Both the CO and DAO engage themselves towards a single cause and act together to realise the same objective. In fact the DAO has chosen to lend his support and accept a common purpose with the CO. Their role should justifiably be co-extensive. They are therefore to play a combined role in a single assignment. This suggests that the formulation of one consolidated role-profile in respect of both CO and DAO to be ideal. But then why are these being discussed separately?

The above statement is partly true, which does convey implicitly that it is also partly wrong. It is true that they have common cause, in other words a common destination to reach. But otherwise there are subtle differences in their respective perspective and placement.

The charged officer is the affected officer. He faces the charge sheet. It is forced on him and he has no choice. He has therefore to meet the challenge. To supplement his skill resources in meeting the ordeal he has approached the defence assistant for his support and service.

For the defence-assisting officer, it is not a personal problem. But he possesses professional skill in addressing and meeting such problems faced by other officer colleagues. Associating with him will help the charged officer. The relations between the two are similar to that between an advocate and his client or that between a service-provider one who seeks the benefit of such service. While the advocate may charge a fee to the client, the service of DAO is out of goodwill and friendship and is normally honorary. DAO is in a position to look at issues more objectively, efficiently, moderately and calmly and provide the problem solution, which alone the CO may find it difficult to achieve.

For the charged officer it is a one-time experience. He does not want to entangle in further charge sheets or inquiries. But for the DAO, it is an exercise in development of his skill and expertise in defence assistance. It will be part of his mission to assist in future other officers similarly facing charge sheets. It is thus a combination of a person facing a problem aligning with a person possessing the skill to address and redress the problem.

While so, the charged officer is better possessed of the knowledge of the facts of the disciplinary case, while DAO can be deemed to be better equipped with knowledge to devise the strategy based on his familiarity with the procedural standards of departmental inquiry. He plans and finds how best to develop and present the defence of the charged officer, and where to rebut the evidence of the PO, and where to explain appropriately the case of the CO and disarm such seemingly adverse-evidence with minimum effort. He brings forth instances where system deficiencies have led to emergence of adverse operational results and pinpoints that the charged officer is not to be blamed blindly and arbitrarily. Where bonafide risk taking causes business losses, the DAO is quick to point out the appropriate policy guidelines of the bank in this respect to protect the charged officer. The DAO on account of skill and past experience and capacity for intensive analysis of the issues involved and extensive knowledge about inquiry procedures, is able to provide all these intricate arguments in defence pleading. DAO is an asset if selected judiciously in this perspective. He acts as a force-multiplier to the charged officer. Their roles are not exactly common, but they are supplementary and make a sum-total, with the benefit of synergy accruing on account of the combination. If one efficient and moderate DAO is developed, as one light will dispel darkness in a whole room, the single DAO will dispel security risks and service hazards for the entire community of officers at a place. A single doctor can keep an entire village disease-free, so do a single DAO can keep employee-morale high in a public office beset with an environment of corruption and nepotism. In fact the resource development in this web-site is evolved keeping the objective of turning every versatile officers into accomplished DAOs.

PO pleads and argues the case of the management, while the DAO that of the charged officer. But there is a subtle difference in between the roles of the two. If the PO does not perform his job satisfactorily, he cannot escape since he is under the discipline and control of the management. But in respect of the DAO, the charged officer has no such authority or control. When appointed as PO, an officer is duty bound to accept the assignment. But on the part of DAO he should not agree and accept the assignment unless he is thoroughly convinced that the charged officer faces an ordeal and needs assistance to overcome the same and that he will be in a position to render him effective assistance.

Essentially PO is an employee entrusted with a statutory function (holding both administrative & statutory responsibility), while DAO can be considered as a professional bound by professional ethics & responsibility. DAO is also an employee, but the employer has permitted him to undertake the professional responsibility. As far as the job of defence assistance is concerned, DAO feels free of the control of the employer. It is similar to a situation, where the officer opting as DAO is on a deputation, and allowed to look to the interests of the CO in the departmental inquiry. When not performing responsibilities as DAO or once when the inquiry is over, he reverts as a normal employee.