Selected Case Laws On Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

Indian Audit and Accounts Department
Courseware on Common Administrative Issues, Reservation Rosters, Vigilance and

Disciplinary Proceedings
Session 6.4: Selected Case Laws on CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
SESSION OVERVIEW
This session being the last
discussion fo the da!, we will su" u#
the statuto! #o$isions and the ules
#escibing the "ode of in%ui! in
disci#lina! cases with due egad to
the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vis--vis
CCS(Conduct) Rules, 196!
&e will discuss selected case
laws gi$en on CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
to a##eciate that the decision of the
authoit! in a disci#lina! #oceeding
is to
'bse$e ules of natual (ustice
)i$e due egad to the statuto!
#o$isions and ules laid down
in the CCS(Conduct) and
CCS(CCA) #ocedue and
code.
*"#ose #unish"ent onl! afte
a##eciation of the su##oting
e$idence.
Ta+e "eits of the case into
account befoe deli$eing an!
decision.
Ai$e at a logical conclusion
without being abita! o
ca#icious.
Afte going though the
decisions cited heeinafte, it will be
clea that it is i"#otant fo the
Co"#etent Authoities to e,ecise thei
#owes with the geatest cae, concen
and scu#ulous egad fo the ules and
#ocedues and without an! #esonal
bias and #e(udice, fea o fa$ou and
with inde#endence and i"#atialit!.
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
At the end of the session
#atici#ants will be able to undestand
the #actical i"#lications of CCS
(CCA) #o$isions and ules and thei
i"#act on the final decision in a gi$en
case if the ules ae not followed
igidl!. *t also ai"s at info"ing the
#atici#ants that an! failue to obse$e
the #o#e #ocedue is liable to $itiate
the entie #oceedings endeing the"
null and $oid ies#ecti$e of the status
of the Co"#etent Authoit!.
SELECTED CASE LAWS ON CCS
(CCA) RULES, 16!
A. "#-SI $%ola Ram &eena 's!
Additional Commissioner o( )olice
and anot%er, *+,--1,! S.am/sne.S
*, ()!$! 0e. Del%i), date o(
1ud2ement ,3-3-,---
4!A! 0o! 5,6* o( 199,
1. 6acts 7 A##licant was #oceeded
against de#at"entall! on the
allegation, dated 1-.1.1991, that he
wilfull! absented hi"self without an!
authoisation, on as "an! as 1/
diffeent occasions between 01.9.1919
and -.10.1992 fo $a!ing #eiods and
was thus a habitual absentee who had
$iolated the instuctions contained in
Standing 'de 3o. 111411.
1.1 The *n%ui! 'ffice (*') in his
findings, dated 06.-.1991, held
a##licant #atl! guilt! of the chages.
*n es#ect of one such absence, the *'
s#ecificall! held a##licant not guilt!
and in es#ect of two othe absences he
held that the a##licant5s contentions
did ha$e so"e foce although it was
Note 6.4 112
"andato! on the a##licant5s #at to
ha$e obtained #io #e"ission of his
su#eio office befoe absenting
hi"self. 'n behalf of the a##licant, it
was contended that the 6isci#lina!
Authoit! in his i"#ugned ode dated
12.7.1991, has diffeed with *'5s
findings dated 06.-.1991 but no
o##otunit! was gi$en to the a##licant
of being head befoe such diffeence
was ecoded and no easons wee
ecoded b! the 6A wh! he diffeed,
which has $iolated the #inci#les of
natual (ustice.
". 8eld 7 *n ou $iew, the atio of the
ulings of (i) 89T 1991(5)SC 5-1:
;un(ab 3ational <an+ = 'thes >s.
Shi ?. <. @isa (ii) 81991 SCC
(L=S) 175: State of Ra(asthan >s. @.
C. Sa,ena (iii) 81969 SLR 657:
3aain @isa >s. State of 'issa ae
s%uael! a##licable to the facts of the
case. &hile the *' held the a##licant
onl! #atiall! guilt! of the chage, the
6A without ecoding an! easons wh!
he diffeed and without gi$ing
a##licant an o##otunit! of being
head, held the chages against the
a##licant to be full! #o$ed, and on
that basis dis"issed the a##licant fo"
se$ice $ide i"#ugned ode dated 16.
7.1991, which has also been u#held in
a##eal $ide i"#ugned ode of the 6A
and of the A##ellate Authoit! cannot
be legall! sustained.
0.1 *n esult, the 'A succeeds and is
allowed to the e,tent that the i"#ugned
ode of the 6A and the A##ellate
Authoit! ae %uashed and set aside.
Aollowing the Bon5ble SC5s uling in
89T 1996 (5) SC -2/:, State of ;un(ab
>s. B. S. )eas! the "atte is e"itted
to the 6isci#lina! Authoit! to follow
the #ocedue fo" the stage of ecei#t
of the a##licant5s e#esentation to the
*'5s findings and to #ass fesh odes
in accodance with law.
#. 6indin2s7- The case defines the
;ocedue to be followed b! the
6isci#lina! Authoit! whee he diffes
fo" the findings of *n%ui! 'ffice
/.1 Ao" the abo$e decision it is
clea that whene$e the 6A diffes
fo" the *'5s findings, it is necessa!
fo hi" to ecod his easons fo doing
so and to gi$e the )o$en"ent se$ant
concened an o##otunit! to e#esent
befoe i"#osing #enalt!.

/.0 Bowe$e, s#ea+ing ode is not
necessa! when disci#lina! authoit!
agees with *n%ui! 'ffice5s findings
as held in the case of *ndadeo Singh
>s. C'*, 1990 (Calcutta), (udge"ent
dated /2.1.1990.
B. V.S. C$%in&o Vs. Union o' In(i)
)n( )no%&e*, (+$,-)i), ()%e o'
.$(/e,en% 010"222
'.A. 3o. 1/26 of 199-
1. 8eld 7 The a##licant has sought to
"a+e his case fo see+ing the elief as
#a!ed fo on the following goundsD.
1.1 uo moto action of the ;esident
fo issue of the @e"oandu", dated
11.9.1916, #o#osing to hold in%ui!
unde Rule 1- afte the ealie #enalt!
of ECensue5 as #e the ode, dated 0/.
-.1915, ha$ing beco"e final, was
illegal and bad in law.
1.0 @e"oandu", dated 11.9.1916
was issued without cancelling the
ealie disci#lina! #oceedings as #e
chage.sheet, dated 01.0.1915, and the
Note 6.4 111
#enalt! alead! i"#osed. Theefoe,
the chage.sheet suffes fo" illegalit!.
1./ The ode of the ;esident lac+s
a##lication of "ind.
1.- 'de, dated 1.11.199-, stating
that the #enalt! of withholding of
#o"otion fo a #eiod of one !ea as
#e ode, dated -.12.199- is held
legal, the said #enalt! will ha$e effect
fo" 0/.-.1915, and not fo" 1.11.
199-. The #enalt! ode would be o$e
on 0/.5.1916, and theeafte, the
a##licant is entitled to be consideed
fo #o"otions as due.
0. *t is clea fo" Rule ,9 o( t%e
CCS (CCA) Rules that in case of
Re$ision, if the Co"#etent Authoit!,
(;esident in this case) co"es to the
conclusion on e$iew eithe on his own
"otion o othewise that the ode
i"#osing #enalt! needs to be "odified
b! wa! of enhance"ent, then he is
e%uied to issue a show.cause notice
to the delin%uent e"#lo!ee to gi$e hi"
o##otunit! to e#esent against the
#o#osed enhance"ent of #unish"ent
befoe the ode of #unish"ent is
#assed. *f the #o#osed enhanced
#enalt! is a "a(o #enalt! co$eed b!
clauses (v) to (i#) o( Rule 11, the
in%ui! unde Rule 1- is e%uied to be
conducted. This would "ean that the
Re$ision Authoit! will ta+e ste#s fo
conducting of in%ui! as #e the
#o$isions of Rule 1 fo" the stage of
issue of chage.sheet.
0.1 Since the satisfaction of the
Co"#etent Authoit! fo need to
enhance the #unish"ent is the esult of
e$iew on his own "otion (as in the
#esent case) o othewise, this would
i"#l! that the ealie #unish"ent
stands till the sa"e is e$ised b! the
Re$ision Authoit! afte following the
due #ocess as laid down in Rule 09.
Thus, an! ode #assed b! the Re$ision
Authoit! enhancing the #unish"ent
following the #ocedue laid down in
Rule 09 will substitute the oiginal
#unish"ent ode which was #o#osed
to be e$ised though show.cause
notice.
0./ The logical infeence which will
flow fo" the #o$ision of Rule ,9, is
that, the e$ised ode of #unish"ent
will elate bac+ to date of the oiginal
#unish"ent ode. *n $iew of this
anal!sis of the #o$isions of Rule 09,
we ae unable to acce#t the contention
of the es#ondents that the ode of the
Re$ision Authoit! enhancing the
#unish"ent will be effecti$e fo" the
date of issue of the ode. The
es#ondents ha$e #eha#s ta+en this
stand on the "is#laced undestanding
of Rule 09, that with the issue of
chage.sheet, dated 11.9.1916, the
ealie disci#lina! #oceedings and the
#unish"ent ode, dated 0/.-.1915,
stands cancelled and fesh #oceedings
would stat with issue of chage.sheet,
dated 11.9.1916.
0.- *n fact, the action of the
Re$ision Authoit! cancel the ealie
#unish"ent ode, dated 0/.-.1915, as
#e his ode, dated 0-./.1917, was not
called fo as #e the #o$isions of Rule
09. The ealie #unish"ent ode
would stand till the sa"e is substituted
b! "odified ode of the Re$ision
Authoit! afte following the due
#ocess fo enhancing the #unish"ent.
*n this connection, we efe to the
decision 5 of )o$en"ent of *ndia5s
ode below Rule 09, dated 1-.5.1961,
at #ages 112.111 of Swa"!5s
Note 6.4 110
Co"#ilation of CCS(CCA) Rules,
(0222 Fdition) wheein the action to be
ta+en unde Rule 09 with egad to the
ealie #unish"ent ode which is
sought to be e$ised has been detailed.
0.5 *n the case of 81990(01) ATC 6/:
*.C. Sha"a $s. Cnion of *ndia and
othes, ;inci#al <ench has held that
the chage.sheet was issued on 15.12.
1960. Afte holding in%ui!, the
a##licant was e,oneated as #e ode,
dated 1./.1969. &hile he was waiting
fo #o"otion, the ;esident on his
own "otion e$iewed the #enalt!
unde Rule 09(1) (i) and issued show.
cause notice on /1.7.1972 #o#osing
enhance"ent of the #unish"ent and
diffeing with the 6A. Afte
consideing e#l! to the show.cause
notice, the ;esident i"#osed
#unish"ent as #e ode, dated 11.0.
197-. The issue unde challenge was
that, the ;esident5s ode will be
effecti$e fo" 1./.1969, being in
substitution and the a##licant dese$ed
the due #o"otions. The <ench while
inte#eting the legal "eaning of wod
Esubstitute5 ca"e to the conclusion that
;esident5s ode, dated 11.0.197-,
will be effecti$e fo" 1./.1969, as the
sa"e was #assed to "odif! the oiginal
#unish"ent ode. &e ha$e, theefoe,
no hesitation to acce#t the contention
of the a##licant that #enalt! i"#osed
b! the Re$ision Authoit! as #e ode,
dated -.12.199- will elate bac+ to the
i"#ugned #unish"ent ode, dated 0/.
-.1915.
0.6 As a conse%uence of the abo$e
delibeations, the '.A. is #atl!
allowed with the following diectionsD.
(i) *"#ugned #unish"ent ode
does not call fo an!
intefeence.
(ii) The #unish"ent ode, dated
-.12.199-, will elate bac+
to the oiginal #unish"ent
ode, dated 0/.-.1915.
(iii) The ode, dated 1.11.199-,
e$eting the a##licant is set
aside.
#. 6indin2s7 *t defines the sco#e of
e,ecise of #owe b! the ;esident
unde Rule 09 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, to e$iew the #unish"ent
ealie i"#osed.

C. 3.N. 4*)5)s&)n Vs. Union o'
In(i) )n( o%&e*s, (1") "2 ATC
666 (Bo,-)7), .$(/e,en% ()%e( 140
11011

1. 6acts7 The a##licant5s contentions
a2ainst t%e c%ar2e-s%eet se$ed on
hi" ae that the chages do not
disclose t%e e#act nature o( t%e
alle2ation and in .%at connection
and on .%at date t%e applicant
committed t%e alle2ed delin9uencies.
The a##licant ne$etheless sub"itted
his e#l! to the chage.sheet #ointing
out the inade%uac! of the chage.sheet
in this egad. The a##licant5s
sub"ission is that the sa"e should
ha$e been ta+en into consideation b!
the es#ondents fo %uashing the
chage.sheet. Bowe$e, instead, the
es#ondents chose to a##oint the
*n%ui! 'ffice to #oceed with the
chages.
". 8eld 7 &e ae of the $iew that the
"atte is a"enable to being loo+ed at
Note 6.4 11/
diffeentl! fo" the wa!s abo$e
#essed befoe us. Anne#ure II of the
chage.sheet consists of state"ent of
i"#utations of "isconduct of
"isbeha$iou. This #at is blan+. The
list of docu"ents elied u#on in
su##ot of the aticles of chages figue
in Anne#ure III!
0.1 Anne#ure I containing the aticles
of chages, Anne#ure II the state"ent
in su##ot of the aticles of chages and
Anne#ure III, list of docu"ents and
witnesses fo" #at of a single
docu"ent on the basis of which
disci#lina! #oceedings ta+e #lace
unde the ules. The delin%uent office
figues out his line of defence fo" the
contents of these thee Anne,ues
ta+en togethe. &hen Anne,ue ** has
been left blan+, the delin%uent
a##licant stands de#i$ed of the
info"ation which should ha$e figued
in Anne,ue ** but does not. &hen
such info"ation has not been
funished to the delin%uent a##licant,
an ob$ious conse%uence of such
o"ission can be to handica# the
a##licant in his defence e$en at the
stage of funishing of his e#l! to the
chage and late.
0.0 Rule 1(5) (ii) o( t%e CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965, sti#ulates what a
state"ent of the i"#utations of
"isconduct o "isbeha$iou in su##ot
of each aticle of chage shall
:contain;. *n its dictiona! "eaning
Econtain5 i"#lies what should be in it
o what it should ha$e. This "eaning
negati$es Anne,ue ** being left blan+,
which besides li+el! to beco"e a
handica# to the delin%uent a##licant in
his defence as abo$e stated, is also
$iolati$e of the #o$isions of the
statuto! ules which the second
es#ondent has no o#tion but to
co"#l! with. 3on.co"#liance with the
statuto! ules is $iolati$e of the
#o$isions of statuto! ules. An
ine$itable esult of the sa"e is to
ende the #oduct of such $iolation
in$alid and illegal and theefoe the
chage.sheet is liable to be %uashed
and set aside.
#. 6indin2s7 Chage sheet not
acco"#anied b! state"ent of
i"#utation of "isconduct4
"isbeha$iou, endes the whole
e,ecise in$alid and is $iolati$e of
disci#lina! ules.
D. G.V. NAI3 Vs. UNION O8
INDIA, .$(/e,en% ()%e( 160#0"222,
O.A. No. 4"9 11
1. 6acts 7 The a##licant challenges
an ode, dated 01.1.1991, #assed b!
the fist es#ondent, that the #a! of the
a##licant be educed b! thee stages
fo" 02,922 to Rs 19,-22 in the ti"e
scale of #a! of Rs 11,-22.522.00,-22
fo a #eiod of two !eas with effect
fo" 1.9.1991. &hile the a##licant
was wo+ing as Collecto of Cental
F,cise, <elgau", disci#lina!
#oceedings wee initiated against the
a##licant b! fa"ing the chages unde
Rule 1- of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,
dated 0-.11.199-, that, b! using his
official #osition of Collecto theatened
and #essuiGed his subodinates into
#oducing a bogus info"e and
ecoding fo" such info"e an ante
date and doctoed info"ation with an
intent to "a+e it a##ea as if the case
of seiGue of 76 bas of sil$e $alue of
Rs 0.09 coes with the tuc+ at 3i#ani
on 0-.0.1990, was a case esulting
fo" such bogus info"ation and with
Note 6.4 11-
an intent to ean the conse%uential
ewad of Rs. 07.55 la+hs. Thus ).>.
3ai+, the then Collecto of Cental
F,cise, <elgau", failed to "aintain
absolute integit!, de$otion to dut! and
conducted hi"self in a "anne
unbeco"ing of a )o$en"ent se$ant.
The *n%ui! 'ffice held that the
chage is #atl! #o$ed, in his e#ot,
dated 09./.1996. Afte consulting
C;SC, the i"#ugned ode has been
#assed.
". 8eld 7 Though no"all!, the
Tibunals and Couts cannot e.
a##eciate the e$idence in disci#lina!
#oceedings, it can be intefeed with if
the odes ha$e been #assed on no
e$idence o it is #e$ese o a
easonable "an would not ha$e co"e
to the conclusion on the basis of
e$idence adduced on ecod. *t is well
settled that if easonable o##otunit! is
denied, Aticle /11 of the Constitution
is $iolated. *n this case, the Fn%ui!
'ffice hi"self has stated that no
ewad was clai"ed o eco""ended
b! the a##licant. *t is also seen that
fa+e info"e one Shi <asa$a(, had
not been e,a"ined. Accoding to the
official es#ondents, he has #assed on
the info"ation as e#oted in 6R*
(*ntelligence). The *n%ui! 'ffice has
co"e to the conclusion "eel! on
con(ectue. *t is also stated b! the
*n%ui! 'ffice that thee was no loss
to the )o$en"ent and thee was no
shaing of ewad b! the a##licant, and
his two subodinates. The onl!
conclusion ai$ed at is that, an
aboti$e atte"#t has been "ade b! the
thee officials (ointl! in fabicating a
false info"ation. As we ha$e alead!
stated that one Shi <asa$a(, who is
su##osed to be the info"e has not
been e,a"ined and a #eson to who"
he #assed on the info"ation has not
been e,a"ined. <ut the state"ent of
<asa$a( has been elied u#on. This
itself is suffice to hold that the chage
has not been #o$ed and the *n%ui!
'ffice has co"e to the conclusion
"eel! on con(ectue and no
easonable o##otunit! has been gi$en
to the a##licant in so fa as the
state"ent of the fa+e info"e,
<asa$a(, has been acce#ted b! the
Fn%ui! 'ffice and the a##licant had
denied the benefit of coss.e,a"ining
the said <asa$a(. A eading of the case
cleal! shows that an info"e should
be thee and the info"ation also
eached the a##licant. *n this case, both
the #esons ae not e,a"ined. As such,
we ha$e no hesitation to hold that the
ode cannot stand in the e!e of law.
0.1 Though the o#inion of C;SC, is
not binding on the )o$en"ent, the
i"#ugned ode cleal! shows that the
official es#ondents ha$e ta+en
ad$antage of the #at of the e#ot
fa$ouable to the". *n esult, the
i"#ugned ode stands set aside and
the 'A is allowed.
#. 6indin2 7- *f easonable
o##otunit! is denied to a delin%uent in
an en%ui!, Aticle /11 of the
Constitution is $iolated.
E. 3):e*i G)$* )n( )no%&e* Vs.
Union o' In(i) )n( )no%&e*, 1", ""
ATC 6"6, Ne; De<&i, ()%e o'
.$(/e,en% ""0101"
1. 6acts 7 The a##licants wee not
gi$en co#ies of the e#ot of the
Note 6.4 115
*n%ui! 'ffice befoe the i"#ugned
odes of dis"issal fo" se$ice wee
#assed b! the disci#lina! authoit!.
The stand of the es#ondents is that the
a##licants did not attend the *n%ui!
and the in%ui! office was co"#elled
to #oceed e!"parte. *n such a case, it
was not incu"bent on the disci#lina!
authoit! to gi$e a co#! of the e#ot of
the en%ui! office to the a##licants
befoe #assing the final odes of
#unish"ent on the".
". 8eld 7 *t is clea fo" the
(udge"ent of the Su#e"e cout in
C'* >s. @ohd. Ra"Gan ?han, 8(1991)
16 ATC 525:, that thee is no
diffeence between an e!"parte in%ui!
and egula in%ui! as egads the
obligation of the disci#lina! authoit!
to gi$e a co#! of the e#ot of the
en%ui! office to the chaged
e"#lo!ee. *t is also #etinent to state
that e$en in an e!"parte in%ui!H the
disci#lina! authoit! is bound to
follow the #ocedue laid down in the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
0.0 *n the abo$e $iew of the "atte,
we diect that the i"#ugned odes
wheeb! the #enalt! of dis"issal fo"
se$ice was i"#osed on the a##licants,
be set aside and %uashed. This decision
will not #eclude the disci#lina!
authoit! fo" holding en%ui! in
accodance with law fo" the stage of
su##l! of the *n%ui! Re#ot with an
o##otunit! to the a##licants to
e#esent, including #esonal heaing.
#. 6indin2 7- *t is "andato! to
su##l! co#! of *n%ui! e#ot to the
chaged official in an in%ui!, whethe
egula o e!"parte, so that he "a!
"a+e e#esentation befoe the
#unish"ent is awaded. 3on.su##l! of
a co#! of the *n%ui! 'ffice5s e#ot
has the effect of "a+ing the
#unish"ent ode non est.
8. S)%7) 4*)5)s& Vs Union o' In(i)
)n( o%&e*s, 1", Ne; De<&i,
.$(/e,en% ()%e( ""0601"
1. 6acts 7 The standad of #oof in a
ci"inal tial is in accodance with the
#o$isions of the Indian "vidence Act
and the Criminal )rocedure Code,
while in a de#at"ental in%ui!, onl! it
has to be seen whethe the principles
o( natural 1ustice ae obse$ed o not
and whethe thee is preponderance o(
pro<a<ilit/. *n a ci"inal tial, the
#osecution is e%uied to #o$e its
case be!ond easonable doubt. The
#osecution is e%uied to stand on its
own legs and no buden of #oof lies
on the accused unless he has ta+en a
#aticula defence, but the buden
#oof of the accused is onl! to the
e,tent of ceating #e#ondeance of
#obabilities. *f thee is an! doubt, in
the case of the #osecution, then the
accused gets the benefit of doubt, but a
de#at"ental in%ui!, co"#letel!
diffes fo" the natue of a ci"inal
tial. *n a de#at"ental in%ui!, onl!
#o#iet!, "isconduct o conta$ention
of the ules is to be (udged b! the
in%ui! office who sub"its his e#ot
to the disci#lina! authoit! who eithe
agees with the o#inion of the in%ui!
office o disagees. *f he agees with
the e#ot and the in%ui! office, then
he can, afte affoding an o##otunit!
to the delin%uent, #ass a##o#iate
odes, accoding to the ules. The
#inci#le of =proo( <e/ond reasona<le
dou<t> cannot be i"#oted in a
de#at"ental in%ui! because it is also
+nown that in a do"estic in%ui!, the
delin%uent is the se$ant and the
Note 6.4 116
)o$en"ent authoities ae the
"astes. The "astes can alwa!s
in%uie about the "isconduct of thei
se$ant, but within the fa"ewo+ o
#aa"etes of the ules and the
#inci#les of natual (ustice. *n a
(udicial e$iew, onl! this "uch is to be
seen as to whethe in a do"estic
in%ui! the ules of in%ui! and the
#inci#les of natual (ustice ha$e been
obse$ed o not and the delin%uent has
not been #e(udiced in an! wa!.
". 6indin2 7 ;inci#le of E;oof
be!ond easonable doubt5 not to be
i"#oted to de#at"ental in%ui!
whee onl! the ule of E;e#ondeance
of #obabilit!5 a##lies.
G. D.R. J)/i7) Vs. Union o' In(i)
)n( o%&e*s, (3o<5)%)), .$(/,en%
()%e( 11.1."221, O.A No. 1"4# o'
11
1. 6acts 7 A##licant, a Technical
Assistant in @inist! of *nfo"ation
and <oadcast has filed this 'A against
issue of chage sheet and disci#lina!
#oceedings unde Rule 1- of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965. The fact of the
case in bief is that, the chage sheet,
dated 06./.1991, unde Rule 1-, ibid
was issued against the a##licant b! 6!.
6iecto(Ad"n.), the es#ondent no./.
To in%uie into the chages, *n%ui!
'ffice was a##ointed $ide ode dated
15.6.1991 b! the 6iecto, the
es#ondent no. 0. <! anothe ode,
dated 15.6.1991, the es#ondent no.0
a##ointed ;esenting 'ffice. The
*n%ui! 'ffice $ide notice, dated 11.9.
1991 fi,ed fist heaing on 9.12.1991.
The a##licant e#esented against the
a##oint"ent of *n%ui! 'ffice and
;esenting 'ffice b! es#ondent no. 0
$ide his e#esentation dated 00.9.
1991. The a##licant challenged the
authoit! of the es#ondent no.0 to
a##oint *' and ;' as es#ondent no. 0
is not the 6isci#lina! Authoit! but is
the A##ellate Authoit!. Theefoe, the
a##licant sub"itted that the said odes
ae illegal and against the Rules and
an! action ta+en with efeence to the"
about the chage sheet would be illegal
and unauthoised and hence the chage
sheet being defecti$e, illegal and
baseless should be do##ed and in%ui!
should be sta!ed. <eing aggie$ed b!
the inaction of the es#ondent
authoities, the a##licant filed this 'A.
1.1 The leaned Counsel fo the
es#ondents has sub"itted that the
a##licant was #o"oted and a##ointed
as Technical Assistant b! the 6!.
6iecto (Ad"n.). As such, the 6!.
6iecto (Ad"n.) beca"e A##ointing
Authoit!. The chage sheet has been
issued against the a##licant b! the 6!.
6iecto(Ad"n.), who is the
Co"#etent 6isci#lina! Authoit! of
the a##licant as Technical Assistant.
The 6!. 6iecto (Ad"n.) is not thus
subodinate to that authoit! who
a##ointed the a##licant as Technical
Assistant but is of e%ual status.
". 8eld 7 *t is clea that the a##licant
was a##ointed b! 6iecto as 9unio
Stenoga#he and b! 6!. 6iecto
(Ad"n.) as Technical Assistant. The
sa"e indi$idual has been a##ointed on
initial and #o"oted #osts b! two
authoities. The two authoities ae not
of e%ui$alent status. The A##ointing
Authoit!, $iG., the 6iecto, of the
initial #ost of 9unio Stenoga#he is
ad"ittedl! su#eio to the A##ointing
Authoit!, $iG. 6!. 6iecto (Ad"n.) of
the #o"oted #ost of Technical
Note 6.4 117
Assistant. *n othe wods, the
A##ointing Authoit!, $iG. 6!.
6iecto (Ad"n.) of the #ost of
Technical Assistant is an authoit!
subodinate to the authoit! b! which
the a##licant was a##ointed as 9unio
Stenoga#he. The indi$idual is one
and the sa"e and the A##ointing
Authoities ae two diffeent
hieachical status. The "a(o #enalt!
ode to be #assed b! the Subodinate
Authoit! in es#ect of holde of the
Technical Assistant #ost will definitel!
affect the sa"e indi$idual who was
initiall! a##ointed as 9unio
Stenoga#he and subse%uentl!
#o"oted to the #ost of Technical
Assistant. The effect of the #enal ode
cannot be "ade a##licable to the
holde of the #ost of Technical
Assistant onl!. *t will definitel! affect
the indi$idual who was initiall!
a##ointed as holde of 9unio
Stenoga#he #ost and subse%uentl!
#o"oted as Technical Assistant.
Theefoe, ;inci#les of 9ustice as well
as #o$isions of Aticle /11 (1), (0) of
the Constitution "a+e it i"#eati$e
and de"and that disci#lina!
#oceedings "a! be initiated b! the
Subodinate Authoit! but the final
#enal ode egading e"o$al4
dis"issal4 eduction in an+ should be
#assed b! the authoit! not subodinate
to the authoit! b! which the a##licant
was a##ointed on an! #ost. The 6!.
6iecto (Ad"n.), who is the
Subodinate Authoit!, should ha$e
sub"itted the file fo final ode to the
6iecto afte co"#letion of the
#oceedings u# to that stage, which has
not been done.
0.0 &e thus find the entie disci#lina!
#oceedings iegula, $itiated and
illegal. &e, theefoe, heeb! #atiall!
allow the oiginal a##lication 3o. 10-/
of 1991 without going into the "eit of
the chages. *f the 6!. 6iecto (Ad"n)
finds (ustification fo i"#osing "a(o
#enalt! of e"o$al, dis"issal o
eduction in an+s, he should sub"it
the entie #oceedings to the
Co"#etent Authoit!., $iG., the
6iecto fo #assing final odes and
that the entie disci#lina! #oceedings
fo" the stage of a##oint"ent of *'
and ;' is set aside being illegal and
against the #o$isions o ules.
#. 6indin2 7- Ao" the facts it is
clea that though disci#lina!
#oceedings "a! be initiated b! the
subodinate authoit!, final ode of
#unish"ent should be #assed b! the
authoit! not subodinate to the
authoit! who a##ointed the e"#lo!ee
to the #ost.
=. S$*es& C. Se&/)< Vs. Union o'
In(i), (1"), B)n/)<o*e, ()%e o'
.$(/,en% 1606011
1. 6acts 7 &ith the etie"ent of the
a##licant on /1.1.1919, thee is no
sco#e fo the continuation of the
disci#lina! #oceedings #usuant to
the "e"o of chages, dated 01.7.1919.
The action #o#osed to be ta+en
against the a##licant was onl! unde
Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

". 8eld 7 Rule 16 of the ules la!s
down the #ocedue fo i"#osing an!
of the "ino #enalties s#ecified in
clauses (i) to (i$) of Rule 11 of the
Rules. Afte the etie"ent of the
)o$en"ent se$ant, none of the
afoesaid #enalties can be i"#osed on
hi", fo the si"#le eason that it is not
#ossible to do so. 'nl! withholding o
Note 6.4 111
withdawing of his #ension o #at
theeof and of eco$e! fo" the
#ension of an! #ecunia! loss caused
to )o$en"ent can be "ade unde
Rule 9 of the CCS (;ension) Rules,
1970. 3o doubt it is laid down in Rule
9 (0) of the ;ension Rules that the
de#at"ental #oceedings instituted
while the )o$en"ent se$ant was in
se$ice shall, afte the final etie"ent
of the )o$en"ent se$ant, be dee"ed
to be #oceedings unde this ule and
shall be continued and concluded b!
the authoit! b! which the! wee
co""enced in the sa"e "anne as if
the )o$en"ent se$ant had continued
in se$ice. Thee is also the i"#otant
cicu"stance that the i"#osition of the
#enalt! unde Rule 9(1) of the ;ension
Rules can be done onl! if the #ensione
is found guilt! of ga$e "isconduct o
negligence duing the #eiod of his
se$ice. *t follows that issue of
"e"oandu" of chages against the
)o$en"ent se$ant #io to his
etie"ent unde Rule 16 o( t%e CCS
(CCA) Rules fo the i"#osition of a
"ino #enalt! conte"#lated unde
Rule 11 of the said ules will not
enable the disci#lina! authoit! to
continue the #oceedings afte his
etie"ent in$o+ing the fiction
inco#oated in Rule 9(,) o( t%e
)ension Rules! The esult is that in a
case whee the #oceedings initiated
unde Rule 16 ae not co"#leted
befoe the etie"ent of the
)o$en"ent se$antH such #oceedings
auto"aticall! co"e to a close.
#. 6indin2s 7- @ino #enalt!
#oceedings unde Rule 16 cannot be
continued afte etie"ent fo the
si"#le eason that such #enalties
cannot be i"#osed once a )o$en"ent
se$ant eties fo" se$ice. *t is
theefoe, necessa! that such #enalties
"a! be finaliGed befoe the date of
etie"ent.
SU++AR>
*n this session #atici#ants wee
e,#osed to $aious cicu"stances
in$ol$ing inte#etation of CCS (CCA)
Rules as u#held b! $aious Tibunals
and Couts including A#e, Cout. *t is
e,#ected that the #atici#ants will
e,ecise ut"ost cae, and adhee to the
laid down Code, while chaging an
e"#lo!ee of "isconduct so that the
#oceedings stand the test of a##eal at
the le$el of Tibunal4 Couts and ae
not +noc+ed down on the gounds of
being baseless, defecti$e and illegal.
Note 6.4 119

Selected Case Laws On Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Selected Case Laws On Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Indian Audit and Accounts Department

Courseware on Common Administrative Issues, Reservation Rosters, Vigilance and

Вам также может понравиться