The various stages and sequential steps in the conduct of a departmental inquiry are as under :-
If all these persons connected with the inquiry discharge their roles faithfully and impartially, the inquiry
is rendered bonafide. The inquiry is not deemed aimed at the charged officer, as such, but for purposes
of weeding misconduct and ensuring purity and cleanliness in the Service. This should be understood by
all. Separate role profile for each person concerned with the inquiry is therefore given. Different
functions are explained in subject-wise topics. This will help to provide better clarity and ease of
understanding.
This is an important stage, similar to registering an FIR by the police prior to taking up investigation of a
complaint against an accused. Giving proper attention and providing structured procedures for
compliance of this stage will facilitate getting accurate information on the facts of the charge sheet case
and arriving at correct data facilitating a definite decision with respect to issue of charge sheet and
planning a time bound schedule for the disciplinary inquiry under a single line approach. Material
fallacies and subjective bias in the investigation report may adversely affect the departmental inquiry
and render it defective. It is wrong to entrust this stage to the line authorities, as this stage is not
specifically codified in the DA Regulations.
Disciplinary action should be distinguished from routine audit and inspection. It should be based on a
specific complaint, which should be registered, and at this stage cognizance of the complaint should be
made by the disciplinary authority. This means that the registration of the complaint should be done at
the level of the disciplinary authority, who should decide whether or not investigation should be made.
Complaint register should be maintained separately for-
i. allegation of corruption or demand/acceptance of illegal gratification i.e. the alleged facts prima
facie indicate an element or potentiality of a vigilance angle, and for
ii. Complaints which relate to purely administrative matters or of technical lapses such as late
attendance, disobedience, insubordination, negligence, lack of supervision or operational or
technical irregularities and other lapses not having a vigilance angle
Information about corruption, malpractice or misconduct on the part of public servants may come to
light from any source, such as:
i. complaint should be brought to the cognizance of the disciplinary authority by the administrative
heads within 3 days. Delay beyond this has to be satisfactorily explained.
ii. Observations of auditors/inspectors in their report can only be deemed as complaints for further
investigation. They should not be deemed as ends for proceeding directly to issue charge sheets,
iii. However after annual audit/inspection a period of 3 months may be given to the branch to
remove serious irregularities. Those omissions satisfactorily rectified may be dropped and no
complaints need be registered.
iv. Only the disciplinary authority or higher officers in rank should be deemed competent to register
complaints for investigation
v. After registration of a complaint, investigation should be taken up immediately and completed. A
decision taken whether to initiate action or not. If a charge sheet is served, it should be served
within 3 months of registering a complaint. Executive authorities should not have the option to
defer charge sheeting indefinitely and keep the officer in suspense all through.
vi. Guidelines of CVC in its Manual- Chapter II- to be followed with regards to complaints and
chapter 3 with regards to investigation to the extent they are applicable. Relevant guidelines
reproduced below. CVC is a specialized anti-corruption agency. It is now a statutory body and
also an autonomous body. Its guidelines by default are binding on the Government-owned banks
and deviations made in particular cases have to be satisfactorily explained.