2022 SCMR 745
2022 PLC(CS) 1562
"Regular Inquiry " and "preliminary/fact finding Inquiry "---Distinction---Regular Inquiry was triggered after issuing show cause notice with statement of allegations and if the reply was not found suitable then Inquiry officer was appointed and regular Inquiry was commenced (unless dispensed with for some reasons in writing) in which it was obligatory for the Inquiry officer to allow evenhanded and fair opportunity to the accused to place his defence and if any witness was examined against him then a fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine the witnesses--- Whereas a discrete or fact finding Inquiry was conducted at initial stage but internally to find out whether in the facts and circumstances reported, a proper case of misconduct was made out to initiate disciplinary proceedings
Service Tribunal, powers of---Scope---Where the order of the competent authority based on Inquiry report was challenged before the Service Tribunal then it was the legal duty of the Service Tribunal to give some reasons and there should be some discussion of evidence on record which was necessary to deliberate the merits of the case in order to reach just conclusion before confirming, reducing or setting aside the penalty
Departmental Inquiry ---Purpose---Foremost aspiration of conducting departmental Inquiry was to find out whether a prima facie case of misconduct was made out against the delinquent officer for proceeding further---Guilt or innocence could only be thrashed out from the outcome of Inquiry and at the same time it was also required to be seen by the Service Tribunal as to whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored which was a fundamental right
Misconduct---Departmental Inquiry and criminal trial---Distinct standards of proof---Standard of proof looked for in a departmental Inquiry deviated from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial----In the departmental Inquiry conducted on the charges of misconduct, the standard of proof was that of "balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence" but not a "proof beyond reasonable doubt", which strict proof was required in criminal trial
0 Comments