Can a Departmental Inquiry Be Reopened for Cross-Examination? Seeking Insights on My Case

Reopening a Closed Departmental Inquiry

Can a closed departmental inquiry be reopened before the submission of the 'Presenting Officer's Brief' and 'Defence Brief'? If so, 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 did not wish to cross-examine the Management Witness due to the absence of the 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 inclusion 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.

Rights of the Delinquent Employee

The right of the delinquent employee is to be heard, i.e., to present his evidence, cross-examine the witness adducing evidence against him, and have the proceedings held and decided by an unbiased official. None of these rights are breached by the reopening of the inquiry, particularly as it affords an opportunity to the defense to cross-examine the management witness.

Role of the Inquiry Authority

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. Until then, the proceedings would continue. So, there is no illegality committed.

Inquiry Closure and Reopening Concerns

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 implies 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?

Purpose of a Domestic Inquiry

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.

Reopening the Inquiry

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.

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.

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.

Dear Mr. Madhu, the facts discernible from the questioner's post, as I understand them, are as follows:

In the domestic inquiry ordered against the questioner, who is the charge-sheeted delinquent, the management witness was first examined, as usual. 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 moment of emotion, refused to cross-examine the management witness.

Therefore, the Enquiry Officer (E.O.) ought to have commenced the examination of the delinquent's witness, followed by cross-examination by the management, hearing of arguments, etc., and submitted his findings. However, he closed the inquiry at that stage and submitted his report accordingly to the Disciplinary Authority.

If one critically analyzes the action of the Disciplinary Authority (D.A.), one can find that the D.A., while appearing impartial, virtually ordered a de novo inquiry/re-enquiry so that the management can file the document/additional documents of its choice substantiating the charges through 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 inquiry, upon reopening, should start from the stage where it was hastily declared closed, i.e., the examination of the delinquent's evidence only, as the management's evidence was already over.

Neither the presenting officer's brief had arrived, nor had the defense brief, so the question of submitting the inquiry report does not arise. The inquiry was resumed from where it was last left, not started anew. The correct question is whether the disciplinary authority was right in reopening the inquiry under these circumstances or if it has vitiated the whole inquiry, causing prejudice to the delinquent. Even though the examination-in-chief was over, the defense did not initiate cross-examination and instead requested the EO to start afresh from the examination-in-chief by the presenting officer. Additionally, one more piece of additional evidence was introduced, which the defense is objecting to.

You had mentioned initially that the inquiry was closed. Do you mean to say one witness had given his statement and then 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.

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.

The picture is not clear. Was the document produced or not, and was the defense offered the opportunity to cross-examine the management witness and also produce defense witnesses? Please clarify the position in clear terms.

The document could only be produced when the departmental enquiry was reopened. Before reopening, the defence did not cross-examine in the absence of that document. Despite being provided the opportunity, the defence only cross-examined when the document was presented by the PO during the reopening. The defence witnesses were produced on an earlier occasion. The entire case proceeded only after both the management and defence cases were concluded. I think I am clear now.

Closure of a Departmental Inquiry

A departmental inquiry is deemed closed after the final orders are passed by the Disciplinary Authority based on the findings of the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiry Authority presents their findings after the conclusion of evidence from the prosecution and defense, along with their arguments on the points of law and facts. However, if upon reviewing the report, the Disciplinary Authority finds that further inquiry is needed on certain aspects of the proceedings or to establish or disprove the guilt of the Charged Official (delinquent), they have the authority to refer the inquiry back to the Inquiry Authority. This may be necessary in cases where certain aspects are unclear or lack a solid foundation for reliance.

Limitations on Further Inquiry

In the course of this additional inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority cannot dictate how the Inquiry Authority should conduct the further investigation to address any gaps. Additionally, they cannot propose calling irrelevant witnesses or introducing new documents to modify or supplement the existing evidence. However, they are permitted to seek clarification if the inquiry report's findings are ambiguous or not easily understood.