Thought for Today, 29 th June 2020

Life is a trip. The only problem is that it does not come with a map. We have to search our own routes to reach our destination.

Saturday, June 04, 2011


The departmental inquiry can be conducted by the disciplinary authority itself or by appointing an independent inquiry officer.However it is always desirable to appoint independent inquiry officer for making inquiry under Rule 14 for imposing major penalty so as to avoid any allegations of bias on the part of disciplinary authority. In fact the disciplinary authority should refrain from being an inquiry officer.

 Rule  8 (5)(c) of  M.C.S. (D.& A. ) Rules 1979 provides that where the disciplinary authority  appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry , it may ,by an order ,appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as " presenting officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of charge.In fact it is always desirable that a presenting officer is appointed so that the case of the disciplinary authority can be effectively presented and the charges  against the  delinquent employee are proved. Madras high court in case of T.N.Govindrajan v/s Management of Overseas Bank has held that where the regulations provide that the disciplinary authority may  appoint a presenting officer , the disciplinary authority should appoint a presenting officer, if the inquiry officer  has to consider oral evidence led on behalf of the disciplinary authority because the inquiry officer should not be left with the position to to examine the witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
Taking in to consideration the facts mentioned above it would be clear that the disciplinary authority must appoint a presenting officer otherwise it may be alleged that  appointment of presenting officer was  deliberately not  made with an ulterior motive to exonerate the delinquent employee from the charges levelled against him.

No comments:

Post a Comment