Can an Enquiry Officer Limit Witnesses to Avoid Delays in a Domestic Enquiry?

Domestic Enquiry and Evidence Pruning

In a domestic enquiry against a workman, the enquiry officer did not permit the workman to produce all his witnesses on the plea that evidence may be repetitive and may delay the enquiry. The workman was prepared to record evidence by bulk affidavits to save time. Does the enquiry officer have the power to prune evidence?

Validity of Termination Letter

The termination letter is signed by a person who is not the Manager notified under Standing Orders. Is the termination valid?

Warm Regards.

Your queries are answered below:

Enquiry Officer's Discretion on Witnesses

1. If the Enquiry Officer has disallowed witnesses on the grounds that it may delay the enquiry process, it is improper, especially since their depositions in chief are on record by way of affidavit; only the cross-examination is left. The EO has the power to disallow a witness where there is repetition and some evidence to indicate that a deliberate attempt is being made to delay the enquiry. However, he needs to pass a reasoned order. From the overall facts of the matter, can it be said that the EO is prejudiced against the employee and wants to hurry up the process and finish it somehow?

Validity of Termination Order

2. Is the termination order signed by the appointing authority or anyone higher? In many organizations, the approval of the appropriate authority is taken on the file but is communicated by the disciplinary authority. In certain Standing Orders, there is a provision that the termination of service can be done only with the approval of the specified authority mentioned therein. However, in such cases, the termination order can be passed and communicated by the disciplinary authority but must be countersigned by the authority mentioned. This has to be examined.

Disallowing a witness on the grounds of causing delay in the inquiry may be regarded as premature and can be seen as a denial of fair opportunity to the chargesheeted employee if and when it gets challenged in court later. However, it is within the powers of the Enquiry Officer (E.O.) to allow or disallow any witness by passing a speaking order. The termination letter can be signed by the appointing authority or a person delegated with the powers, supported by due power of attorney.

Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant

Dear Mr. Jagadish,

In most cases, management moves with a predetermined decision of "termination" to give the impression that the termination was fair and all procedures have been followed in the case. This is apparently viewed from your post.

The workman has to be given a fair chance in a domestic enquiry and allowed to submit all facts, figures, and witnesses in his support to prove the allegations are false and fabricated. The decision of the Enquiry Officer (EO) in the pretext of repetitiveness is justified. However, the decision cannot be termed fair if the workman is not allowed to produce all his witnesses and evidence, citing repetitiveness on the grounds of delay in the enquiry.

The one who has the power to appoint is an authority to terminate, as a general term and practice. In the instant case, the termination is flawed because the order was signed by a person who is not an authorized individual as per the company's Standing Orders.

In my opinion, the terminated workman should challenge his termination as it appears to be unjust and not in accordance with the rules.

Dear Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, in this case, the workman had offered to file affidavits of the concerned witnesses. Therefore, refusal on the ground of delay was false. In fact, the enquiry officer was appointed to find the workman guilty. The matter is already decided against the workman by the labour court, and the revision would be filed.

Thanks and warm regards.