Since writing the post above, I have learned further information. Adrian Marron was not in all cases, merely given our statements to read. He was given a report of sorts that outlined the main complaints. It is not accurate to say that if he does not agree with the recommendations from the investigating team that that will be the end of it.
On the contrary:
1.The CEO of CIT is required to give answers as to WHY he disputes any particular complaint.
2. That is, he cannot make blanket denials (as per past practice).
3.Things are too public and have gone too far for CIT to ignore the complaints.
4. The investigating team can then look at these 'counter claims' or 'counter arguments' again.
5.The minister does of course have last word on any disciplinary measures.
I am not sure where it all ends. I do not know how many times claims and counter claims are allowed. I do not know at what stage either side can decide legal action is appropriate. If I find out answers to these questions I will post them.