. Can the IO take initiative for removing the deficiencies in the Charge Sheet?

6. Can the IO take initiative for removing the deficiencies in the Charge Sheet? IO has full liberty to bring to the notice of the Disciplinary authority any discrepancy which is of the nature of clerical or typographic mistake, i.e. patent errors which are apparent in the face of the record. In case there is any patent defect in the Charge Sheet, the I-O may bring it to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority well in time so that the defect can be cured. In this context it is essential that IO should not take upon himself the role of refinement or reinforcement of the Charge Sheet. He should confine himself only to the patent errors in the Charge Sheet and not try to make qualitative improvement in it. Any initiative by the IO for the fortification of the charge sheet by way of including additional evidence is most likely to provide material for challenge on grounds of bias as the action of the IO is liable to be perceived as that of a prosecutor. An illustrative list of patent errors is as under: (a) Typographic mistakes (b) Quoting wrong Rule Numbers. E.g. (i) Charge sheet is being issued under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 (ii) The acquisition of this immovable property was not reported to the competent authority as required under Rule 81 (2) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. (c) Incompatibility between the name of the Rule and its year e.g. CCS(CCA) Rule 1955 (d) Incompatibility between the same figures mentioned in different parts of the Charge Sheet. (e) Names of persons or places mis-spelt in the Charge Sheet e.g. “… acquired a house at Hidurrabad at a cost of Rs. 13,00,000/=” 95 (f) Inconsistency between the numeric and verbal description of an amount e.g. “ Rs. 7,348/= (Rupees Three Thousand seven Hundred and forty eight) “ (g) Wrong mention of the reference number and/or date of communication as well as Government instructions. Illustrative list of errors which IO should not try to rectify is as under: (a) Any logical inaccuracies (b) Insufficiency of evidence (c) Vagueness of charge (d) Ambiguity in charge (e) Lack of coherence between the misconduct and the charge. E.g. Unauthorised absence is shown as lack of absolute integrity, while it would have been better described as lack of devotion to duty.