“18. From a reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is crystal clear that in the Disagreement Note, the DA can only render a tentative opinion and not a final one as rendering a final opinion at this stage would be pre-judging the issue and the representation of the delinquent employee against the Disagreement Note would be an empty formality. I may now examine the Disagreement Note dated 05.05.2016 in light of the aforementioned judgments. Against Article of Charge-I (iv), DA has observed ‘As such, the charge that CO failed to maintain dignity & prestige as Project Manager in the eyes of the Ministry as client stands established and I, thus, disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Authority.’ In respect of Article of Charge III, it was observed ‘In view of the above, the comments of the Inquiring Authority that others were also responsible does not hold water when the primary responsibility as the coordinator/incharge was that of the CO. This specific finding against the CO thus cannot absolve him, who was a General Manager, from his responsibility in the matter. The Charge is, therefore, fully established.’ In respect of Article of Charge-IV, it was observed ‘Hence, Inquiring Authority’s mention of his performance as OK is with reference to in-house training in NIAW, as discussed in charge no. I, which is technically not related to the Charge no. IV. The Inquiring Authority’s comment that “results in domestic training are OK” is, therefore, incorrect with regard to
