The Inquiry Officer Chandigarh Sub : Departmental Enquiry Dear Sir, This has reference to the inquiry conducted

against the undersigned, the Delinquent Employee (DE) on the Charge Sheet No. .. dated wherein it has been alleged against the DE that he: 1. Has shown unwillingness towards the job assigned to him. 2. Has raised the voice and misbehaved with the Supervisor (SDM-E). 3. Has shown insubordination to the Supervisor. The undersigned has categorically denied all the charges and given point by point answer as how many jobs were assigned to him and how many jobs were completed and also the reason for non-completion of the remaining jobs. Inspite of a merit based reply to the chargesheet, competent Authority felt it necessary to conduct a department inquiry into the case. You have conducted departmental inquiry on .. .. .. and . On (first day) narration of enquiry. On ------------- (second day) My humble submission on the method of conducting departmental enquiry is as under : 1. The enquiry is not conducted as per laid down procedure. 2. The PO could not present any evidence in support of the charges leveled against me which shows that the charges bear no merit/substance and are completely baseless and need to be rejected without giving a second thought. 3. Enquiry Officer has played the role of Presenting Officer and taken stand that charges leveled amount to established and DE need to prove his innocence. Whereas the principal of Natural Justice demands that PO need to prove the guilt of DE, if any. 4. Since PO did not utter even a single word during the course of departmental inquiry, it is proved beyond doubt that PO had nothing to submit in support of the charges and the chargesheet was issued on false grounds. 5. The complainant herself is said to be the witness of the alleged incidence and she too did not appear before the IO. 6. IO has taken witness over telephone whereas telephonic witness does not bear any merit in domestic enquiry. 7. DE was not given a chance to cross examine the witness. 8. DE was forced to present his defence in piece meals and that too before the PO even started/closed his case.

9. IO has not recorded the statements of PO/DE/Witness verbatim (word by word). Rather he has summarized the inquiry proceedings in one or two para which curtails the chances of revealing the truth out of the statements made during the inquiry. 10. IO has not recorded the statements made by PO in favour of DE. (PO said in his presence that the delay in the jobs assigned to DE was due to procedural delay on the parts of other departments. This statement was not taken on the records.) Thus the departmental enquiry is unfair and I am not satisfied and do not agree the way it has been conducted. I feel victimized and subject during the entire proceedings. I have done my job with utmost sincerity and honesty which is proved beyond doubt on the following grounds : 1. The job refereed to in the chargesheet are in addition to my normal jobs/duties. It shows my sincerity that management assigns me additional jobs because I perform them to their expectations. 2. I was given .. jobs by SDM-E. 3. Out the .. jobs I have completed jobs. 4. . Job were pending for which I was making constant follow up with the concerned authorities such as .. (Letter No. .. dt. Enclosed). 5. It was substantiated by the Defence Witness Shri Varinder Singh in writing and also in physical examination by the IO during enquiry proceedings. 6. The Chargesheet does not specify as what type of voice raising is considered as misbehaviour by the complainant. I was only trying to explain the current status of the assigned jobs and the difficulties being faced in the procedure. It was only my effort to explain the factual position and by no means it can be treated as replying back or misbehaving with the SDM-E. 7. At no point of time I have ever shown any disobedience to the orders of my Supervisor (SDM-E). It is proved by the facts that out of various jobs I have completed .. jobs and I was also working on the remaining ones. 8. It would not be out of place to mention that I was doing the jobs assigned me by SDM-E alongwith my normal jobs which includes : Public Dealing 9. It is a wrong statement given in the chargesheet that I was given warning for misbehavour in the past also. I have never been given any such warning nor I have ever done anything which required warning etc. During the course of inquiry PO could not produce any evidence in support of such a serious allegation. This false allegation in a sensetative document like Chargesheet underlines the malafied intention of the management. Sir, this is submitted very humbly that mere putting allegation against any person can not make him guilty. All allegations need to be proved with personal/documentary evidence and PO has miserably failed to bring any such evidence during the course of enquiry. Therefore, no charge is proved during the

department enquiry. Whatever questions were asked, they were asked by IO only. IO has to behave like a judge and the onus of proving the charges lies with PO. In the current inquiry proceedings, PO could not prove any of the charges leveled against DE and DE has categorically proved his innocence and also the malafied intentions of complainant in fabricating false allegations against him. In the light of the above it is submitted that the chargesheet no. . Dated .. should be withdrawn and all the effects of the chargesheet should be nullified and suspended benefits should be released. With Regards,

MAHAVIR SINGH