EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 1) The IO should not use his personal knowledge while evaluation of the evidence. 2) While considering evidence, probabilities must be considered. 3) Hearse evidence is not valid. 4) Direct and circumstantial evidence in the inquiry. 5) The departmental officer should be given always more weight-age, as he is well conversant with the workman of the department. 6) The charges are not deemed to be proved merely on the weakness of the defense witnesses. 7) The confession of the court accused cannot be used against a CW. 8) The weight-age of the witnesses should not be depending upon the status of the witnesses. 9) It is not necessary that all the witnesses should support the charges. 10) The reason should be given for final decision of the IO. 11) The consideration of IO should not be based on certain presumption. 12) IO should not consider the facts, which are not on the record. 13) IO should not consider any event, which subsequently happened. 14) IO should not omit any form of consideration of any evidence.
SCOPE OF INQUIRY REPORT 1) IO should not decide the penalty. 2) IO should not give findings outside the scope of inquiry. 3) IO can hold guilty, the charge-sheeted workman, for all charges or for some of the charges. 4) He may or may not hold charge-sheeted workman guilty of any / all the charge/s.
PUNISHING AUTHORITY 1) Punishing authority should apply his mind on record while awarding the punishment. 2) He may accept or reject some of the findings of the IO. 3) He is not bound to discuss any matter with IO.
Page 89 of 114