Rule 16 of ccs (cca) rules, 1965
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo to Mr X & Mr Y in Oct 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. A minor penalty had been declared for which explanation had been sought. The misconduct (favouring a firm in official work) had been indicated as committed in Jan 2006. In between this period, no charge sheet was ever given to Mr X. As many official were involved, an enquiry was presumably going on for Mr Z, who took final decision on the case. Mr X was never called as witness or otherwise or asked during inquiry process running for Mr Z. The recommendations or report of Inquiry are not known to Mr X. Now in above penalty order, Mr Z, who took final decision has been left with mere warning(after retirement) while Mr X & others are being panelized with Minor penalty.
Is this process correct and with in rules, when –
1. The charge sheet issued (presumably) was for Mr Z or not known against whom. Who was IO, PO or CO in above case was not known to Mr X or others
2. Mr X have never been issued any formal charge sheet, never called for enquiry running for Mr Z , transparency has not been adhered for Mr X or others (refer Principles of natural justice )
3. Decision to penalize was taken in March 2011 and being communicated in Oct 2011. Is it not time barred for communication as per CVC manual
4. why entire case can not be considered as time barred, as it is being communicated now after 5 years. Had it started in 2006, the case with penalty or not would had been over long time back, Starting now would effect future career prospects of Mr X or even retirement plans
Kindly comment/advise
Guest
(Expert) 05 December 2011
I don't think you have been able to express your problem properly as to whether the penalty has actually been imposed or has been proposed to be imposed by issue of a charge sheet under Rule 16. Please remember, no statutory penalty can be imposed without issue of a charge sheet to any employee under the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Memo, if issued under Rule 16, in itself is a charge sheet and the employee has to submit his defence within the time specified in the memo. Penalty can be imposed only after the defence statement is received and considered by the competent authority.
However, if penalty has actually been imposed without issue of any charge sheet, please indicate what minor penalty has been ordered to be imposed on Mr. 'X'?
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 05 December 2011
Dhingra G! As per querist, the penalty has already been imposed which I think is totally illegal.
You can challenge the impugned order as the same is against natural justice. No person can be condemned unheard.
Guest
(Expert) 05 December 2011
Makkad ji,
You may kindly like to analyse the first two sentences of the query, which are confusing and state as follows:
"Under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965, the office (a central govt statutory body) have issued memo to Mr X & Mr Y in Oct 2011 on ground of imputation of misconduct. A minor penalty had been declared for which explanation had been sought."
He has stated memo under rule 16 issued and also stated that explanation had been sought. Mention of Rule 16 appears only in the charge sheet, which probably he considers just an ordinary memo for explanation, not the charge sheet.
That is why, if memo issued recently in October 2011, that is only charge sheet and if explanation had been sought that denotes he had been given an opportunity through that memo to defend himself before award of any punishment.
But, since he has mentioned, "minor penalty had been declared" that has dual meaning whether proposed disciplinary action for award of penalty under rule 16 (which is for minor penalty), or penalty has already been awarded irrespective of the fact when he states that explanation had been sought.
Due to all this I have raised a query for his clarification. Otherwise, if he can understand my language, I have already provided proper reply in both the situations, i.e., penalty proposed vide the said memo, or the astatus of penalty if already awarded without issue of any charge sheet.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 December 2011
The cover memo includes 2 annexures. One giving case history and other including 2 advises received from CVC on above matter. The first advice/memo was of August 2008 advising initiation of major penalty proceedings against Mr X. The office never communicated to Mr X in 2008 or later. The second advise/memo is of Jan 2011 advising initiation of minor penalty proceedings against Mr X. Again office never communicated within a month as per CVC manual.Now after so many months both are being communicated with above cover memo saying that opportunity is being given for submitting explanation otherwise orders will be passed against Mr X. But the genesis of CVCs orders rest on which inquiry or report submitted by whom against whom are not known to Mr X. By general knowledge it was understood that some inquiry was going on against Mr Z who has been given a mere warning.
In between, Mr X was appointed as Inquiry officer (IO) in Dec 2010 in some case involving a junior officials misconduct (going on child care leave without permission). The case has proceeded from Preliminary Hearing (PH) to Regular Hearing (RH) stage now and one RH is already over in Nov 2011.
Is it fair on part of authorities to act in above manner when in past nothing was communicated.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 05 December 2011
The cover memo includes 2 annexures. One giving case history and other including 2 advises received from CVC on above matter. The first advice/memo was of August 2008 advising initiation of major penalty proceedings against Mr X. The office never communicated to Mr X in 2008 or later. The second advise/memo is of Jan 2011 advising initiation of minor penalty proceedings against Mr X. Again office never communicated within a month as per CVC manual.Now after so many months both are being communicated with above cover memo saying that opportunity is being given for submitting explanation otherwise orders will be passed against Mr X. But the genesis of CVCs orders rest on which inquiry or report submitted by whom against whom are not known to Mr X. By general knowledge it was understood that some inquiry was going on against Mr Z who has been given a mere warning.
In between, Mr X was appointed as Inquiry officer (IO) in Dec 2010 in some case involving a junior officials misconduct (going on child care leave without permission). The case has proceeded from Preliminary Hearing (PH) to Regular Hearing (RH) stage now and one RH is already over in Nov 2011.
Is it fair on part of authorities to act in above manner when in past nothing was communicated.
Guest
(Expert) 05 December 2011
Dear Author,
As per the information provided now by you, the memo itself is a Charge Sheet against Mr. X in accordance with the first stage advice of the CVC. It is not a penalty order, as you have presumed. The annexures of the memo, seems to have been treated as the first stage advice of the CVC, which is provided to the official along with the Charge Sheet so that he may also see the recommendations of the CVC before submitting defence. The official must submit his defence against the charge within the period stipulated in the memo, or may ask for the copies of the related background documents of office record pertaining to the case in consultation of which he can defend his position.
His being an I.O. in some other's case does not have any relevance with his own case. He must have to defend his own position against the charge. It is however advisable, for the purpose of effective defence, the charged official/officer should get the consultation and help from some experienced services & vigilance expert. If he likes, Mr. X may send complete details along with charge sheet copy (with annexures) at [dcgroup1962@gmail.com] if he feels the necessity for any further guidelines or help.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 December 2011
e mail sent to dcgroup1962@gmail.com
