Can a closed departmental inquiry be reopened before the submission of 'Presenting Officer's Brief' and 'Defence Brief'? If so, then what are the reasons for such reopening? In my case, it was reopened because the Management Witness participated in the inquiry without his document, and the defense raised the objection that he does not wish to cross-examine the Management Witness due to the non-adduce of related management document. The departmental inquiry was closed with an instruction by the Inquiry Officer to take up the matter with the 'Disciplinary Authority'.
To provide the defense an opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority intervened and reopened the inquiry for cross-examination by the Defense, with the adduce of that very management document and additional management documents and management witness. Under these circumstances, was the Disciplinary Authority right in reopening the departmental inquiry or not?
Please suggest.
From India, Kolkata
To provide the defense an opportunity, the Disciplinary Authority intervened and reopened the inquiry for cross-examination by the Defense, with the adduce of that very management document and additional management documents and management witness. Under these circumstances, was the Disciplinary Authority right in reopening the departmental inquiry or not?
Please suggest.
From India, Kolkata
The right of the delinquent employee is to be heard, i.e., present his evidence, cross-examine the witness adducing evidence against, and the proceedings to be held and decided by an unbiased official. None of these rights are breached by reopening of the inquiry, particularly as it is affording an opportunity to the defense to cross-examine the management witness.
The Inquiry Authority closing the proceedings at his end does not mean the disciplinary proceedings have come to an end. That right is only with the disciplinary authority. He can only close the proceedings either by imposing a punishment or exonerating the employee. Till then, the proceedings would continue. So there is no illegality committed.
From India, Mumbai
1593The Inquiry Authority closing the proceedings at his end does not mean the disciplinary proceedings have come to an end. That right is only with the disciplinary authority. He can only close the proceedings either by imposing a punishment or exonerating the employee. Till then, the proceedings would continue. So there is no illegality committed.
From India, Mumbai
I have a different perception based on the stand taken by the delinquent not to cross-examine the management's witness and the Enquiry Officer's action of closing the inquiry at that stage itself.
It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge by examining witnesses and filing documentary evidence. If the management witness fails to file any document, it will imply that the management has no documents to be filed as exhibits or it does not want to file them for reasons best known to it. Why did the defense choose to object to that and refuse to cross-examine the witness?
In such a situation, instead of going to the next stage, i.e., asking the employee to examine the defense witness, why did the Enquiry Officer close the inquiry at that stage?
The purpose of a domestic inquiry is to find out whether the charges leveled are proved or not by affording equal opportunity to both sides. When such opportunities are given to each side, whether they use it or not, it is the duty of the EO to record his adverse inference to that effect and take the inquiry to the next stages and submit his findings based on whatever evidence adduced by both sides during the inquiry only and not to close the inquiry at a stage where one of the parties turned down his opportunity to complete that stage.
I think the above inappropriate act of the E.O and his instruction to take up the matter with the Disciplinary Authority indicate his bias.
In my opinion, the act of the D.A ordering the reopening of the inquiry does not seem to be either to help the delinquent or to follow the principles of natural justice but only to cover up the Presenting Officer's mistake. Had he asked the E.O to continue the inquiry from the next stage, it would have been acceptable. I am of the opinion that though the delinquent's objection might be due to his lack of understanding of the inquiry procedure, the E.O's immediate response also equally exhibits his lack of procedural knowledge if not his bias.
Therefore, I would suggest the delinquent raise his objection in writing to the D.A and ask him to continue the inquiry from the stage where it was closed.
From India, Salem
It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the charge by examining witnesses and filing documentary evidence. If the management witness fails to file any document, it will imply that the management has no documents to be filed as exhibits or it does not want to file them for reasons best known to it. Why did the defense choose to object to that and refuse to cross-examine the witness?
In such a situation, instead of going to the next stage, i.e., asking the employee to examine the defense witness, why did the Enquiry Officer close the inquiry at that stage?
The purpose of a domestic inquiry is to find out whether the charges leveled are proved or not by affording equal opportunity to both sides. When such opportunities are given to each side, whether they use it or not, it is the duty of the EO to record his adverse inference to that effect and take the inquiry to the next stages and submit his findings based on whatever evidence adduced by both sides during the inquiry only and not to close the inquiry at a stage where one of the parties turned down his opportunity to complete that stage.
I think the above inappropriate act of the E.O and his instruction to take up the matter with the Disciplinary Authority indicate his bias.
In my opinion, the act of the D.A ordering the reopening of the inquiry does not seem to be either to help the delinquent or to follow the principles of natural justice but only to cover up the Presenting Officer's mistake. Had he asked the E.O to continue the inquiry from the next stage, it would have been acceptable. I am of the opinion that though the delinquent's objection might be due to his lack of understanding of the inquiry procedure, the E.O's immediate response also equally exhibits his lack of procedural knowledge if not his bias.
Therefore, I would suggest the delinquent raise his objection in writing to the D.A and ask him to continue the inquiry from the stage where it was closed.
From India, Salem
Many a time, an EO is not an expert on legal matters, and strict adherence to rules does not always occur. As long as injustice is not done and principles of natural justice are not violated, it does not mean the inquiry has become irregular or biased.
In this circumstance, the EO should provide the opportunity to cross-examine the witness who has presented the document and allow the accused officer a chance to rebut the evidence by producing documents and/or witnesses in support of their position.
From India, Pune
In this circumstance, the EO should provide the opportunity to cross-examine the witness who has presented the document and allow the accused officer a chance to rebut the evidence by producing documents and/or witnesses in support of their position.
From India, Pune
I agree with Umakanthan Sir. But I think that the Disciplinary Authority should have doubted whether the refusal to give an opportunity to cross-examine would deviate the whole enquiry. That is why, before closing the enquiry, he ordered for reopening it. At the same time, I am confused about how to resume an enquiry from the stage it was stopped, although the final report is still pending because that will also involve summoning the parties.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Dear Mr. Madhu,
The facts discernible from the questioner's post, had I understood properly, are as follows:
In the domestic enquiry ordered against the questioner who is the charge-sheeted delinquent, as usual, the Management witness was first examined. However, he did not file any documentary evidence substantiating the charges leveled. In such a situation, the delinquent could have cross-examined him with a suggestion that there are no documents to be filed. Instead, the delinquent, in a bit of emotion, refused to cross-examine the MW.
Therefore, the E.O ought to have commenced the examination of the delinquent's witness, cross-examination by the management, hearing of arguments, etc., and submitted his findings. However, he closed the enquiry at that stage and submitted his report accordingly to the Disciplinary Authority.
If one critically analyzes the action of the D.A., one can find that the D.A., as if acting impartial, virtually ordered for a denova enquiry/re-enquiry so that the management can file the document/additional documents of its choice substantiating the charges by means of a fresh examination of the management's witness and allowing the employee to cross-examine, which he has already forsaken. Certainly, it should not be an opportunity for the management to rectify the mistake done earlier.
That's why I insist that the enquiry, on its reopening, should start from that stage where it was hastily declared to have been closed, i.e., the examination of the delinquent's evidence only for the management's evidence was already over.
From India, Salem
The facts discernible from the questioner's post, had I understood properly, are as follows:
In the domestic enquiry ordered against the questioner who is the charge-sheeted delinquent, as usual, the Management witness was first examined. However, he did not file any documentary evidence substantiating the charges leveled. In such a situation, the delinquent could have cross-examined him with a suggestion that there are no documents to be filed. Instead, the delinquent, in a bit of emotion, refused to cross-examine the MW.
Therefore, the E.O ought to have commenced the examination of the delinquent's witness, cross-examination by the management, hearing of arguments, etc., and submitted his findings. However, he closed the enquiry at that stage and submitted his report accordingly to the Disciplinary Authority.
If one critically analyzes the action of the D.A., one can find that the D.A., as if acting impartial, virtually ordered for a denova enquiry/re-enquiry so that the management can file the document/additional documents of its choice substantiating the charges by means of a fresh examination of the management's witness and allowing the employee to cross-examine, which he has already forsaken. Certainly, it should not be an opportunity for the management to rectify the mistake done earlier.
That's why I insist that the enquiry, on its reopening, should start from that stage where it was hastily declared to have been closed, i.e., the examination of the delinquent's evidence only for the management's evidence was already over.
From India, Salem
Ok, I understand. Now the thread starter may please tell us whether our understanding is correct or not.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Neither the presenting officer's brief had come, nor had the defense brief arrived, so the question of submission of the inquiry report also does not arise. The inquiry was initiated from the stage where it was last left and not de novo. The correct question is whether the disciplinary authority was right in reopening the inquiry under these circumstances or has vitiated the whole inquiry after causing prejudice to the delinquent. Even though the examination in chief was over, the defense didn't initiate cross-examination and instead requested the EO to start afresh from the examination in chief itself by the presenting officer. Additionally, one more piece of additional evidence was introduced, which the defense is objecting to.
From India, Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
You had mentioned initially that the inquiry was closed. Do you mean to say one witness had given his statement and then he was examined afresh? Allowing a witness to depose again just because the presenting officer wanted some new evidence to come on record is not in order.
"However, in my case, it was reopened because the Management Witness participated in the inquiry without his document, and the defense raised the objection that he does not wish to cross-examine the Management Witness on account of the non-adduce of related management documents. The departmental inquiry was closed with an instruction by the Inquiry Officer to take up the matter with the 'Disciplinary Authority'."
Was this witness the official custodian of the said document? If the defense declines to cross-examine, the whole issue is different. If any particular document is required, you are at liberty to ask the management to produce the same.
From India, Pune
"However, in my case, it was reopened because the Management Witness participated in the inquiry without his document, and the defense raised the objection that he does not wish to cross-examine the Management Witness on account of the non-adduce of related management documents. The departmental inquiry was closed with an instruction by the Inquiry Officer to take up the matter with the 'Disciplinary Authority'."
Was this witness the official custodian of the said document? If the defense declines to cross-examine, the whole issue is different. If any particular document is required, you are at liberty to ask the management to produce the same.
From India, Pune
Yes, the departmental enquiry was concluded by the EO without the adduction of management documents. However, the examination in chief was conducted by the PO, which led to the reopening of the departmental enquiry by the DA. The same document that was adduced previously was presented again, along with an additional document. Following this, the departmental enquiry was finalized.
From India, Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.