Clarification under rule 14 of CCS(CCA) rules

To the first poin, the IO cannot impose such undertaking or condition. Regarding the second point, the accused officer should be given the documents necessary to the deinqunt officer so as to seek information or reply for the charges levelled..

It is observed from Swamy's compilation and G.B.Singh's commentary on the
above rules do not clarify position in respect of following

1. After receipt of prosecution documents , can the PO examine the CO on the first day of regular hearing without presenting his case first? It is provided under the rules that the IO can cross*xamine the CO only after close of the prosecution case. It therefore apears obvious that the PO can examine the CO only after close of the defence case. But in one of the case the IO permitted the PO to examine the CO at the begining of the regular inquiry. Is the action of the IO is not contradictory to the rules? This may kindly be clearified.

it is settled principle that the delinquent cannot be examined first. the department has to examine its witnesses in supprot of charge and only thereafter the defence will have to be examined. Questioning as to the admission of guilt at the inception of inquiry alone is permitted. the EO cannot insist on confidence motion letters from the delinquent employee because bias will be proved only by conduct of the enquiry officer during the enquiry.

Can an IO request the CO and his defence assistant for recording cross-examination of a vitness in his office being enough senior to the IO as he can not ensure presence of that witness in the enquiry room?

I cannot ask anyone accused to state whether he has faith in him.  Such procedure is there in case of Court Martial. Further the Presenting Officer can never put any question the charged officer unless charged officer offers to be a defence wtiness. The difference of status betweeen IO and witness is not relevant. witness has to come to his office.  Anyway smart Def Asstt can mat any witness even while sitting in his office. Such like witnesses tend to spoil the case of prosecution due to ego of status.