AIPEU P3 CHQ

P3 CHQ SEND SUGGESTIONS/COMMENTS ON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TO THE COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS CONSTITUTED BY DOPT

Ref: P/4-10/Disciplinary Rules Dated – 26.06.2010

To,

Shri. V. K. Velukutty,
Deputy Secretary (VIII) DOPT
Room No. 10-B/II North Block
New Delhi – 110001

Dear Sir,

Sub: - Suggestions to expedite the process in Disciplinary / Viginlance proceedings – reg.

Ref: - DOPT No. 372/3/2007-AVD III dt. 19.05.2010 published in the web site seeking suggestions

Apropos reference, a brief note containing suggestions comments on the back ground note on need for review of disciplinary proceedings is enclosed herewith for consideration.

With profound regards,

DA: as above

Yours sincerely,


(K. V. Sridharan)
General Secretary

Brief Note containing suggestions/comments on the “Background Note on need for Review of Disciplinary Proceedings”, circulated under Department of personnel and Training, Letter D.O. No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III dated 19.05.2010

Introduction:
1. It appears that the letter and “Background Note” attached there with is intended to secure as many view points and suggestions as possible mainly to help formulation of necessary rules and regulations the stipulate specific time frame for finalizing the Disciplinary Proceedings both “Major” and Minor”. Reducing the number of Major Penalty proceedings and re-furbishing of the existing administrative machinery so as to equip it with adequate measures/instruments to achieve the goal of reduction in the overall quantum of Disciplinary Proceedings, is also intended in the Note.

Existing Time Frame:

2. It is not fully correct that “existing procedures do not prescribe any time limit for completion of the process for imposing penalty. Sub rule (4)(7)(11) and (12) of Rule 14 and sub rule (2) of rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules are specific about the time allowed to the charged Government servant at various stages, commending from submission of his written statement of defence to submission of the written representation on the Inquiry Report. But the relevant sub rules in Rule 14 and 15 ibid are silent about the time frame prescribed for completion of the following procedures: -

Rule – 14
(i) Sub rule (3) Framing and issuance of Charge Memo to the charged Government Servant (CGS)
(ii) Sub rule (5) Appointment of the Inquiry Authority (1.A) and Presenting Officer (P.O)
(iii) Sub rule (6) Forwarding of the Charge Memo and other documents to the I.A.
(iv) Sub rule (12) Production of additional documents requisitioned
& (13)
(v) Sub rule (19) Submission of Written Brief of arguments by both P.O. and CGS.
(vi) Sub rule (23) Submission of the Report by I.A.

Rule 15
(i) Sub rule (1) Remitting the case for further inquiry
(ii) Sub rule (2) Forwarding report of inquiry to the CGS
(iii) Sub rule (2-A) Issuing final orders
(3) and (4)

This position enables both the Inquiry Authority and Disciplinary Authority, to procrastinate their action/decision as prescribed in these procedural sub rules of rule – 14 and 15 ibid. Though there are umpteen number of executive orders and administrative instructions prescribing time frame for each procedure, as shown in para 3 of the Background Note, these are observed in practice, only in by-passing them stating many excuses/reasons. The suggestion, therefore, is to embody the time frame for each procedure prescribed in various sub rules of Rule 14, 15 and 16 ibid in the basic rule itself by suitably amending the same. Insertion of Sub rules (6) and (7) of Rule – 10 (Suspension) and resultant salutary effect of the same is the good precedent that can be recommended to favour the suggested amendment.

3. Simillary Rule 25 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 stipulate the period do limitation of Appeal. But no time limit of consideration and disposal of Appeals is stipulated in Rule 27 ibid. The Government of India’s decisions issued in this behalf do not in any way help to ensure final disposal of an appeal, within prescribed time limit. Inordinate delay in disposal of appeals against suspension defeat the very same purpose of Appeal. The suggestion, therefore, is to embody the specific time frame for consideration and disposal of Appeals in Rule 27 ibid by suitably amending the Rule so that the claim of Appellant is upheld in case the appeal is not considered and disposed within the stipulated time frame.

CVC Consultation:
4. The proposal for reducing CVC consultation from two stages to single stage is a welcome measure. However, it may be mentioned here that this may not cause much difference in the overall quantum of disciplinary cases in view of the position that CVC consultation is now compulsory in respect of cases involving Group ‘A’ officers. What is required is to make it incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to issue the charge memo within the specified time frame of its decision to proceed against a Government Servant, for offences primafacie revealed in the preliminary investigation/report. This is possible by suitably amending sub rules (2) and (3) of Rule 14 ibid.

Revamping of the Structure of Penalties:
5. The proposal to re-structure, the existing three penalties prescribed in Rule 11(iii) (a), (iv) and (v) into that of one minor penalty viz. “Withholding of increment of pay upto a period of five years” is, of course a Welcome measure. However the provision of sub rule (1-A) of Rule – 16 ibid should continue to exist, in cases where the withholding of increments beyond a maximum period of three years, is ordered. Also the purpose of the proposed amendment , as given in the Note below item (iv) under “Minor Penalties”, must also find a place in the amended rule.

6. The proposal to delete the penalty prescribed in item (vii) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules – 1965 ie. The penalty of “Compulsory Retirement”, appears to have not formulated after the required indepth study. Availability of FR 56(j) for dealing with the inefficient employees cannot be relied on as a reason for delete the penalty of Compulsory retirement. Public interest is the main ground for invoking the provisions of FR 56 (j). It is purely an administrative decision. It is obviously not a judicial or quasi-judicial decision. An order of compulsory retirement simplicitor under FR 56(j) is not a penalty and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. The decision to award the penalty of “Compulsory Retirement” is arrived at after completion of the prescribed procedure in a major penalty proceedings in cases where awarding of either of the extreme, penalties of ‘Dismissal’ and ‘Removal’ is considered very severe and disproportionate to the offence committed. In such cases the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority, however, considers his further retention in service is against the interest of service but forfeiture of his past service, by which he is deprived of his due pensionary benefits, for the past service is considered as severe, and disproportionate. It is also to be noted that “a Government Servant compulsorily retired as a penalty may be granted pension or gratuity or both, at a reduced rate and if such cut is imposed on such pension he is not entitled for leave encashment. Thus this penalty prescribed has much scope in imposing a appropriate penalty, on a Government servant who has long years of unblemished service at his credit, but the proved offences against him in the current disciplinary proceedings are grave enough that this continued retention in service is against the interests of service. At the same time, forfeiture of his past service for such an offence would be severe and disproportionate. These are the circumstances and justification for awarding this penalty. The suggestion, therefore, is to retain this penalty. To overcome the possible misuse and undue advantages availed, invoking the provisions for “Cut in Pension” and also introducing a limit for left over service period by which imposition of this penalty in the case of Government Servants who has less than three or five years service left over, becomes invalid. Square elimination of this penalty will be against the principles of justice and fair play.

Other Administrative measures:
7. All other administrative measures proposed to complete speedy finalization of disciplinary cases, such as entrusting more number of cases to willing officers, increase in the amount of honorarium, maintaining of a centralized Data base etc. are welcome measures. But effective implementation of all these proposals can be gained only if accountability is enforced at all levels.


(K. V. Sridharan)

General Secretary