be developing between you and the management initially after an investigation is ordered and more definitely after you stand charge-sheeted.

This will pin-point you the weak-areas in your case, if any, for which remedial/rectifying action (job of attending compliance or removal of irregularities, as it is called differently) is overdue. Devote attention on two types of omission-removal

• Minor or procedural irregularities that can be removed wholesale on spot

• Serious omissions that may pose a threat for you at a later stage. These are not removed immediately, but do not defer action on them on that consideration, but take action on emergency footing.

Update files and keep correspondences put into respective files. I do not advise you to keep copies of official correspondence with you, unless if any letter is specifically addressed in your personal name, when it will be legally permissible for you to keep either the original itself or a photo-copy.(You are in fact the legal owner of such a letter). Your case dairy should include brief notes of all relevant and important letters (Material records). This is the basic record and this will serve usefully for all purposes throughout. Keep your office neat and tidy. Such things may not appear to be relevant to you, but these all convey that you are a person of customised principles and working. Even when the investigation is going, pay proper attention to customer service in your office, and ensure that the office is functioning smoothly. Do not exhibit any nervousness before the investigating officer. Do not try to solicit compassion from him. You are well and strong and stand on your strength, and what you seek for is not sympathy, but proper understanding and objective approach from the investigating officer.

You can face the Investigating officer boldly, if he were not able to detect anything, which has not been already reported and brought to the notice of your controlling authorities, by you. You can also face him boldly if you have brought your house-keeping on track (to proper standards).You can face him, if all of what you have to explain at this stage is already conveyed to Head office and these records are seen in the correspondence file. This will eliminate the scope for the investigating officer to make one-sided reporting at your expense. If you had not utilised your earlier opportunities and done these things, you have missed a golden opportunity and you have only to thank yourselves. Further these are actions, that you need not have to perform stealthily, but transparently in full limelight, as in this stage you are working to effect damage-control of a jeopardy that may threaten the Organization you serve, as well as you.

Extend normal cooperation to the investigating officer and preferably give your version carefully drafted, precise and brief, though such information is already contained in the records, and request him that it should be incorporated in his report. This need not be the basic record prepared by you earlier. The basic record is a total account. What you have to explain to the Inspector is only with reference to any omissions or commissions that have been mentioned by the inspector on your part. Send a copy there-of to your controlling authority. The wording of your "Note" or "Handout" should not cover any admissions, but it should cover only explanations and steps that you had taken for protecting the interests of the organization.

You can prevent mishaps by adhering to 20-point safety net. Or you can successfully perform crisis management and ward of a charge sheet. If you are tactful the investigator will find reasons to support you and de-link your responsibility as the cause for the untoward happening. "Things have gone wrong. But no member of staff is found responsible". If this happens, the matter ends there. But what if the investigating officer holds you responsible for specific irregularities (omissions and commission), but for which things would not have gone adverse according to him. This indicates the failure or partial failure of the preventive and pre-emptive stages and the charged officer moves to the crucial final phase i.e. "Protection-Seeking Stage", when he has to use his own skill and dexterity to explain and justify his actions. This is discussed in the next Chapter.