Dear friends,
Evaluation of evidence is a vital job for the inquiring officer. It should be done in a judicial manner even though the Indian evidence act is not applicable to disciplinary proceedings. Personal traits is not acceptable in evaluation of evidence but in practical it plays a role. For example an inquiry officer of having generosity in nature needs higher degree of proof for deciding the charged official as guilty on the other hand an I.O of authoritative nature needs small lapses and lesser degree of proof to find an accused official as guilty.
The standard of proof needed in a disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability unlike proof beyond reasonable doubt needed in criminal proceedings. That is if the probability is more on the side of defence he will be let off. If the probability is more on the side of disciplinary authority the charged official will be found guilty.
Since absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable to disciplinary proceedings the benefit of doubt not given to the accused official.
For benefit of doubt implication pl. see the scene from the famous Tamil film " GAURAVAM" from the link.
https://youtu.be/foXrH28Pkkw
BURDEN OF PROOF : The burden of proof lies with the disciplinary authority .It is the duty of the disciplinary authority to prove the charge levelled against the govt.employee and the accused official is not required to prove his innocence .
STATUS OF WITNESS : All witnesses are equal. Higher credibility can not be given to the evidence of witness who posses a higher status in the society or in the bureaucratic hierarchy.
Character and behaviour find no place in the disciplinary proceedings ,instead the evidence only decide the case of a charged official .So a prayer or confession made by the charged official on the ground of good faith or the lapses occurred not on malafide
motive will not be considered.
Tenkasi . with greetings
20.11.2018. G.Mariappan.
Evaluation of evidence is a vital job for the inquiring officer. It should be done in a judicial manner even though the Indian evidence act is not applicable to disciplinary proceedings. Personal traits is not acceptable in evaluation of evidence but in practical it plays a role. For example an inquiry officer of having generosity in nature needs higher degree of proof for deciding the charged official as guilty on the other hand an I.O of authoritative nature needs small lapses and lesser degree of proof to find an accused official as guilty.
The standard of proof needed in a disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability unlike proof beyond reasonable doubt needed in criminal proceedings. That is if the probability is more on the side of defence he will be let off. If the probability is more on the side of disciplinary authority the charged official will be found guilty.
Since absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable to disciplinary proceedings the benefit of doubt not given to the accused official.
For benefit of doubt implication pl. see the scene from the famous Tamil film " GAURAVAM" from the link.
https://youtu.be/foXrH28Pkkw
BURDEN OF PROOF : The burden of proof lies with the disciplinary authority .It is the duty of the disciplinary authority to prove the charge levelled against the govt.employee and the accused official is not required to prove his innocence .
STATUS OF WITNESS : All witnesses are equal. Higher credibility can not be given to the evidence of witness who posses a higher status in the society or in the bureaucratic hierarchy.
Character and behaviour find no place in the disciplinary proceedings ,instead the evidence only decide the case of a charged official .So a prayer or confession made by the charged official on the ground of good faith or the lapses occurred not on malafide
motive will not be considered.
Tenkasi . with greetings
20.11.2018. G.Mariappan.
No comments:
Post a Comment