We have earlier discussed about the effects of malicious and malafide disposition in the minds of those entrusted with the responsibility for conducting "objective" departmental Inquiries, and how such a spirit and temperament vitiates the entire process resulting in gross inequity and injustice. The inquiry, consequently, is rendered a mockery of quasi-judicial proceedings and can be characterised as an empty or rubber stamp process, bearing the name "inquiry", but without the "content" thereof; lacking bonafides and restricted to merely token standards. In this context the process of conducting departmental inquiries comes to be converted as a means to settle personal scores against officers deemed "undesirable" and placed in the 'hit list', thereby bringing victimisation and unfair inquiry practices into practice and display.

But if those responsible to initiate and conduct departmental Inquiries bear no malicious intent or desire to wreck vengeance, what about the standard of such an inquiry? Can there be any scope still for nursing of a grievance or complaint? Yes, there are other pitfalls that could prevent the delinquent officer getting a fair deal. The absence of negative standards alone will not create the conditions for perfection. No doubt the inquiry is no longer negative or subjective, but then it has to become objective and positive to bear the stamp of a bonafide inquiry.

Good governance presupposes two pristine qualities on the part of the governor. These are, - the first quality being integrity or honesty of purpose and approach. The second and equally important characteristic is capacity or efficiency. Good faith consists of honesty plus care and attention. Even if there are no malicious content or inherent desire to inflict injury, the inquiry will not render justice unless objectivity and proper standards are observed in inquiry process.

1. The PO is a honest person and he suffers no ill-will towards the charged officer, but he holds the honest, but perverse view that his duty is to prove the charges "somehow" and if he fails to achieve this, he is an under-performer.

2. Similarly the inquiry officer feels that if the charges are proved, it is a case of defence failing and if the charges are not proved, then it is the management that is falling, and he has inherent responsibility to the management. So whenever the management fails, he makes a compromise and gives a verdict of fifty-fifty (mechanically holding some charges as proved and some as not proved).

3. Similarly if the disciplinary authority were to presume that the more cases of "misconduct" that he is able to establish and effect punishments, it demonstrates the effectiveness of the system of preventive discipline.

4. The investigating officer is a typical fault finder. He thinks negative that his job is to invent faults. He proceeds with the task with suspicion and mistrust occupied in his mind. He feels that he is sent to "catch the villain" and starts searching for the catch. He fills up the page labouring hard with several procedural "inexactitudes" that he can make out.

5. Or else, no investigation is conducted and on receipt of a complaint, the charged officer's comments are directly called for and thereafter a charge sheet is straight away issued. But when it happens, what are the sources (evidences) for proving the charge sheet. This problem is left to the presenting officer to face.

What is the position of a charged officer in all these occasions? Can he expect to get undiluted justice?

These are all instances of mistaken or negative attitudes (as distinguished from pragmatic or positive attitudes) and not malice. We may term them as "petty prejudices" and not ill-will or hatred. Even if there is no mistaken attitude, there can still be wrong processes. Everyone connected with the inquiry is good, they know what to do (have objective-setting) but they do not know how to do. They know the destination, but not the route to reach it. Will such an inquiry bring justice?

MYBANK is one of the premier nationalised bank, where I happened to serve for 40 years and retired honourably. Many cases of inefficiency or imperfect standards have been being observed by me in departmental inquiries conducted by MYBANK, in my experience as charged officer (11 times), as Defence Assisting officer (about 15 cases) and as Management witness (about 5 times). These are listed hereunder.

1. Our administrators are good-natured, but we have no codified law in our country

2. We have now a codified law, but no one is able to understand the obscure text, not even the judges. Each judge interprets in his own style.

3. We have perfect annotated codified substantial law(embedded with live examples) in our country, but there is no corresponding "procedural" law and subordinate legislation (rules) for equitable prosecution and reasoned trial.

Each of these examples will illustrate what will happen if perfection is not maintained in jurisprudence. What if a person does not know to which court he has to approach to seek justice? If he is not permitted to engage a lawyer of his choice? What if witnesses are not permitted to appear on behalf of the litigant? Fortunately we do not suffer any of these shortcomings in civil or trial courts. But not so in respect of departmental inquiries.

Earlier at the District level the District Magistrate and the District Collector happened to be the one and the same authority. It was over fifty years ago, when I was still studying in the College. The government then considered it prudent to separate the executive from the judiciary, even at the primary level of administration. But with Departmental Inquiry such separation is not possible. But then it correspondingly increases the need for standards of objectivity, responsibility and for clearly defined, perfectly-documented and transparent procedures, supported by checklists. Courts deliver justice through specialists (learned judges), who are trained and experienced in law and jurisprudence. But departmental Inquiries are conducted by lay men, administrative officers, who are prone to think that "authority is law". So it may be in administration, but not in departmental inquiries. How to prevent the administrative mind-set extending to the quasi-judicial function? They have therefore to be guided exactly about the "route" they are to methodical proceed, the pitfalls they are to scrupulously avoid and the essentials they are not to omit. How a person can claim to be objective, if he does not know what the term connotes and signifies or know how to become objective?

The statutory regulations are in force since 1977, i.e.for nearly 25 years. Still many Banks have not chosen to spell out detailed guidelines about procedures and systems, checklist of Do's and Don'ts, to be adopted in conducting inquiries, or the Role-profile of different participants from the management side. The bare code (DA regulations) is the only guide. The subordinate or "delegated legislation" necessary to amplify the same into practical implementation has not come through. The Indian Evidence Act is not applicable. The Code of criminal Procedure is not applicable. No objections, but please clarify what is applicable and what protection and privileges are available to the charged officer and what regulations and safeguards are binding on the prosecutor? Procedural violations will not invalidate the inquiry, unless the charged officer is alert and raises the objection immediately and also shows that how such violations have adversely affected his interests. Does this not invest a licence in favour of the management to introduce the Rule of jungle? Is it the law of the city governed by the rule of the jungle?

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not needed a in departmental inquiry, it is enough if the preponderance of probability is established. This is just like stating a formulae, without explaining the meaning. What is the significance of it in relation to honest officers caught in the net due to errors of application. The Courts hold the pristine view that "even though a few criminals may escape the law, but no honest man should suffer a victim". Can the disciplinary authority "armed with the preponderance of probability" doctrine assert that "It does not matter if 10 honest men suffer and are victimised, but not a single guilty should escape". Is it the meaning of this doctrine? If not, what exactly are the boundaries of this doctrine? How to reconcile such a doctrine with objective and honest procedures? Evidence for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act is weak, (where also the doctrine of "presumption" is valid) so conduct a departmental inquiry. Does departmental inquiry an assured passage with "NIL" hurdles, and provide a free entry without a passport or a visa? All these anomalies and confusion about objectives will not occasion, if proper guidelines and standards define and set the boundaries.

While CVC is conducting inquiries based on C.C.S.(C.C.A) Regulations, they have brought out an elaborate Manual with 18 chapters. For non-vigilance inquiries conducted departmentally, the Government of India (Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms & the Ministry of Home affairs) have issued several (more than 100) circular instructions point-by-point elucidating different technical and procedural formalities involved with Inquiries for the guidance of Disciplinary authorities, Inquiry and presenting officers, some of which have been also quoted on this web site at appropriate contexts

However MYBANK or any other Nationalised or State-owned Bank do not feel the necessity of issuing procedural guidelines (Do's and Don'ts) to those responsible for conducting inquiries. There is total absence of direction and route guidance or objective setting or objectivity in understanding how to conduct inquiries. As stated earlier it is the "rule of jungle", with no responsibility pin-pointed on anyone in charge of conducting inquires, everyone allowed full freedom to interpret and act as per his perceptions and individual value-systems. Inquiries are conducted spending very large resources and these are done in abject ignorance and perceived prejudices. I took up the task of defining bare fundamentals relating to conducting/defending departmental inquiries on this web page and so far completed 55 web-pages(titles excluding the web-pages in Part-IV- Refer at the end of the web-page).The first index of bonafides and sincerity in conducting a departmental inquiry by a PSB is the provision of transparent and uniform guidelines for the conduct of Inquiries, by different authorities at different places and different times, as CVC has done. Where this is not done they are not inquiries which will turn out truth, but will return what is perceived as GIGO (garbage in and Garbage out).Those conducting inquiries will not stay in the middle, but will traverse beyond the brink impelled by their concocted arbitrary interpretations of what is right and what is wrong.

Regulation 6 - sub-regulations 1, 2 and 3 read as under:-

1. No Order imposing any of the major penalties specified in clause (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Regulation 4 shall be except after an inquiry is held in accordance with this regulation.

2. Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that they are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer employee, it may itself inquire into, or appoint any other public servant (herein after called the inquiry authority) to inquire into the truth thereof.

3. Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with the statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee, who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of defence.

The DA regulations start with the description of the major and minor penalties and the authorities who may awarded these penalties at the outset. Thereafter it rushes to the formality of serving the charge sheet. Now what about the procedure for the pre-charge sheet formalities? What are the processes which will end in a charge sheet? One do not get wiser on the following queries and every authority is prone to have its own interpretation and still hold he is strictly adhering to the DA Regulation.

1. How to deal with pre-charge sheet procedure, i.e. how to handle complaint and conduct investigation

2. Who can lodge a complaint and what with false or motivated complaints?

3. Who should deal with complaints and maintain complaints register and who should investigate?

4. Who can authorise Investigation?

5. How Investigation should be conducted? and What are the responsibility/accountability of the Investigating officer?

6. How to handle anonymous and pseudonymous complaints?

7. When complaints can be filed without action?

8. Can an executive officer junior to the Disciplinary authority hold back a complaint initially and thereafter (after some years) make a leisurely choice to take up charge sheeting against it?

9. What are the guidelines to draft a charge sheet? And who will do the same?

10. What are respective roles of the Disciplinary Authority and the line executives in respect of dealing with complaints and investigating reports. Can the junior level line executives at his own exclusive instance deal with assessment of misconduct and close a case, in accordance with his own judgement?

One exclusive chapter of CVC Manual (Chapter -2) deals with Complaint and one Chapter (Chapter -3) deals with Investigation. On this web site, there is one web-page regarding complaints and three web-pages deal with investigation. But no such guidelines issued by most of the banks holding statutory responsibility to conduct inquiries. The problem with these bank management is that the power to conduct inquiries is deemed a privilege and not as a responsibility entrusted to secure specific objectives.

Please refer to the detailed narration in the web projectMy Encounters with Corporate Corruption in My Service. The first charge sheet in my career was served in September 1978, when I was working in Hyderabad Branch and it related to my tenure at the previous Branch at Bangalore City in the year 1975/76. The allegations in the charge sheet were scrutinised by the then Regional Office, Madras as early as in 1976. I was thereafter posted as Development Manager with much higher responsibility for the development of all branches of the Bank in Karnataka. I was subsequently promoted to Grade "A" from Grade "B" (Middle Management Scale 2 to Scale 3). What made the authorities after 2 years to look back and interest themselves to dig up the past and take out buried hatchets and present me the charge sheet? I did not protest and accepted the charge sheet. But the bank did not conduct the inquiry up to the year 1982 (three more years). Inquiry was conducted in the later part of 1982. The result of the inquiry - I was "censured". I had to come travelling from Ranchi (in Bihar) where I was working in 1981 & 1982 three times by air to Bangalore. This is the administrative cost to the Bank to award the "censure". I will leave it to the responsible judgement of my viewers, to decide who is to to be "censured" and what is to be "censured".

When charge sheets are issued several months after the investigation had taken place, substantial changes may take place in the ground-situation and render the data in the investigation report stale. With stale data issuing a charge sheet is imprudent. Still more so, if a charge sheet were to be issued directly based on the observation of the Inspector in his audit report. Such observations can be treated merely as a complaint, since audit and investigation are different. Audit is a general check, based on pre-defined checklists, while investigation comprehensively reviews specific transactions or issues. Investigation exactly brings out the omissions leading to adverse developments and pin points the material evidences in support of the same.

1. What is the justification for a charge sheet for major penalty inquiry, that ends in a censure?

2. Why such an inquiry should take place 2 years to start with as charge sheet after the "alleged Misconduct" and 4 more years to end. Is this due to lack of direction and lack of vision and lack of guidelines and above all total lack of responsibility on the part of the Disciplinary Authority (in my case it is the General Manager -Personnel) at Head Office.

3. But what is the logic of investing so much money and censuring me and keeping a charge sheet alive for 4 years? I had my participation in the prestigious training programme at the Administrative Staff College, Hyderabad in 1979(June) for the Sr.Executive Course and I was due for promotion for Senior Management Grade (Scale IV) even in 1979. In the pretext of the charge sheet I was not called for interview in the years 1979 and 1980. I was interviewed in 1981, but by-passed. Is this the real purpose of the charge sheet?

Have you ever come across a judge or magistrate in a civil/trial court without legal qualifications and experience. But my experience was that I was dealt with by the disciplinary authorities in the rank of General Manager -Personnel. The incumbents had never worked in the field (Branches). They have never worked as Branch Managers, Regional Managers, Development Managers, or Inspectors. These incumbents join in Scale I or above directly as Personnel Officers and move vertically in the personnel administration in Regional/Head offices. How they will objectively assess the work of Branch Managers of large branches, when they had never occasion to interact with the working of a Branch. With the result they study notes submitted by line officers below and "deliver justice" based on the hierarchical or bureaucratic culture.

In contrast the CVO has to be selected based on specific qualifications and has to be given special training. His performance is subject to assessment. The CVO has only advisory jurisdiction and he looks after only cases with vigilance angle, but the disciplinary authority is one who is more than advisory. He exercises authority and power. He is concerned with all disciplinary cases including vigilance cases. Why no such regulations governing the qualification and performance of the disciplinary authority?>

If the system to be made full-proof the Disciplinary Authority at the Head Office (jurisdiction Scale IV and above) to be appointed on the same basis as the CVO, i.e. selected on deputation from another bank and he must select officers at the Zonal centres to act as disciplinary authority for Scale III, II & I. Line officers & administrative officers should not hold concurrently powers as disciplinary authority and administrative authority. If this is not feasible there must be rigid accountability on the part of the Disciplinary Authorities and other functionaries, i.e., Inquiry Officer, Presenting Officer and Investigating Officer. There should be a prescribed post-audit each disciplinary case by the review authority, as provided in the next chapter.