Selected Case Laws on Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

8/11/2019 Selected Case Laws on Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

1/10

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 lastdiscussion 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! #oceedingis 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! aftea##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 eecise thei

#owes with the geatest cae, concen

and scu#ulous egad fo the ules and

#ocedues and without an! #esonal

bias and #eudice, 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

ud2ement 3-3-4!A! 0o! 6* o 199

1. acts 7A##licant was #oceeded

against de#at"entall! on the

allegation, dated 1-11991, that he

wilfull! absented hi"self without an!

authoisation, on as "an! as 1/

diffeent occasions between 09199

and -101992 fo $a!ing #eiods and

was thus a habitual absentee who had

$iolated the instuctions contained inStanding 'de 3o. 1114.

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##licants contentions

did ha$e so"e foce although it was

Note 6.4 112


2/10





"andato! on the a##licants #at to

ha$e obtained #io #e"ission of his

su#eio office befoe absentinghi"self. 'n behalf of the a##licant, it

was contended that the isci#lina!

Authoit! in his i"#ugned ode dated

1271991, has diffeed with *'s

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 A wh! he diffeed,

which has $iolated the #inci#les of

natual ustice.

". 8eld 7*n ou $iew, the atio of the

ulings of (i) 8T 199(5)SC 5-:

;unab 3ational s. '*, 1990 (Calcutta), udge"ent

dated /211990.

B. V.S. C$%in&o Vs. Union o' Ini

n no%&e*, (+$-i), %e o'

$/een% 00"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 motoaction of the ;esident

fo issue of the @e"oandu", dated19196, #o#osing to hold in%ui!

unde Rule 1- afte the ealie #enalt!

of ECensue as #e the ode, dated 0/

-195, ha$ing beco"e final, was

illegal and bad in law.

1.0 @e"oandu", dated 19196

was issued without cancelling the

ealie disci#lina! #oceedings as #e

chagesheet, dated 00195, and the

Note 6.4 111


3/10





#enalt! alead! i"#osed. Theefoe,

the chagesheet suffes fo" illegalit!.

1./ The ode of the ;esident lac+s

a##lication of "ind.

1.- 'de, dated 11199-, stating

that the #enalt! of withholding of

#o"otion fo a #eiod of one !ea as

#e ode, dated -12199- is held

legal, the said #enalt! will ha$e effect

fo" 0/-195, and not fo" 111

199-. The #enalt! ode would be o$e

on 0/5196, and theeafte, thea##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 ise%uied to issue a showcause 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 "ao #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 foconducting of in%ui! as #e the

#o$isions ofRule 1fo" the stage of

issue of chagesheet.

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 showcause

notice.

0./ The logical infeence which will

flow fo" the #o$ision ofRule 9, is

that, the e$ised ode of #unish"entwill 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 ofchagesheet, dated 19196, the

ealie disci#lina! #oceedings and the

#unish"ent ode, dated 0/-195,

stands cancelled and fesh #oceedings

would stat with issue of chagesheet,

dated 19196.

0.- *n fact, the action of the

Re$ision Authoit! cancel the ealie

#unish"ent ode, dated 0/-195, as

#e his ode, dated 0-/197, was notcalled 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 *ndias

ode below Rule 09, dated 1-5196,

at #ages 112111 of Swa"!s

Note 6.4 110


4/10





Co"#ilation of CCS(CCA) Rules,

(0222 Fdition) wheein the action to be

ta+en unde Rule 09 with egad to theealie #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. nion of *ndia and

othes, ;inci#al


5/10





diffeentl! fo" the wa!s abo$e

#essed befoe us. Anne#ure IIof the

chagesheet consists of state"ent ofi"#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

inAnne#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 singledocu"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 Anneues

ta+en togethe. &hen Anneue ** has

been left blan+, the delin%uent

a##licant stands de#i$ed of the

info"ation which should ha$e figued

in Anneue ** but does not. &hen

such info"ation has not beenfunished 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() (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##otof each aticle of chage shall

:contain;. *n its dictiona! "eaning

Econtain i"#lies what should be in it

o what it should ha$e. This "eaning

negati$es Anneue ** 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. 3onco"#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

chagesheet is liable to be %uashed

and set aside.

#. indin2s7 Chage sheet not

acco"#anied b! state"ent of

i"#utation of "isconduct4

"isbeha$iou, endes the wholeeecise in$alid and is $iolati$e of

disci#lina! ules.

D. G.V. NAI3 Vs. UNION O8

INDIA, $/een% %e 160#0"222,

O.A. No. 4"9 1

1. acts 7 The a##licant challenges

an ode, dated 0199, #assed b!

the fist es#ondent, that the #a! of thea##licant be educed b! thee stages

fo" 02,922 to Rs 19,-22 in the ti"e

scale of #a! of Rs 1,-2252200,-22

fo a #eiod of two !eas with effect

fo" 19199. &hile the a##licant

was wo+ing as Collecto of Cental

Fcise,


6/10





an intent to ean the conse%uential

ewad of Rs. 07.55 la+hs. Thus .>.

3ai+, the then Collecto of CentalFcise,


7/10





*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" theudge"ent of the Su#e"e cout in

'* >s. @ohd. Ra"Gan ?han, 8(1991)

16 ATC 525:, that thee is no

diffeence between an e!"partein%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 tofollow 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 ofsu##l! of the *n%ui! Re#ot with an

o##otunit! to the a##licants to

e#esent, including #esonal heaing.

#. indin2 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. 3onsu##l! of

a co#! of the *n%ui! 'ffices e#ot

has the effect of "a+ing the

#unish"ent ode non est.

8. S%7 *5s& Vs Union o' Ini

n o%&e*s, 1", Ne; De


8/10





o$en"ent authoities ae the

"astes. The "astes can alwa!s

in%uie about the "isconduct of theise$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 #eudiced in an! wa!.

". indin2 7 ;inci#le of E;oofbe!ond easonable doubt not to be

i"#oted to de#at"ental in%ui!

whee onl! the ule of E;e#ondeance

of #obabilit! a##lies.

G. D.R. J/i7 Vs. Union o' Ini

n o%&e*s, (3o

$ide his e#esentation dated 009

199. The a##licant challenged the

authoit! of the es#ondent no.0 toa##oint *' and ;' as es#ondent no. 0

is not the isci#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.


9/10





Assistant. *n othe wods, the

A##ointing Authoit!, $iG. !.

iecto (Ad"n.) of the #ost ofTechnical Assistant is an authoit!

subodinate to the authoit! b! which

the a##licant was a##ointed as unio

Stenoga#he. The indi$idual is one

and the sa"e and the A##ointing

Authoities ae two diffeent

hieachical status. The "ao #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 wasinitiall! a##ointed as unio

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 unio

Stenoga#he #ost and subse%uentl!

#o"oted as Technical Assistant.Theefoe, ;inci#les of ustice 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 !.iecto (Ad"n.), who is the

Subodinate Authoit!, should ha$e

sub"itted the file fo final ode to the

iecto 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 199 without going into the "eit of

the chages. *f the !. iecto (Ad"n)finds ustification fo i"#osing "ao

#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

iecto 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.

#. indin2 7- o" 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'Ini, (1"), Bn/


10/10





withdawing of his #ension o #at

theeof and of eco$e! fo" the

#ension of an! #ecunia! loss causedto 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! weeco""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 hisetie"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"#letedbefoe the etie"ent of the

o$en"ent se$antH such #oceedings

auto"aticall! co"e to a close.

#. indin2s 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

eecise ut"ost cae, and adhee to thelaid 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

Documents

Selected Case Laws on Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4