CCS CCA Rules, 1965- Use of Finger print expret
pradeep kumar
(Querist) 21 March 2011
This query is : Resolved
An official's initials in the Attendance Register are suspicious. It is supected that on different occassions, his initials in the Attendance Register was put be someone else. The official has stated that he himself has put the initials. But the interal audit wing of the office found that this is false. Can the initials be verified by fingerprint expert. What is the correct Rule provision in this regard?
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 21 March 2011
The immediate supervisor in the Section will also be putting his signature on every day after verifying everybody else's attendance. If any signature/initials appears in the attendance register, other than that of the official, will not the immediate supervisor / Section officer would be questioning that?
Each month, an absentee statement is also being sent to the Accounts Wing for drawing the pay and allowances. Whether the immediate Supervisor had reported non-attendance/presence of the official concerned in any of the Absentee Statements for any of the periods. While you can seek the help of any specialist like handwriting expert to verify the genuineness of the signature of the official concerned, I think it is preposterous of the Internal Audit Wing to suspect the initials of any offcial.
Ahmed Daud Girach
(Expert) 22 March 2011
His immediate supervisior will take objection who knows the signature.Evidence will suffice if the immediate supervisor knows his signatures and that he has not signed and any other has signed.Disciplinary actions can be taken against employee absenting on the strength of supervisors statement.In departmental actions strict rule of evidence as per criminal/civil court procedure are not applicable.
Guest
(Expert) 22 March 2011
Dear Pradeep,
Either you or your internal audit wing is simply indulging in hair splitting if any of you try to get finger prints examined in the case under CCS (CCA) Rules.
At the very first instance the question arises, is your employee a criminal whose finger print examination is being considered necesary? If so, why not the case was reported to the police for investigation under criminal law, why the case prepared under CCS (CCA) Rules?
Secondly, if the internal audit has any objection, it should have doubted the integrity of the immediate supervisor or the section/unit officer, who has allowed marking of attedance. If the immediate supervisor or the section/unit officer has allowed marking of attendance, your internal audit wing should not have made that as an issue. Only supervising officer should have been made responsible for that, provided the internal audit has a sound proof with it.
However, if the administration/management has a proof against the employee about his being present at some other place instead of his having attended the office, that should be used against the employee instead of wasting energy in mere hair splitting. Your internal audit should indulge in policy issues rather than creating headach for others merely on trivial issues.
MOREOVER, if the charge sheet has already been issued against the employee, the inquiry proceedings are of quasi-judicial nature, and neither the Disciplinary Authoriy, nor the P.O., nor the I.O., cannot give that a colour of criminal case where finger prints can be asked to be examined. If the case is of a criinal nature the same should have been reported to the police for investigation, Further, the case pertaining to the CCS (CCA) Rules has to be proved with the help of the listed documents, as in Annexure-III of the charge Sheet, no extraneous matter should be brought in to during the inquiry proceeding just to nail the official. Even if the Inquiry Officer allows the P.O. to get the finger prints examined, he would be going beyond the scope of his duties and responsibilities, as an inquiring authority to be termed as a biased and partial I.O.
