SELECTED CASE LAWS - CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965

SELECTED CASE LAWS -CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965 Purpose To sum up the statutory provisions and the rules prescribing the mode of inquiry in disciplinary cases with due regard to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vis-à-vis CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964

SELECTED CASE LAWS -CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965 Decision of the authority in a disciplinary proceeding is to • Observe rules of natural justice • Give due regard to the statutory provisions and rules laid down in the CCS (Conduct) and CCS(CCA) procedure and code. • Impose punishment only after appreciation of the supporting evidence. • Take merits of the case into account before delivering any decision. • Arrive at a logical conclusion without being arbitrary or capricious.

Duty of the Competent Authority • Competent Authorities to exercise their powers with the greatest care, concern and scrupulous regard for the rules and procedures and without any personal bias and prejudice, fear or favour and with independence and impartiality

OBJECTIVE OF SESSION • To understand the practical implications of CCS (CCA) provisions and rules and their impact on the final decision in a given case if the rules are not followed rigidly • To understand that failure to observe the proper procedure is liable to vitiate the entire proceedings rendering them null and void

Ex-SI Bhola Ram Meena Vs. Additional Commissioner of Police and another • O.A. No. 3267 of 1992 date of judgement 28-8-2000 • FACTS Applicant was proceeded against departmentally on the allegation that he wilfully and unauthorizedly absented himself on as many as 13 different occasions for varying periods and was thus a habitual absentee

Findings of the IO -contd. • In respect of one such absence, the IO specifically held applicant not guilty and in respect of two other absences he held that the applicant’s contentions did have some force although it was mandatory on the applicant’s part to have obtained prior permission of his superior officer before absenting himself

Findings of the IO -contd. • On behalf of the applicant, it was contended that the Disciplinary Authority in his impugned order has differed with IO’s findings but no opportunity was given to the applicant of being heard before such difference was recorded and no reasons were recorded by the DA which has violated the principles of natural justice

Held • While the IO held the applicant only partially guilty of the charge, the DA without recording any reasons why he differed and without giving applicant an opportunity of being heard held the charges against the applicant to be fully proved and therefore, impugned order of the DA and the Appellate Authority are quashed and set aside

Finding Procedure to be followed by the DA where he differs from the findings of Inquiry Officer whenever the DA differs from the IO’s findings, it is necessary for him to record his reasons for doing so and to give the Government servant concerned an opportunity to represent before imposing penalty

V.S. Cutinho Vs. Union of India and another, (Mumbai) • O.A. No. 1306 of 1994 date of judgement 9-8-2000 • Facts : • Suo moto action of the President for issue of the Memorandum proposing to hold inquiry under Rule 14 after the earlier penalty of ‘Censure’ having become final • Memorandum issued without cancelling the earlier disciplinary proceedings

Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules • In case of Revision, the order imposing penalty needs to be modified by way of enhancement, then Competent Authority is required to issue a show-cause notice to the delinquent employee to give him opportunity to represent against the proposed enhancement of punishment before the order of punishment is passed.

Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules • If the proposed enhanced penalty is a major penalty covered by clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11, the inquiry under Rule 14 is required to be conducted • This would mean that the Revision Authority will take steps for conducting of inquiry as per the provisions of Rule 14 from the stage of issue of charge-sheet

Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules • The logical inference which will flow from the provision of Rule 29, is that, any order passed by the Revision Authority enhancing the punishment following the procedure laid down in Rule 29 will substitute the original punishment order which was proposed to be revised through show-cause notice

Findings : Scope of exercise of power by the President under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to review the punishment earlier imposed.

K.N. Prakashan Vs. Union of India and others • (1992) 20 ATC 676 (Bombay), judgement dated 14-11-1991 • Facts The applicant’s contentions against the charge-sheet served on him are that the charges do not disclose the exact nature of the allegation and in what connection and on what date the applicant committed the alleged delinquencies Annexure II of the charge-sheet which consists of statement of imputations of misconduct of misbehaviour was left blank

Held • Rule 14(3) (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, stipulates what a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge shall ‘contain’ • In its dictionary meaning ‘contain’ implies what should be in it or what it should have • This meaning negatives Annexure II being left blank, which besides likely to become a handicap to the delinquent applicant in his defence, is also violative of the provisions of the statutory rules

Findings Charge sheet not accompanied by statement of imputation of misconduct/ misbehaviour, renders the whole exercise invalid and is violative of disciplinary rules

G.V. NAIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA • O.A. No. 942/ 1998 judgement dated 16-3-2000 • Facts : The applicant challenged the order reducing the pay of the applicant by three stages for a period of two years

Facts • disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant by framing the charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 that, by using his official position of Collector threatened and pressurized his subordinates into producing a bogus informer and recording from such informer an ante date and doctored information with an intent to make it appear as if the case of seizure and thus, failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant

Inquiry Report • The Inquiry Officer held that the charge is partly proved • It was also stated by the Inquiry Officer that there was no loss to the Government and there was no sharing of reward by the applicant, and his two subordinates

Held • Though normally, the Tribunals and Courts cannot re-appreciate the evidence in disciplinary proceedings, it can be interfered with if the orders have been passed on no evidence or it is perverse • If reasonable opportunity is denied, Article 311 of the Constitution is violated

Finding If reasonable opportunity is denied to a delinquent in an enquiry, Article 311 of the Constitution is violated.

Kaveri Gaur and another Vs. Union of India and another • 1992, 22 ATC 727, New Delhi, date of judgement 22-1-1992 • Facts : • The applicants were not given copies of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the impugned orders of dismissal from service were passed by the disciplinary authority • The stand of the respondents is that the applicants did not attend the Inquiry and the inquiry officer was compelled to proceed ex-parte

Held • It is clear from the judgement of the Supreme court in UOI Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [(1991) 16 ATC 505], that there is no difference between an ex-parte inquiry and regular inquiry as regards the obligation of the disciplinary authority to give a copy of the report of the inquiry officer to the charged employee • Even in an ex-parte inquiry, the disciplinary authority is bound to follow the procedure laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Findings It is mandatory to supply copy of Inquiry report to the charged official in an inquiry, whether regular or ex-parte, so that he may make representation before the punishment is awarded. Non-supply of a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s report has the effect of making the punishment order non est.

Satya Prakash Vs Union of India and others • 1992, New Delhi, judgement dated 22-7-1992 • Facts : In a departmental inquiry, only propriety, misconduct or contravention of the rules is to be judged by the inquiry officer who submits his report to the disciplinary authority who either agrees with the opinion of the inquiry officer or disagrees. If he agrees with the report and the inquiry officer, then he can, after affording an opportunity to the delinquent, pass appropriate orders, according to the rules

Held • The principle of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” cannot be imported in a departmental inquiry because it is also known that in a domestic inquiry, the delinquent is the servant and the Government authorities are the masters. The masters can always inquire about the misconduct of their servant, but within the framework or parameters of the rules and the principles of natural justice

Finding Principle of ‘Proof beyond reasonable doubt’, applicable to criminal trial; not to be imported to departmental inquiry where only the rule of ‘Preponderance of probability’ applies

D.R. Jagiya Vs. Union of India and others, (Kolkata) • O.A No. 1243 of 1998, judgment dated 11.1.2001 • Facts : • The applicant challenged the authority of the PO to appoint IO as he was not the Disciplinary Authority but an Appellate Authority • Applicant submitted that the said orders were illegal and against the Rules and any action taken with reference to them about the charge sheet was illegal and unauthorised and hence the charge sheet was defective, illegal and baseless

Held • If the DA finds justification for imposing major penalty of removal, dismissal or reduction in ranks, he should submit the entire proceedings to the Competent Authority for passing final orders • that the entire disciplinary proceedings from the stage of appointment of IO and PO is set aside being illegal and against the provisions or rules

Finding Principles of Justice as well as provisions of Article 311 (1), (2) of the Constitution make it imperative and demand that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by the Subordinate Authority but the final penal order regarding removal/ dismissal/ reduction in rank should be passed by the authority not subordinate to the authority by which the applicant was appointed on any post

Suresh C. Sehgal Vs. Union of India • (1992), Bangalore, date of judgment 17-7-1991 • Facts : The action proposed to be taken against the applicant under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 a month before his retirement

Held • Rule 16 of the rules lays down the procedure for imposing any of the minor penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the Rules. After the retirement of the Government servant, none of the aforesaid penalties can be imposed on him, for the simple reason that it is not possible to do so

Held • it is laid down in Rule 9 (2) of the Pension Rules that the departmental proceedings instituted while the Government servant was in service shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service

Held • But imposition of the penalty under Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules can be done only if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service

Finding Minor penalty proceedings under Rule 16 cannot be continued after retirement for the simple reason that such penalties cannot be imposed once a Government servant retires from service. It is therefore, necessary that such penalties may be finalized before the date of retirement.

SELECTED CASE LAWS - CCS (CCA) RULES, 1965