Burden of proof is on the prosecution.
The charge has to be proved against the CE and it is not for the CE to absolve himself of the charge.
An IO is wrong, if he places the burden of establishing charged employees’ innocence on the CE.
Mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
The report of the IO must contain reasons for the conclusions reached.
The IO should not rely on statements not recorded during the courseof inquiry. The IO must not rely on extraneous matters.
The IO cannot look into any ‘unspecified’ records for reaching his conclusions.
The IO should not make recommendations regarding quantum of punishments.
The IO must keep his mind open.
The IO must reach clear and conclusive findings.
Halting and inconclusive findings of the IO in his report serve no purpose and are meaningless.
With best wishes,
Keshav Ram Singhal
IO = Inquiry Officer / Enquiry Officer / Inquiring Authority
PO = Presenting Officer
DR = Defence Representative
CE = Charged Employee / Charged Officer
DA = Disciplinary Authority
AA = Appellate Authority
Welcome! The purpose of this blog is to share information and knowledge on Departmental Inquiry. Consultancy guidance and training services are available.
Important: Every effort has been taken to provide relevant and up-to-date information, however I do not take any responsibility for any action taken on the basis of the tips/write-ups in this blog.
You may visit following blogs:
- 'Quality Concepts and ISO 9001:2008 QMS Awareness' at http://iso9001-2008awareness.blogspot.in/
- 'ISO 9001 QMS Awareness' Blog in Hindi at http://iso9001awareness.blogspot.in/
- 'EMS Awareness' Blog at http://emsawareness.blogspot.in/
- Blog on 'Forthcoming ISO 9001:2015 QMS Awareness' at http://qmsawareness.blogspot.in
With best wishes,