- Rule 4(iv) — The loss caused to the Govt. by negligence or by breach of Order can be made only out of the pay of the accused concerned and not out of the pension. Amirullah Qureshi v. Accountant-General 1996 SCR 78 (A)
- Rule 6 — Four basic requirements for inquiry — When a regular inquiry is being held against a civil servant sub-rule (3) provides that the inquiry officer shall inquire into the charge and may examine such oral documentary evidence as may be considered necessary — It also provides that the accused shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses against him — Under sub-rule(3) four basic requirements which have to be fulfilled are;(I) that the inquiry officer has to inquire into the charge which means that she is not hold an inquiry; (ii) that oral or documentary evidence has to be examined in support of the charge; (iii) the accused has to be given an opportunity to produce necessary evidence in his defence (iv) while referring to civil servant who is being proceeded against the word “accused” has been used which indicates that the proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer are akin to a criminal trial. M. Shafique Mughal v. Accountant-General 1996 SCR 127 (A)
- Rule 6 — Inquiry officer is like a judge — Inquiry officer is like a judge and he cannot play the role of a prosecutor — It is not permissible for him to fish out a case against the accused civil servant — This job should be left to the departmental representative — If the inquiry officer thought that any document incriminated the appellant it was his bounden duty to make the appellant aware of the incriminating material and to give him an opportunity to meet it — Penalty based on the finding of the inquiry officer cannot be sustained. M. Shafique Mughal v. Accountant-General 1996 SCR 127 (C)
- Rule 6(3) — The Inquiry officer is required to examine oral or documentary evidence in support of the charge. He is also authorised to examine oral or documentary evidence in defence of the accused but it does not authorize the inquiry officer to examined the accusedand then decide the case — Held further: That the accused can only be examined if he wishes to get his statement recorded in his defence and this can only be done when prosecution evidence has been recorded. In the instant case the inquiry officer was under the wrong impression that it is the appellant who has to prove his innocence. M. Shafique Mughal v. Accountant-General 1996 SCR 127 (B)
error: Content is protected !!