Delay in inquiry
kehar singh
(Querist) 19 January 2013
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
Although all the witness from my side as well as from Disciplinary Authority side
has been examined/cross examined in respect of my suspension case. But he is postponing date for my deposition for the last four months. Even when requested to fix
the date for deposition, he says that he has got other important task from
the govt. so he can't decide when to fix the date for the last deposition from my side.
Now someone told me that
if there is delay in completing the inquiry process, there is provision in the law
journal to allow the govt servant to continue in his usual office pending completion of inquiry procedure.
So I request you to help me if there is any such provision in any law. ?
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate 
(Expert) 19 January 2013
Are yu defence witness?
Get direction from curt for timebound completion of inquiry
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 19 January 2013
Withdrawal of suspension pending enquiry is not a right of the delinquent employee rather is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority so better to move an application in this regard, however, if the suspension is pending for more than 6 months, you are entitled for the grant of 75% subsistence allowance.
kehar singh
(Querist) 20 January 2013
i m suspended official, already getting 75% SA. now i want, let the IO complete my inquiry at the earliest.just my deposition is left before i submit my written argument.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 20 January 2013
you have to appeal to the Appellate Authority for revocation of suspension. Delay in Inquiry may be one reason in the appeal.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 20 January 2013
Make representation to DA as already advised to you.
P. Venu
(Expert) 20 January 2013
It is not necessary that the charged officer should depose as his own witness. If he chooses to be his own witness, he liable for cross-examination by the Presenting Officer. This option is risky unless the charged officer has a fool-proof defense, especially when he relies on an alibi.
If he does not appear as his own witness, it is mandatory for the the Inquiry Officer to question the charged officer on which, the Presenting Officer cannot cross-examine. (cf. Section 313 of CrPC).
Pl. see sub-rules to Rule 14 reproduced below:
(17) The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross-examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
(18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.
The above procedure should have been completed without any adjournment. The action of the Inquiry Officer Officer is unreasonable. The Author may bring the impasse to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority.
As regards to suspension continuation of suspension (under Rule 10(1) or (2)) beyond 90 days is not permissible unless extended after review.
Pl.see sub-rule (7) below:
(7) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days :
Further, it is not necessary that suspension should be revoked once hearing is completed.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 20 January 2013
*Venu! I think you have replied to a situation which is not part of this case.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 21 January 2013
Mr Venu has perhaps acted correctly. It appears from the query that the case is struck up either at state of Rule 14 (17) or Rule 14(18)and the queriest does not know the exact problem.
For his suspension he has quoted Rule 10(7). Now it is upto the queries how to react. He has probably taken no Def Asstt.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 21 January 2013
*Sudhir! How can we anticipate unless querist do not disclose his position so in the given facts of the case, how can one justify the advice of Venu relevant to the given facts?
kehar singh
(Querist) 21 January 2013
Infact I am not compelled to depose by IO, When I said to IO that I have to submit some evidence in my support which could not be produced through my witness as the relevant story is known to me only.
then the IO said, "If it is so then you should examine yourself"
Since then the matter is pending.
after completion of my examination and cross examination I have to submit written argument as well.
So can't I state the entire story and submit the entire evidence inside my written argument, instead of going for self examination ?
I am not allowed to use Def Asstt as per the State Govt Disciplinary rules.
kehar singh
(Querist) 21 January 2013
*venu- I could not understand as to why 313 of CrPC is explained. In my opinion my case should come under Civil Procedure and not under Criminal Procedure. The suspension is just on the charges for not utilising the fund resulted to saving.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 21 January 2013
Earlier he had multiple threads on the issue. Now his inquiry is at advance stage. So he has new doubts.
He has himself now intimated that he has be introduce his own evidence under rule 14(17). If he does not be a defenc witness then stage comes to rule 14(18).
The delay in inquiry doe snot appear to be attributable to him. He has a right to appeal against suspension and more so if ti is not reviewed.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 21 January 2013
kehar singh! It shall be better for you to depose your evidence and offer yourself for the cross-examination. The written argument is your right which shall even be available if you lead your evidence. You should plead entire case by way of your self examination.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 January 2013
If you be a defence witness then you are open to cross-examination and be forced to reveal material against you. An opportunity for prosecution to mend their mistakes. As Presenting Officer I always utilised this opportunity when provided by charged officer. In this process the charged officer at times doe snot even realize what evidence he is providing against him in cross-examination.
If you do not then under 14(18) questions can be asked to you limited to the material already existing against you in the inquiry and you have option not to respond.
Choice is still yours.
P. Venu
(Expert) 22 January 2013
I agree. Charged Officer appearing as his own witness is a double edged sword.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 January 2013
I slightly disagree, it is not double edged it is single edged. In have experience of proving charges (while working as Presenting Officer) merely on the basis of cross-examination of charged officer.
Whether it is criminal trial or departmental inquiry, there can be no better peril for accused to be a witness and come out of cocoon of protection of Art 20.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 22 January 2013
As Sudhir has practical experience to deal with such matters so better to follow him.
