Cca rules
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo(by CEO) to Mr X in Dec 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. Intent to charge with minor penalty had been indicated for which explanation had been sought. The misconduct (favouring a firm in official work) had been indicated as committed around 5 years back.
2 advises of CVC recvd by office in March 2008 and Feb 2011 but never communicated to `X`by office.
Suddenly the office asked (by CEO) in Dec 2011 and asked explanation.
In 2010, office (Mr `S`) appointed `X` as Inquiry Officer (IO) in a case on Mr `A` under Rule 14 (major penalty) of CCS(CCA) Rules. The case has moved further with 3-4 hearings under the IO ship of `X`.
On receipt of above memo, `X` replied to all the facts of the case, apprehending conspiracy by some office colleagues after 6 years, requesting clean chit and also drew their attention that he was appointed IO by them(Mr `S`) a year back (irrespective of CVC advises), meaning that all is clear from vigilance side for Mr `X`. Vigilance department being custodian of all cases, knows explanation memo given to Mr `X` as well as case on `A`.
Reply submitted few days back by `X` to CEO.
After few days, in the case pertaining to Mr `A`, office reconfirmed appointment (by Mr `S`) of Mr `X` as IO in above case for moving ahead with hearings.
Now what is the position of `X`
i) Is the official explanation earlier asked (by CEO) is just an explanation sought or is it a charge sheet, though he is IO in another case.
ii) Can `X` move ahead with hearings on `A`. The official Presenting officer(PO) in `A` case knows nothing about memo given to Mr`X ` and is requesting for starting the hearings in the `A` case.
iii) or Mr`X should wait in case on `A`, till he gets clean chit from office(CEO) for his own memo.
Guest
(Expert) 20 December 2011
Probably, you are not clear about your case. You are just confusing by intermingling two different cases pertaining to Rule 16 (minor penalty case) with Rule 14 (major penalty case) under CCS (CCA) Rules. Not only that, you are also intermingling the case of your being appointed as an Inquiry Officer by some other authority 'S' not by the CEO.
So, if you want some clear guidance you should first state clearly what is the exact problem with you personally, as an I.O. or as a charged officer. Your being a charged officer in one case has no concern with your being an IO in another case, unless the matter pertains to the same offence, as alleged against the person for whom you are the IO.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 20 December 2011
All persons work in same organization. Mr `S` also works under same CEO. It is not possible that CEO does not know that `X` is being appointed IO in case pertaining to `A`. It may be possible that `S` may have taken permission from CEO (on green sheet) before issuing appointment note to `X`. But if `X` was under some discreet enquiry (due to CVC advice of 2008) how `X` was appointed `IO` by `S` in Dec 2010.
Again after receiving 2nd advice of CVC in Feb 2011, `X` was not informed till Dec 2011 and he continued as IO in case of `A`. As per CVC guidelines, `X` can not be appointed IO, if he himself is under some sort of enquiry. Therefore, this gives a feeling that there may be a internal decision of not to proceed against `X`. But in `A` case, `S` became unhappy and threatened with charge sheet to `X` for a development in case pertaining to `A`. And after few days, `X` really got a memo for a 6 year old case from CEO.
While submitting reply to CEO on the memo, `X` gave full details of the 6 year old case from memory, informed about recent warning of `S` to CEO on his IO`s role in `A` case, pleaded innocence and requested clean chit. Therefore, all the developments are known to CEO in both the cases.
Now whether `X` should wait for clean chit from CEO or he should start hearings on `A` as per request of PO in `A` case.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 26 December 2011
Nothing can be made out. Whether you are accused of IO or both in different cases. Being appointed IO in one case is no estopple against disciplinary action against the employee
