Is there any difference between holding ex-parte inquiry and dispensing with Inquiry under Rule 19 (ii) of the CCA Rules?

5. Is there any difference between holding ex-parte inquiry and dispensing
with Inquiry under Rule 19 (ii) of the CCA Rules?
The following differences exist between ex-parte inquiry and dispensing with Inquiry
S.No Ex-parte inquiry Inquiry dispensed with under Rule 19(ii)
(a) Decision is taken by the Inquiring
Authority
Decision is taken by the Disciplinary
Authority
(b) There is no statutory requirement
of recording any reasons as to why
inquiry is to be held ex-parte
There is a statutory mandate to record
reasons as to why it is not reasonably
practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner
provided in the rules
(c) Conditions precedent specified in
rule 14(20) must be satisfied
No conditions are prescribed in the Rules;
Disciplinary Authority has to record the
reason as to why it is not reasonably
practicable to hold the inquiry in the
manner provided in the Rules
(d) During ex-parte Inquiry, the
Charges need to be proved by
leading evidence on behalf of the
Disciplinary Authority
When inquiry is dispensed with, there is no
question of leading evidence or
establishing that the charge is proved. It is
for the disciplinary authority to consider the
evidence on record and pass a reasoned
order imposing penalty
(e) There is scope for the Charged
Officer turning up at a later date
and seeking to participate in the
ex-parte inquiry
Once inquiry is dispensed with, the
Charged Officer has no right to seek
participation in the Inquiry
(f) There is a possibility that the
inquiry may not result in any
charge being established
The process will end in imposition of
penalty

141
From the foregoing, it may be seen that ex-parte inquiry provides better protection to
the employee and therefore dispensing with inquiry should not be treated as a
substitute for ex-parte inquiry. Where there is scope for holding ex-parte inquiry, the
authorities should not resort to dispensing with inquiry under Rule 19(ii).