Preliminary Investigation Report for NUP
(Dismissal of Complaint)
PCEID
MEMORANDUM
FOR : TADIDM
FROM : Chief, PCEID
SUBJECT : Preliminary Investigation Report against NUP
________, for alleged absent without notice
DATE : August 26, 2016
I. AUTHORITY:
1. Inherent official function of the C, PNP.
2. Memorandum from (Unit) dated __________, requesting this
Directorate to conduct pre-charge investigation against the above-named NUP
_____ for alleged absent without notice on (Dates) (TAB A).
II. MATTERS INVESTIGATED:
3. To determine whether there is prima facie case to administratively
charge the above-named respondent of (Unit) for his absence on (Dates).
III. FACTS OF THE CASE:
4. Records show that NUP ______ is an electrician assigned with the
(Unit). On (Dates), he failed to report for work. Thus, he was marked absent
on the said dates and was also awarded thirty (30) demerits (TAB-B).
Subsequently, the Acting ADMO, (Unit of the respondent) thru Memo dated
_________, recommended that a pre-charge investigation be conducted
against NUP _______ for having exceeded the twenty (20) maximum
demerits. Said recommendation was approved by the Director, of (Unit of the
respondent) on (Dates) (TAB-C).
5. Summons was sent to NUP _______ directing him to submit answer
and after he complied with the directive by submitting his counter-affidavit
(TAB-D). Hence, the instant preliminary investigation is being conducted
against NUP ______.
6. In line with the provisions of (Specific Provisions) of the Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), this Office, thru
notice of complaint dated (DFate), required NUP __________ to submit
answer/counter-affidavit under oath and attach therewith any pertinent
document in support thereof.
7. On ___________, NUP __________ submitted his Sinumpaang
Salaysay executed on _______ together with his supporting document (TAB-
E). In his Salaysay, NUP _______ admitted that he was absent on (Dates) but
denied the allegation that he did not notify his office regarding his absences.
He claimed that on (Date), he fetched his wife at the Airport and thereafter,
accompanied his wife to distribute the gifts she was carrying. However, on the
following day, (Date), he was not feeling well due to his tiredness; thus, he
took rest to recover his condition.
8. NUP _________ further claimed that prior to his absences; he
notified his immediate superior officer, PCINSP ____________________thru
his colleagues, (Witnesses of the respondent). In their separate affidavits,
admitted that they were informed by NUP ________ about his absences.
NUP _________ also filed an application for sick leave of absence upon return
to work.
9. In support to his answer, NUP __________ submitted the Pinag-
isang Salaysay of witnesses, NUP________ and his immediate superior,
P____________, Chief, SBMO, his approved sick leave of absence and the
order of confirmation of his sick leave (TAB-F).
IV. DISCUSSION:
10. After perusal of the records, this Office finds no prima facie case to
warrant the issuance of formal charge against NUP __________. It appears
from the records that NUP __________ was granted two (2) days sick leave
covering the period from (Dates). Said sick leave was approved by PSSUPT
_____________, Deputy Director, of (Unit) and was confirmed by the DPRM
pursuant to Special Orders No. _____ dated _________. Thus, NUP
_________ cannot be considered to be absent without notice on (Dates) since
he was on leave on the said dates.
V. CONCLUSION/FINDINGS:
11. Viewed from all the foregoing, this Office finds no prima facie case
to indict NUP __________for any administrative offense regarding his alleged
absences without notice.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
12. WHEREFORE, this Directorate respectfully recommends that the
complaint of absent without notice against NUP __________ be DISMISSED
for utter lack of prima facie case pursuant to (Specific Provisions) of the
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL:
Rank/Name
Designation
