Role of PO in Domestic Inquiry

TOPIC: ROLE OF PO IN DOMESTIC INQUIRY

Company conducts domestic inquiry (DI) as required under Section 14(1) of Employment Act 1955 for serious misconduct.

In Industrial Court the burden is on the employer to prove he has just cause or excuse for the dismissal of a workman. The employer has to prove with cogent evidence, facts and witnesses to prove that the workman has committed the serious misconduct.

Now, coming back to Domestic Inquiry, the same burden to prove that the employee has committed the serious misconduct lies on the Prosecuting Officer (PO). The PO has to prove with cogent evidence, facts and witnesses that the employee did commit the serious misconduct. If the PO unable to prove this, then the Panel of Inquiry must find the employee not guilty of the charge or charges.

In reality, HR is the one will be the PO and HR is the one make all the domestic inquiry arrangements including the selection of Panel of Inquiry. In some cases, prior to the DI, the HR will provide background of the case, issues with the employee and even influence the Panel of Inquiry that the employee is guilty of the charge or charges. Hence, in the mind of the Panel of Inquiry, they already set the employee is guilty because HR or the Top Management has the upper hand in domestic inquiry. However, when the case go to Industrial Court, the Chairman of the Court may decide contrary to the findings of the domestic inquiry.

The right approach should be, in the mind of the Panel of Inquiry, the employee is not guilty unless otherwise proved with cogent evidence, facts, and witnesses by the PO. If you follow this concept, ultimately the decision of the Industrial Court may be same with the findings of a domestic inquiry.

Conclusion 1. In DI, the burden of proving the employee has committed the serious misconduct lies on the PO. 2. The employee is not guilty until proven guilty by the PO