Dear Kannan
I appreciate your input; as always - a value addition.
Your anecdote, too, is interesting !!
However, I wish to point out a fact; notwithstanding whether the quasi-judicial procedure, as cited above, has been stated truly or not.
This may kindly be noted that during any Enquiry Process; the Enquiry Officer or the presiding officer should not ask any "leading questions", else there is a chance that later a court may strike out the proceedings as vitiated.
Leading questions are allowed only during the Cross-examination of witnesses; and it is by either side.
An Enquiry Officer is expecting to be (or at least, act) NEUTRAL. Thus, such questions are not expected from him; as this would question the Principles of Natural Justice.
If a senior officer is appointed for such role, and he acts PARTIAL in this manner by asking Leading Questions; can a subordinate lower level employee say NO to his questions ??
No wonder, the employee said Yes at that point of time.
Later on, may be due to the guidance from his TU colleagues/co-worker, he was able to REFUTE his earlier admission.
As HR professionals we must take care of such proceedings and procedures; so that the Enquiry process is not declared a sham later on by the judicial courts.
Such Kangaroo courts where the "Judge" himself takes on the roles of Prosecution are not considered fair in Law.
Warm regards.