Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

P. Venu (Advocate)     20 September 2017

Amendment to ccs(cca) rules

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions by the  Resolution dated 2nd June 2017 has inserted the following sub-rule to Rule 14 the CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965:

"(24) (a) The Inquiring Authority should conclude the inquiry and submit his report within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order of his appointment as Inquiring Authority.
(b)Where it is not possible to adhere to the time limit specified in clause (a), the Inquiring Authority may record the reasons and seek extension of time from the disciplinary authority in writing, who may allow an additional time not exceeding six months for completion of the Inquiry, at a time.
(c)The extension for a period not exceeding six months at a time may be allowed for any good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf.";

The inserted sub-rule mandates a statutory time limit of six months for th Inquiring Authority to complete the inquiry and submit his report. The time limit absolute unless the Disciplinary Authority allows further time for any good and sufficient reasons.

In the changed scenerio, what would be the legal status of the Inquiry Report submitted beyond the period of six months (after the date of notification of the amendment) in the absence of the Disciplinary Authority issuing no communication allowing extension of period?

I shall be grateful for the enlightened suggestions from the experts/members of the LCI.

The Resolution is attached.



Learning

 8 Replies

Kumar Doab (FIN)     20 September 2017

Dear Mr. P. Venu,

Thanks for sharing in the Forum.

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     21 September 2017

Normally the disciplinary authroity charges itself off temporarily from the qinquiry after appointing IO.

 

Normally the delay takes place in arranging defence documents.  Sickness/election duty etc of charged officer/IO/PO/DA does not cause much delay.  Such procedure will compel the disciplinary authority to look inot the difficulty faced  by the IO and will be complelled to intgerevene.


(Guest)
Originally posted by : Kumar Doab
Dear Mr. P. Venu,

Thanks for sharing in the Forum.

 

Mr. Kumar Doab should have advised about the legal status of the inquiry Report, rather than thanking on behlf of the whole of the forum just to make one vague post to earn undue additional scores.

 


(Guest)

Mr. P Venu,

You have raised quite a valid point, rather a great flaw in the statutory rule.

Since the rule is of a statutory nature, the charged officer can get the inquiry report legally treated as null & void, as that may not fulfill the statutory requirement of rules, if the report is submitted after the threshhold time limit without taken due extension of time.

 

1 Like

(Guest)

I agree with the opinion of Mr. Sudhir Kumar. In fact, extraordinary delay is caused by wastage of most of the time in acquisition and supply of the additional documents for defence of the C.O.

However, the reply of Mr. Sudhir kumar does not provide any solution to the query about the legal status of the inquiry report. 


(Guest)

I am also in agreement of the views of Mr. Dhingra.

 


(Guest)

Mr. Jigyasu,

Thanks for agreeing with my views.

 


(Guest)

Dear Shri P. Venu,

In fact, I also provided a long list of my suggestions, while views were called for by the DOPT. With specific reference to the additional documents requisitioned by the Charged Offcier, I suggested the DOPT that the provisions should be made in the rules to quote cogent reason by the custodian of the document, instead of the term :"not available" if any document is not supplied to the charged officer. But that could not find place in the amended rule for the reason best known to the DOPT. The irony is that even the most important document like copies of the paid vouchers are also not supplied merely on the plea of non-avbailability, while the DDO can squarelyl be held responsible for the misplacement of the paid voucher, which is prescribed to be preserved.for years together by the Government.

 

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register