MAINTENCE OF ORDER SHEET

EXAMINATION OF
PROSECUTION/ DEFENCE AND
COURT WITNESSES

1
 Daily Order Sheet
• Immediately on receipt of his order of
appointment, the Inquiry Officer should open a
“Daily Order Sheet”.
• In the absence of an order sheet, it is difficult to
know whether at the various stages, the Inquiry
Officer has violated the procedure without
prejudicing any of the rights of the Government
servant (A.K. Das vs. Sr. Supdt. of Post Office,
AIR 1969 A & N 99).
• Daily Order Sheet thus contains a running
record of all important events occurring during
the course of the enquiry as well as the record
of the business transacted on each day of the
hearing
2
Contd..
• Daily Order Sheet contains a
running record of all important
events occurring during the
course of the enquiry as well as
the record of the business
transacted on each day of the
hearing and the orders passed by
the Inquiry Officer on oral or
written representation of both the
parties, i.e. Presenting Officer and
the Charged Official.
3
Contd..

• The entries in the daily order

sheet should be signed by the
Inquiry Officer to authenticate
them
• Since the daily order sheet is a
record of important happenings
during the course of enquiry
maintained by the Inquiry Officer,
it has to be as per his direction.
4
Contd..

 If the Charged Officer refused to

sign or records an objection on the
order sheet at the time of signing,
the Inquiry Officer should record
the fact of refusal to sign by the
Charged Officer and further give
his comments on the objection and
sign the record.

5
Contd…

• He should not enter into an argument

with the Charged Officer on this
account. This is because the Supreme
Court, in the case of Union of India vs.
T.R.Verma - AIR 1957 SC 882, has held
that in the event of a dispute arising as
to what happened before the Inquiry
Tribunal, the statement of the Presiding
Officer (i.e. the Inquiry Officer) in that
regard is generally to be taken as
correct.
6
Contd..

• The daily order sheet should generally

contain:
(i) a date-wise brief record of all important
happenings in the course of enquiry;
(ii) a brief statement of all oral or written
representations by the Charged Officer or the
Presenting Officer and orders passed
thereon by the Inquiry Officer;
(iii) record of business transacted on each
day of oral hearing, and
(iv) orders of the Inquiring Authority for
holding of hearings, their adjournments, etc. 7
 Examinations of witnesses
• Witnesses should be examined in presence
of inquiry officer and charged officer

• The witnesses in support of the charges are

examined first. Since the Evidence Act does
not apply to the departmental inquiries, the
examination of witnesses by a party need not
take place in the order laid down in that Act,
provided no prejudice is caused to the
charged employee. In actual practice, it is
left to the party producing the evidence to
produce its witnesses in the order it thinks
most appropriate, provided no avoidable
delay is caused thereby.
8
Contd..
• It is essential that all evidence is recorded
in the presence of the inquiry officer and
charged employee [Union of India v.
P.Thaagarajan, AIR 1999 SC 449; Union of
India v. T.R.Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882]. One
of the reasons for adopting this procedure
is that a witness may not dare to make a
statement which he might make in the
absence of the person against him he
deposes [Madhi Ram v. D.F.O.,AIR 1955
Pepsu 172].

9
Contd..
. The other reason is to allow the charged
officer an effective opportunity to cross-
examine the witness on the basis of the
evidence recorded in his presence.
However, there is one exception to this
rule, ie. Where the statement of a witness
recorded earlier during investigation or
preliminary inquiry is read over to him
during regular inquiry in the presence of
the inquiry officer, marked on his
admission and a copy given to the charged
officer so that he can cross-examine him
effectively, it shall not be necessary to
record his full deposition verbally [State of
Mysore v. Shivabasappa, AIR 1963 SC 375
10
Contd.
• In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Srinath Gupta,
1996 AIR SCW 4416, while upholding the above
procedure of examination-in-chief where a witness
had made a statement earlier, the Supreme Court
observed that copy of the statement should be
supplied to the charged employee at least two days
earlier.
• In Kuldeep Singh v Commissioner of Police, AIR
1999 SC 677, the Supreme Court observed – “Where
a statement previously made by a witness, either
during the course of preliminary enquiry or
investigation, is proposed to be brought on record in
the departmental proceedings, the law as laid down
by this Court is that a copy of this statement should
first by supplied to the delinquent, who should
thereafter be given an opportunity to cross examine
that witness. 11
 RECORDING OF EVIDENCE
• Statements recorded during preliminarily hearing
or investigation cannot be taken on record unless
the witness personally appears before the inquiry
officer.
Since it is essential that a witness is examined in the
presence of the inquiry offier and charged officer
and is made available for cross-examination by the
party opposite, it goes without saying that statement
of a witness recorded during preliminary enquiry
or investigation cannot be brought on record and
relied upon unless he personally appears during the
inquiry [Central Bank of India v. P.C.Jain, AIR 1969
SC 983; Ministry of Finance v. S.B.Ramesh, AIR
1998 SC 853;Kuldeep Singh V. Commissioner of
Police, AIR 1999 SC 677].
12
Contd..
• Statement sent in writing to the inquiry
officer pleading inability for presence
during inquiry are also not eligible.
• In Union of India v. P.Thayagarajan, AIR
1999 SC 449, the witnesses indicated their
inability to be present before the inquiry
officer and wrote down there statements in the
letters addressed to the inquiry officer which
were taken on record by the inquiry officer.
The Supreme Court held that the procedure
was not permissible
13
Contd..

Testimony of a witness cannot be

confined to a particular charge or
matter. Where, a witness is examined,
his testimony cannot be confined to any
particular charge or allegation. It may
relate to the whole matter [State of U.P.
v. C.S.Shamra, AIR 1963 All.94].

14
Contd

Witnesses cannot be examined chargewise.

Where the inquiry officer adopted the novel

procedure of examining the witnesses
chargewise. The Court observed “There can
be no doubt that the Enquiring officer may
evolve his own procedure, but he should not
adopt a procedure which no reasonable man
would adopt [Union of India v. Inder Nath,
1977 Lab.IC (Cal.) 1408].

15
 Contd.
• Cros-examination of a witness cannot be
postponed until examination-inchief of other
witnesses is recorded. It is also not permissible
to postpone the cross-examination of the
witnesses till statements of all of them has been
recorded [Bank of India v. A.K.Saha,
(1994)2SCC 6151]. A witness should be
subjected to cross-examination immediately
after his examination-in-chief is over.

16
Contd..

• Opportunity to produce defence evidence is

to be given once only. (i) The charge officer
made it known to the inquiry officer that he did
not wish to lead any documentary or oral
evidence in his defence, and the defence case
was accordingly closed. However, subsequently,
he requested for allowing four defence
witnesses which was rejected by the inquiry
officer. The Supreme Court upheld the action of
the inquiry office [Addl.District Magistrate (City),
Agra v. P.Chaturvedi, (1966) 1 JT (SC) 207].
17
Contd..
. The delinquent had expressly stated before
the inquiry officer that he did not wish to
tender any evidence, oral or documentary,
but latter on complained to the court that
he was not given adequate opportunity to
defend himself. His plea was rejected
[Kshirode Behar Chakravarty v. Union of
India, (1971)3 SCC 856].

18
Contd..
• Inquiry officer cannot pick and choose
defence witnesses. Where the inquiry
officer acted hurriedly and picked up four
witnesses arbitrarily out of the list of
twenty one defence witnesses, for
examination. The High Court observed
that the choice of witnesses could not be
that of inquiry officer without getting option
of the charge employee. He should not
have acted so hurriedly also [Gajinder
Singh v. State, SLR 1972 pb. & Hr. 432’.
19
Contd..
• Charged officer cannot be questioned
repeatedly. Where charged officer was
examined at the outset of inquiry and there
after several times as and when evidence
of any witness was recorded, the High
Court disapproved of the procedure
adopted [Ram Shakal Yadav v. Chief
Security Officer, AIR 1967 M.P.91].

20
 Contd..

• Language in which depositions be recorded. As

regards the language in which the evidence be
recorded, the general principle is that it should be
record in the language which the charged officer
of the person assisting him understands [Babu Lal
v. Chief Justice, SLR 1969 All,170]. However, the
question of his difficulty to follow the language
should be raised by the charged employee at the
earliest. Where no such objection is raised, the
issue cannot be agitated when the inquiry is over
[Ghulam Rasul v. Public Service Commission,
1963.II LLJ Cal. 174].
21
METHOD OF RECORDING ORAL EVIDENCE
• Cross-examination. The examination of a
witness by the party opposite is called cross-
examination. It is taken up after statement of
the witnesses been recorded in his
examination-in-chief. The object of cross
examination, in the words of Powel, are – “to
impeach the accuracy, credibility and
general value of the witness to, to detect and
expose discrepancies, or to elicit suppressed
facts which will support the case of the cross-
examining party.”
22
Contd..
• The Supreme Court has held that the
right to cross examination is a very valuable
right and, hence, prevention in any way by
the inquiry officer its effective exercise,
would vitiate the proceedings [State of
M.P.vs Chintaman, AIR1961 SC 1623].
• The right to cross-examine a witness who
has deposed against the charged officer in a
departmental proceeding has been accepted
as a safeguard implicit in Art.311 (2) of the
Constitution. State of Bombay v. Raojibhai,
AIR 1962 Guj.130].
23
 IMPORTANCE OF CROSS EXAMINATION
• For the Prosecution

The evidence of prosecution witness

become admissible evidence only after it has
passed through the test of cross
examination.

In Modula India v. Kamakshya

Singh Deo, (1988)4 SCC 619, the Supreme
Court observed:

24
Contd.

•
“It is well established proposition that no oral
testimony can be considered satisfactory or
valid unless it is tested by cross-examination.
The mere statement of the plaintiff’s
witnesses cannot constitute the plaintiff’s
evidence in the case unless and until it is
tested by cross-examination. The right of the
defence to cross-examine the plaintiff’s
witnesses can, therefore, be looked upon not
as a part of its own strategy of defence but
rather as a requirement without which the
plaintiff’s evidence cannot be acted upon.”

25
Contd.

• For the Charge officer.

The right to cross-examination is

the most powerful weapon to unravel
truth and break completely a false
witness. Properly done with patience
and wisdom, it exposes the hollowness
or falsehood in the deposition of a
witness, which nothing else can

26
 Manner of cross examination
• The cross-examination of a witness need not
be confined to the testimony of the witness in
his examination-in-chief; its scope is unlimited
and may cover the entire field of defence,
except that the questions must be relevant to
the facts of the case or relate to the credibility
of the witness or evidence given by him. :

27
 Court Witness
• The inquiring authority may, on the basis of
information on record summon a person to
tender evidence in the inquiry who has
neither been cited as ‘prosecution’ nor
‘defence’ witness, but his evidence is
considered to be material for unfolding
story of the case. Such a person is called a
‘court witnesses and is subject to cross-
examination by both the parties. The
summoning of such a witness shall be
governed by the principles relating to ‘New
evidence’ 28
29