Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) The Respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. However, in view of the petitions submitted by him regarding bias on part of the two consecutive IOs, they were changed and finally the 4th Respondent was appointed as the IO vide Order dated 18.04.2024 marked as Annexure A3. The Inquiry commenced on 27.05.2024 till its last sitting on 20.11.2024.

(iii) The applicant submits that on the sitting on 20.11.2024, the Presenting Officer introduced a disputed document listed as Serial No. 1 in Annexure A3. The applicant avers that the admissibility of this document was in violation of Rule 5(iii) of the Postal Volume 3. This document was merely a photocopy of an e-mail exchange, lacked an authorized signature or an authorized seal and had no authentication or custodianship. He submits that despite his vehement objections, the IO allowed the disputed document to be introduced through PW-

(xi) The learned counsel for Respondent further submits that averment of the applicant that the document enlisted at Sl. no. l of Annexure-III of Charge Memo belongs to India Post Payments Bank (IPPB), and as an officer of the Department of Posts (PW-24), the individual has no authority or custodianship over the document (Annexure-A6), is not correct and sustainable. He avers that the Memorandum of Charges dated 30.06.2021 has been issued against the applicant on the alleged activities of borrowing from his official colleagues and TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore LATA 2026.02.27 14:59:19 +05'30' OA No.170/00069/2025/CAT/BANGALORE subordinates by using his official capacity through his IPPB and POSB account while he was on deputation as Area Sales Manager at IPPB Branch attached to Doddaballapura PO under Channaptana Division PW-24. The Superintendent of Post offices, Channaptatna Division, being the Divisional (jurisdictional) head of Channapatna Division carried-out investigation on the email alert dated 25.08.2020 received from IPPB Corporate Office, New Delhi. This fact has been clearly brought out in the Annexure-II of the Memorandum of Charges. Hence, action of the applicant requesting the Inquiry officer to disallow the Presenting officer's attempt to introduce this document through PW-24, the Superintendent of Post offices, Channapatna Division during inquiry proceedings on 20.11.2024, was unlawful.

(xiii) According to him, it was the duty of the Inquiry Officer to facilitate the witness to understand the questions, to submit unbiased deposition in a proper manner and get the documents identified/introduced through stakeholders for such documents. He avers that taking decisions after examining the submission of Presenting Officer, Charged Officer and witnesses, cannot be taken as biased TARU LATA TARUCAT Bangalore LATA 2026.02.27 14:59:19 +05'30' OA No.170/00069/2025/CAT/BANGALORE inclination. He defends the decision of the Inquiry Officer in allowing one of the stakeholders for the documents and person who carried out the investigation on the basis of the document obtained by him for examination as correct.

B. (2) Change the Inquiry Officer as the charged officer has lost faith in the impartiality of the present Inquiry Officer:

Observation: Inquiry officer is conducting proceedings in an unbiased and fair manner. Charged officer has been provided reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Inquiry officer's action in facilitating the witnesses to understand the questions, submit unbiased deposition in a convenient manner, getting the documents identified/introduced through stakeholders for such documents and taking decisions after examining the submission of presenting officer, charged officer and witnesses cannot be taken as biased inclination.