2nd Part of C.C.A. Rules

Copy of:
3. Prevention of corruption – Suspension of Officers involved in trap cases and with reference to the possession of disproportionate assets.

(Memo. No. 1095/Ser. C/84-4, Gen. Administrator (Ser-C) Department , dated 27-4-1985)

Ref: – 1. Government Memo. No. 204/Ser.C/76-3, dated 31-5-1976.

2. Memo. 355/Ser.C/69-1, G.A.D., dated 11-6-1970,

Order: – In the references cited, instructions were issued in regard to suspension of the Government employees on the basis of reports received from the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau.

2. The matter regarding suspension of Government servants involved in cases of traps and possession of disproportionate assets taken up for investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau has been reviewed and the following instructions are issued:

(1) In trap cases, the officers trapped should be placed under suspension immediately and if there is likely to be any interregnum between the trap and the actual relief of the trapped officer consequent upon suspension, the trapped officer should be immediately shifted out of his charge so that he will not have any opportunity to tramper or destroy material evidence. In this connection, attention is drawn to the instruction issued in G.A. (Ser.C) Department, Memo. No. 204/Ser.C/76-3, dated 31-5-1976

(2) As regards the cases of possession of disproportionate assets, the following will be the circumstances in which the Government servant involved in the case should be placed under suspension :

(a) When the disproportionate assets detected are prima facie sufficiently large taking into consideration the income from all sources and the likely expenditure of the Government servant concerned. The Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau; should mention in his report, the rough estimate of income, expenditure and assets and how the disproportion was arrived at, while recommending suspension in such cases.

(b) If a Government servant is not placed under suspension immediately after the registration of a case of possession of disproportionate assets and searches conducted in pursuance thereof, he may subsequently be placed under suspension, if, –

(i) during the course of investigation of the case, the Government servant is found to be not co-operating with the investigating authorities in the conduct of investigation such as not furnishing the property statements and other required information; or

(ii) the Government servant is found, interfering with the investigation of the case of tampering with witness or documents; or

(iii) a charge sheet is filed against him in the said case after the completion of investigation.

3. Once a Government , servant has been placed under suspension in an A.C.B. enquiry of the nature contemplated supra, while revoking or continuing suspension. the disciplinary authority should have regard to the stage of investigation and progress achieved. In respect of cases where the A.C.B. has submitted a final report and where criminal prosecution is not envisaged, the continuation of suspension or revocation shall be considered by the competent authority keeping in view the gravity of charges held substantiated. (Para 3 as amended by Memo.No.638/Ser.C/86-3 General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 16-8-1986)

4. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the above instructions scrupulously and also communicated the above instructions to the concerned disciplinary authorities for their guidance while dealing with the above type of cases.

4. Instructions on Suspension of Government Employees involved in cases of Traps and Possession of Disproportionate Assets taken-up for Investigation by the ACB.

(G.O.Ms.No. 220/Ser.C/89-I, Gent. Administrator (Services-C) Department , dated 8-3-1989)

Order: – (a) In trap cases, the Government servant should be suspended immediately after the trap basing on the preliminary report of the A.C.B.

(b) In disproportionate assets cases, the accused Officer need not be suspended immediately following the registration of the case. But he may be transferred to a far off non-local post to avoid likelihood of his tampering with the records and influencing the witness,. Attention is invited to Government Memo. No. 1733/Ser.C/67-2, General Administration Department , dated 3-8-1967.

(c) If, however, the ACB finds during investigation that there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused officer has deliberately failed to co-operate with the Investigating Agency or that he is trying to tamper with the official records or influencing the witnesses or bringing pressure on the Investigating Officers, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to place the accused Officer under suspension at that stage, based on the recommendation of the ACB to that effect.

(d) In case other than those mentioned above, the accused officer should be suspended when a charge-sheet is filed against him in the Court.

(e) Where after investigation, it is decided to initiate Regular departmental action for imposing any of the major penalties and charge memo is served or the delinquent Government servant, alleging specific acts of corruption or gross misconduct involving moral turpitude, he may be suspended immediately after the charge memo is served on him.

5. Payment of Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension.

(Circle Memo. No. 13431-160-AF.R.II/93, Fin. & Plg., dated 1-4-1993)

Order: – It has come to the notice of Government that the employees who are kept under suspension beyond 6 months are not receiving subsistence allowance beyond 6 months on the ground that the suspension has to be reviewed by the competent authorities. In this connection, the following instructions are issued for implementation by all the competent authorities who place a Government servant under suspension in public interest.

2. According to Rule 18 (c) (i) of A.P. Civil Services (CC &A) Rules, 1963, an officer should not be kept under suspension for a period exceeding 6 months normally and the disciplinary proceedings should be finalised within that period. The cases of Officers who are placed under suspension should be reviewed by the authorities higher or by the Government themselves every six months, in order to ensure that suspensions are not continued indefinitely without justification.

3. According to F.R. 53 (i) (ii) (a), subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government Servant would have drawn, if he had been on leave on behalf average pay, or half pay has to be paid, apart from the admissible allowances as per Rules. In terms of provision thereto, the amount of subsistence allowance can be enhanced or reduced by an amount not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance already admissible under the circumstances mentioned at (i)/(ii) under the above provision. Under Fundamental Rules, there is no bar or restriction limiting payment of subsistence allowance upto a period of six months in cases when the period of suspension is to be reviewed. In other words, the subsistence allowance according to F.R. 53(i)(ii)(a) and in terms of proviso thereto, depending upon the situation of the case specified in item Nos. (i) and (ii) under the proviso, as the case may be, has to be paid, as long as a person is continued under suspension even if the period is extended by undertaking a review or not.

4. Thus, the subsistence allowance shall not be denied to the suspended employee on any ground unless the suspended employee is unable to furnish a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment etc., during the period to which the claim relates.

5. According to the instructions, revision of subsistence in terms of proviso to Clause (ii) (a) of Sub-rule (i) of F.R. 53 should not be given retrospective effect.

6. It is observed that payment of subsistence allowance is being delayed on the ground that the suspension is being reviewed. In this connection, the attention of the Departments of Secretariat, and the heads of Departments is invited to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 205, G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 17-3-1990. There is no need for withholding the subsistence allowance pending review as, even if the higher authority decides, that it would no longer be necessary to continue the employee under suspension, the reinstatement will be only with prospective effect. In view of this, even if a review is pending with a higher authority, which is a non-statutory review it is not necessary to withhold the payment of subsistence allowance.

6. Orders of suspension – Prescription of format.

(G.O.Ms.No. 411, G.A.D., dated 20-7-1993)

Ref : – G.O.Ms.No. 487, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 14-9-1992.

Order: – Under Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, a member of service may be placed under suspension from service –

(a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending; or

(b) Where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or

(c) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.

2. The authority competent to order a Government Servant to be placed under suspension should apply his mind before passing such order and the order of suspension should be in the legally correct format. If the orders of suspension issued are defective and not in the correct format such orders are liable to be challenged in courts merely on technical grounds.

3. With a view to avoiding such situations and to bring uniformity in the forms of orders of suspension having regard to the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, it has been considered desirable to prescribe model formats of order for the guidance of the competent authorities who are empowered to pass suspension orders against the delinquent officers.

4. Government accordingly direct that the competent authority should issue order of suspension after due consideration, in the relevant proforma annexed to this order as indicated below :

(a) Where charge sheet has been issued, the form in Annexure-I to this order may be considered for adoption;

(b) Where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated, the form in Annexure II to this order may be considered for adoption; and

(c) Where a case has been registered and it is under investigation, the Form in Annexure III to this order may be considered for adoption.

5. All Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments etc., are requested to bring these orders to the notice of all competent authorities.

Annexure – I

Form of order of suspension (where charge sheet has been issued) under Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1991

Sub : – Public Services – Sri/Smt……………….. Suspension from service – Orders – Issued.

And whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned being the competent authority (appointing authority/any other competent authority) consider it necessary to place Sri/Smt……………………… under suspension pending enquiry into grave charge or charges aforementioned.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority/any other competent authority) hereby place(s) the said Sri/Smt………………………… under suspension from the date of communication of this order and he/she shall continue to be under suspension in public interest until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge(s).

It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force the headquarters of Sri/Smt…………………….. (name and designation of Government servant) shall be (name of the place) and the said Sri/Smt………………………. shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned.

[It is further ordered that during the period of suspension, Sri/Smt…………………………… (Name and designation of the Government servant) shall be paid subsistence allowance equivalent to the leave salary on half pay leave. The D.A. and other compensatory allowances shall be paid along with subsistence allowance. The quantum of subsistence allowance will be reviewed and revised in terms of FR-53(i) after 3 months. Pending review he shall continue to draw the subsistence allowance now sanctioned.]

Signature
Name and Designation of the Suspending authority.

Annexure – II

Form of order of suspension (where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated) under Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991

Sub : – Public Service – Sri/Smt……………………… Suspension from service – Orders – Issued.

Whereas it has come to the notice of the Government of Andhra Pradesh/ Undersigned who is the competent authority (Appointing authority/any other competent authority) alleging that –

And whereas disciplinary proceedings against Sri……………………………….. are contemplated;

And whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority/any other competent authority) after careful consideration of the available material and having due regard to the circumstances of the case, are satisfied that it is necessary to place Sri/Smt………………………….. under suspension.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority/any other competent authority) hereby place(s) the said Sri/Smt……………………………….. under suspension from the date of communication of this order and he/she shall continue to be under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge(s).

It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force, the headquarters of Sri/Smt………………………. (name and designation of the Government servant) shall be…………………… (name of the place) and the said Sri/Smt…………………………… shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned.

Signature
Name and designation of the Suspending authority.

Annexure – III

Form of order of suspension (where a case has been registered and it is under investigation) under Rule 8(1) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991

Sub : – Public Services – Sri/Smt…………………………. Suspension from service – Orders – Issued.

Whereas it has come to the notice of the Government of Andhra Pradesh/ Undersigned who is the Competent authority (appointing authority or any other competent authority) alleging that-

And whereas a case has been registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Officer incharge of the Police Station……………………….. in Crime No…………………………. under Section…………………… of…………………………

And whereas it is considered that his/her continuance in Office will prejudice the investigation;

And whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority or any other competent authority) after careful consideration of the available material and having due regard to the circumstances of the case, are satisfied that the Criminal charge under investigation is connected with his official position as a Government servant and involved moral turpitude and therefore consider it necessary to place Sri/Smt……………………….. under suspension.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned) appointing authority/any other under competent authority) hereby place(s) the said Sri/Smt………………………………. under suspension from the date of communication of this order and he/she shall continue to be under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge(s).

It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force, the headquarters of Sri/Smt…………………………… (name and designation of the Government servant) shall be………………… (name of the place) and the said Sri/Smt…………………………………. shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned.

Signature
Name and designation of the Suspending authority.

7. Review of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months – Authorities empowered to undertake review.

(G.O. Ms. No. 480, G.A.D., dated 7-9-1993)

Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 205, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 17-3-1990.

2. G.O. Ms.No. 487, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department . dated 12-9-1992.

Order: – Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, lays down that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service :

(a) Where disciplinary proceedings against him are contemplated, or pending;

(b) Where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government Servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or

(c) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.

Sub-rule (5) (a) of Rule 8 of the said Rules lays down that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by an authority to which that authority is subordinate. Under Sub-rule 5(b), of Rule 8, it is specified that where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended, whether in connection with any disciplinary proceedings or otherwise, and any other disciplinary proceedings is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Government servant shall continue to be under suspension until the termination of all, or any of such proceedings.

2. In its order dated 10-4-1993 in O.A.No. 7109/92 the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has observed as follows :

“We wish to observe that the order of suspension needs to be reviewed by the authorities periodically. The criminal trial or disciplinary proceedings may take a long time and the Government is to review the need for continued suspension on relevant grounds periodically. The observation in para 5 of the impugned order that the applicant shall continue under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge does not imply that till the trial, if any, is concluded, the order of suspension need not be reviewed or revoked. It will be for the Government to review the need for continued suspension at reasonable periodical intervals say six months”.

3. In the G.O. 1st read above, executive instructions were issued for review of suspension at periodical intervals. Subsequently, the new Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 have come into force with effect from 1-10-1992 repealing the old Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1963. Consequently it has been decided to issue revised instructions for review of suspensions at periodical intervals.

4. Accordingly, the following instructions are issued for review of the suspension cases :

I. Gazetted Officers :

(i) In the case of Gazetted Officers, the first review of the order of suspension beyond a period of six months shall be undertaken by the Head of the Department, provided the original order of suspension was not issued by Government, and orders issued, if so decided, to continue the officer under suspension until further orders.

(ii) The second and subsequent reviews at intervals of six months will be undertaken and orders for continuance of the officer under suspension until further orders will be issued by the Government.

(iii) If the original order of suspension was issued by the Government, all the reviews including the first review shall be undertaken by the Government themselves and orders for continuance of the Officer under suspension until further orders will be issued by the Government.

II. Non-Gazetted Officers :

(i) In the case of non-gazetted officers first review of the orders of suspension beyond a period of six months shall be undertaken either by the authority next above the appointing authority or by the Head of the Department as the case may be, and orders issued, if so decided, to continue the Officer under suspension until further orders.

(ii) The next review beyond a period of one year from the date of suspension shall be undertaken by the Head of the Department and orders issued by him, if so decided, to continue the officer under suspension until further orders.

(iii) Any further review for continuing or otherwise of an officer under suspension beyond a period of one and a half year from the date of suspension at intervals of six months shall be undertaken by the Government and orders for continuance of the officer under suspension until further orders will be issued.

III. At the end of the review as laid down above, if it is decided by the competent authority/head of the Department/Government, as the case may be, that the member of the service need no longer be continued under suspension, orders, should be issued forthwith revoking the order of suspension and he shall be reinstated into service immediately.

8. Review of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months – Authorities empowered to review – Revised Orders – Issued.

(G.O. Ms. No. 578, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 31-12-1999)

Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 480, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 7-9-93.

2. G.O. Ms. No. 428, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 13-10-99.

Order: – In the reference first read above, orders were issued in regard to periodical review, at an interval of six months of the order of suspension, in disciplinary cases, duly indicating the authorities empowered to undertake the review. In the reference second read above, the disciplinary powers have been delegated to the Regional Authorities and Heads of Departments in respect of the officers of first and second level categories in the State Service. The implementation of the Government order first read above has been reviewed. To expedite disposal, the following revised orders are issued for review of suspension cases, in modification of the G.O. 1st read above.

I. Member of service in Subordinate Service/Non-Gazetted Officers :

(i) The first review, of the order of Suspension after six months from the date of issue of orders shall be by the appointing authority. The 2nd and subsequent reviews shall be by the Regional Authority, where it exists, at intervals of six months. Where no Regional Authority exists, the 2nd and subsequent reviews of order of suspension, shall be by the Head of the Department at an interval of every six months, where the appointing authority is Head of the Department itself, the review of the order of the suspension at an interval of six months shall be by the Head of the Department only.

(ii) Even if suspension is ordered by a higher authority, the review shall be done as ordered above except that a report on the result of review shall be sent to the higher authority for information and record.

II. Members of Service in State Service (Gazetted Officers) :

(i) Where the Order of Suspension is issued by the Regional Authority, the 1st review of such order after six months, shall be by the Regional Authority. The 2nd and subsequent reviews at six monthly intervals shall be by the Head of the Department.

(ii) Where no Regional Authority exists, and the order of suspension on a Member of Service in initial as well as second level Gazetted Category is issued by the Head of the Department such order shall be reviewed at an interval of every six months by the Head of the Department.

(iii) Even if suspension is ordered by Government, the review shall be done as ordered above except that prior approval of the Government to the result of the review shall be obtained where the review leads to reinstatement, before orders of reinstatement are issued.

(iv) In respect of third level and above Gazetted Categories of Officers, the review of order of suspension, at an interval of every six months, shall be by the Government only.

9. Review of orders of suspension against Government Servants.

(G.O.Ms.No. 86, G.A.D.., dated 8-3-1994)

Ref : – G.O.Ms.No. 480, G.A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 7-9-1993.

Order :– In the G.O. read above, instructions have been issued for review of the suspensions of Gazetted and Non-Gazetted Officers, indicating the authorities empowered to undertake such reviews of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months.

2. During the meeting of the Secretaries to Government held on 7-7-1992, the issue of inordinate delays in finalising enquiries both Departmental and ACB resulting in hardship to the employees was discussed and an Officers Committee was constituted to examine, among others, the issue of “Suspension of Public Servants” and to submit proposals for review of the existing instructions. The Committee has accordingly made certain recommendations which have been accepted by the standing sub-committee of Secretaries to Government in their meeting held on 6-12-1993.

3. Keeping the said recommendations in view following further orders are issued for review of suspension orders against the Government Servants :

(i) The order of suspension against a Government servant shall be reviewed at the end of every six months;

(ii) The appropriate reviewing authority should take a decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of charges , where delays in finalisation, of enquiry proceedings cannot be attributed to the employee or when there is no interference from the employee in facilitating the enquiry.

(iii) An outer limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension, failing which the public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued. However, in exceptional cases, considering the gravity of the charges, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years, especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non-cooperation of the employee concerned.

(iv) The concerned Principle Secretary/Secretary of the Department should review the suspension cases of their department at an interval of six months with the representative from the ACB, if the proceedings arose out of the investigations conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and make suitable recommendations as to the desirability or otherwise for the further continuance of the officers under suspension.

4. The above benefit may be given to all existing cases as and when their half yearly review is taken up.

10. Payment of Subsistence Allowance during Suspension period – Further instructions.

(Circular Memo. No. 29730-A/458/A2/FR.11/94, Fin. & Plg., dated 15-9-1994)

Ref: – 1. Circular Memo.No. 13431/160-A/FR.II/93, dated 1-4-1993 of the Fin. & Plg. (FW) Department .

2. Recommendation of the High Power Committee Headed by Sri A.V.S. Reddy, IAS.

Order: – In the Circular Memo. 1st cited detailed instructions were issued for prompt payment of subsistence allowance to the employees who were placed under suspension. The Joint Action Committee of Employees, Teachers and Workers of Andhra Pradesh, however, represented to the High Power Committee of Secretaries to Government that the employees who were placed under suspension were not being paid subsistence allowance and were subjected to much difficulty and harassment. The High Power Committee in their Report submitted to Government made the following observations :

According to the existing instructions, there is no bar or restriction limiting payment of subsistence allowance upto a period of six months. Subsistence Allowance is to be paid as long as a person is continued under suspension, even if the period is extended. The review envisaged for every six months during the period of suspension is only to ensure that the suspensions are not continued indefinitely without justification. There is, therefore, no need for with-holding the subsistence allowance pending review.

The High Power Committee also recommended that instructions already issued by the Finance Department in Circular Memo. 1st cited may be reiterated and that disciplinary action may be taken against the officials who fail to comply with these instructions.

All the Departments of Secretariat and the Heads of Department are therefore requested to follow the instructions issued in the Circular Memo first cited scrupulously and ensure prompt payment of subsistence allowance to the employees who are placed under suspension. They are also informed that any failure to comply with these instructions will attract disciplinary action against the officers concerned.

All the Departments of Secretariat and the Heads of Departments are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the concerned under their administrative control for strict compliance.

11. Prevention of Corruption – Suspension of Officers involved in trap cases.

[Memo. No. 357/Ser.C/94-1, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 4-8-1994]

Ref: – 1. Memo. No. 220/Ser. C/89-1, dated 8-3-89.

2. Memo. No. 1419/Ser. C/89-1, dated 25-10-1989.

Order: – In the references cited, instructions were issued regarding suspension/transfer of Government servants involved in cases of trap and possession of disproportionate assets taken up for investigations by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

It has been brought to the notice of Government that there are abnormal delays in taking action to suspend/transfer the Government servant concerned on receipt of advice tendered by the Vigilance Commission in cases taken up for investigation by the A.C.B. Due to the delay, the A.C.B. is handicapped in taking up the regular enquiry.

While reiterating the instructions issued in the references cited, all the Departments of Secretariat/Heads of Departments are once again requested to take expeditious action to place the Accused Officer under suspension or transfer them as the case may be within a period of 15 days without fail and ensure that no delays occur in this regard.

They are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of the disciplinary authorities under their administrative control.

12. Interim Relief pending revision of scales of pay – Payment of Interim Relief to those who are under suspension – Clarification – Issued.

(Memo. No. 44113/541/PC1/1/98-1, Fin. & Plg. (FW.PC.1), dated 11-11-1998)

Ref : – 1. G.O. (P) No. 117, Fin. & Plg. (FW.PC.I) Department , dated 3-7-1998.

2. From the CAO 0/0 the DG and IGP, Lr.RC.No. P1/90/97, dated 28-10-1998.

Order: – In the G.O. first cited orders were issued sanctioning an Interim Relief of 11% to the State Government employees from 1-6-1998, pending revision of pay scales. In the reference 2nd cited, a clarification has been sought for regarding admissibility of Interim Relief to those who are under suspension.

The issue has been examined. Interim Relief cannot be treated neither as pay or wage or as an allowance. Hence, it is hereby clarified that Interim Relief is not admissible during the period of suspension.

13. Anti-Corruption Bureau – Trap cases – Transfer of trapped officers.

(Memo. No. 2487/SC.E/984 GA(Ser.E) Department , dated 19-11-1998)

Ref.: – 1. Government Memo. No. 204/Ser.C/76-3; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , Dated 31-5-1976.

2. Government Memo. No. 1095/Ser.c/84-4; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 27-4-1985

3. Government Memo. No. 220/Ser.C/89-11; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 8-3-1989

4. Government Memo. No. 853/Ser.C/90-2; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department dated 23-9-1991

5. From the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau, A.P., Hyderabad, Letter C.No.96/RPC(C)/93, dated 16-11-1993

Order: – In the reference first cited, instructions were issued among others that in ‘Trap Cases’ if there is likely to be any interregnum between the trap and the actual relief of the Trapped Officer after being placed under suspension, the competent authorities should consider whether the Officers could be transferred immediately so that the material evidence is not destroyed and that arrangements should be made to relieve Trapped Officers forthwith. In the reference second cited and from time to time, the said instructions were reiterated, among others.

2. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau in the reference fifth cited has brought to the notice of the Government that some Departments are not following the said instructions of the Government and are waiting till the Government orders are received by them without shifting the Trapped Officers from the places of their work. He has stated that as it would take about two to four weeks time for the Government to take a decision on the preliminary report of the Bureau, the Trapped Officers tend to remain at the same posts and as a consequence, thereof, there is every likelihood of their destroying or tampering with the records/evidence. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau has further stated that in some cases, the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence especially when the Trapped Officer is their immediate superior and as he/they continue to work at the same place.

3. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, has, therefore, requested to reiterate the Government instructions in the matter and also to issue further instructions to the effect that Trapped Officers should be transferred out of their work by the competent authorities, immediately, on receipt of Radio Message etc., by them from the Bureau so as to ensure that there is no tampering with evidence/ destruction of records by the Trapped Officers.

4. As such, the matter has been reconsidered by the Government in the light of facts brought out by the Bureau in the reference fifth cited and the request made therein. The Government, while reiterating the instructions issued in the references first and second cited, also direct that the trapped officers should be transferred out from the place of their work by the Head of the Department concerned/appointing authority/competent authority, immediately, on receipt of intimation about the trap by them by way of Radio Messages etc., from the Anti Corruption Bureau.

5. However, a decision to place the Trapped Officers under suspension can be taken as per the instructions issued by the Government on the subject from time to time.

14. Disciplinary Cases – Review of orders of suspension against Government Servants – Instructions – Reiterated.

(U.O. Note. No. 2776/SC.E/98- 1, G.A.(Ser-E) Department , dated 3-12-1998)

Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 480, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 7-9-1993.

2. G.O.Ms.No.86, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 8-3-1994.

3. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission, D.O. Letter No.1974NC.F1/98-1, dated 27-11-1998.

Order: – In the G.O. 2nd cited while reiterating the instructions issued in the G.O. 1st cited, further orders were issued with regard to review of orders of suspension against Government Servants as follows:

(i) The order of suspension against a Government Servant shall be reviewed at the end of every six months.

(ii) The appropriate reviewing authority should take a decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of charges, where delay in finalisation of enquiry proceedings cannot be attributed to the employees or when there is no interference from the employee in facilitating the enquiry.

(iii) An outer time limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension, failing which the Public Servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued. However, in exceptional cases, considering the gravity of the charges, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years, especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non co-operation of the employee concerned.

(iv) The concerned Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department should review the suspension cases of their Department at an interval of six months with the representative from the Anti-Corruption Bureau, if the proceedings arose out of the investigations conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and make suitable recommendations as to the desirability or otherwise for the further continuance of the Officers under suspension.

2. With regard to the above mentioned orders, the A.P. Vigilance Commission have made the following observations:

(1) That the Departments of Secretariat are referring cases for reinstatement into service of the suspended employees in a routine manner to the Vigilance Commission;

(2) That the Government Departments do not appear to be conducting the half yearly reviews of suspension of Government Servants (Accused Officers) with the representatives of Anti-Corruption Bureau and that whenever such reviews are conducted, the cases are referred to the Vigilance Commission without furnishing the following information:

(i) Whether the delay in finalisation of enquiry Proceedings cannot be attributed to the employees;

(ii) Whether the suspended employee is co-operating with the prosecution agency in facilitating the enquiry;

(iii) Whether the suspended employee is attending the Court whenever summoned for hearing.

3. The matter has been carefully considered by the Government and the Government while reiterating the orders issued in the G.O. 2nd cited also direct that all the Government Departments should obtain the information as mentioned in sub para 2(i), (ii) and (iii) of para 2 above from the Anti-Corruption Bureau whenever necessary and then propose action as to whether to continue the Government Servant (Accused Officer) under suspension or to reinstate him as the case may be.

4. The Departments of Secretariat are also directed to consult the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission invariably before taking a decision in the matter as per the scheme of the Vigilance Commission.

15. Appointment by Promotion/Transfer to higher categories of employees who are facing disciplinary cases – Guidelines – Issued.

(G.O. Ms. No. 257, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 10-06-1999)

Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 424, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 25-05-1976.

2. G.O. Ms. No. 104, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 16-02-1990.

3. G.O. Ms. No. 66, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 30-01-1991.

4. From the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India Memo.No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A), dated 14-09-1992.

5. G.O.Ms.No.74, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 24-02-1994.

6. G.O. Ms. No. 203, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 05-05-1999.

Order: – In the G.Os. 1st to 3rd read above, orders were issued enunciating guidelines for consideration of employees who are facing disciplinary enquiries it regard to their appointment by promotion or transfer to higher categories.

2. In the reference fourth read above, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India have issued guidelines in regard to consideration of Government Servants against whom disciplinary or Court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for promotion to next higher categories. Keeping in view the said guidelines, orders have been issued in the G.O. fifth read above, for consideration of employees for ad-hoc promotion where the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government employees is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first Departmental Promotion Committee, in which the employee was considered, in case the employee is not under suspension.

3. It has come to the notice of Government, that the guidelines issued in the said orders are not being strictly adhered to in several Departments and ad-hoc promotion is being considered on the simple ground, that two years period has elapsed after institution of disciplinary proceedings against the employee without going into the desirability of making ad-hoc promotion in such cases. The Government have carefully reviewed the issue and accordingly it has been decided to cancel the orders issued in the G.O. fifth read above and issue suitable guidelines on the subject.

4. Accordingly, orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.74, General Administrator Ser.C) Department, dated the 24th February, 1994 are hereby cancelled with immediate effect.

5. Government also order that with immediate effect the following procedure and guidelines, be followed to consider the employees against whom disciplinary cases or criminal prosecution are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for appointment by promotion or transfer, to next higher categories.

(A) The details of employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees:

(i) Officers under suspension;

(ii) Officers in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending;

(iii) Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.

(B) Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations or charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely :

(i) an Officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against who related to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved, would not stand in the way of his being promoted;

(ii) an Officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and

(iii) an Officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him.

(C) The suitability of the Officers for inclusion in the panel should be considered on an overall assessment based on the record which should include namely:

(i) Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports, the penalties awarded and the bad reputation of the Officer as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned;

The above cases should be considered as falling under category (ii) of item (B) above.

(ii) The Officers who do not have any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report and who have no penalties awarded against them in the entire duration of the post and not merely in the past five years and whose reputation is vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned should be considered as falling under category (iii) of item (B) above.

The Officers categorised as under item (iii) of G.O. Ms. No. 424, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 25-5-1976 as mentioned above only should be considered for ad-hoc promotion after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Screening Committee Meeting in which their cases were considered for the first time.

(6) The Appointing Authority should consider and decide that it would not be against public interest to allow ad-hoc promotion to the Officer concerned and this shall be decided with reference to the charge under enquiry. If the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing authority should consider as not in the public interest to consider ad-hoc promotion to such Charged Officer. But, however, if the charge is not a grave one but is a minor one, not involving moral turpitude, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then only in such cases the Appointing Authority should consider that it would not be against public interest to allow ad-hoc promotion because till then his record is clean with reference to ACRs, past punishment and reputation in the Department as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government. The Appointing Authorities should strive to finalise the disciplinary cases pursuing them vigorously so that within two years the proceedings are concluded and final orders issued.

(7) If the Officer concerned is acquitted, in the criminal prosecution on the merits of the case or is fully exonerated in the Departmental Proceedings, the ad-hoc promotion already made may be confirmed and the promotion treated as a regular one from the date of the ad-hoc promotion with all attendant benefits. In case the Officer could have normally got his regular promotion from a date prior to the date of his ad-hoc promotion with reference to his placement in the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings and the actual date of promotion of the person ranked immediately junior to him by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he would also be allowed his due seniority and benefit of national promotion.

(8) If the Officer is not acquitted on merits in the criminal prosecution but purely on technical grounds and Government either proposes to take up the matter to a higher Court or to proceed against him departmentally or if the Officer is not exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the ad-hoc promotion granted to him should be brought to an end.

16. Acquittal by the Courts of ACB and SPE, based on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma vs State of Bihar – Instructions regarding revocation of suspension, regularisation of suspension period, etc. – Issued.

(U.O. Note No. 2715/SC.E3/98-9, General Administrator (Ser.E) Department , dated 28-6-99)

Order: – It has been brought to the notice of the Government that following the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, certain Special Courts for ACB & SPE Cases are dismissing pending ACB cases in a routine manner on technical grounds without deciding the case on merits, solely on the ground that two years period has elapsed within which prosecution evidence has not been completed. Consequent on such acquittals by the trial Courts, on technical grounds, the Accused Officers are representing, and that the Departments are referring files to Vigilance Commission for (i) revocation of suspension orders, if they are under suspension and reinstatement in service; (ii) regularisation of the suspension period if they have already been reinstated into service, etc.

2. All the Departments of Secretariat are informed that the Government have decided that, in cases of judicial acquittal based on the Supreme Court decision in the Bihar case, appeals should be filed in the High Court and Special Leave Petitions/ Review Petitions should be filed in Supreme Court. All Departments of Secretariat are requested that, pending outcome of the Appeals/Special Leave Petition/ Review Petition, no action to revoke suspension or regularise the period of suspension to close the case or to confer consequential reliefs etc., should be taken up.

3. All the Departments of Secretariat are requested to comply with the above instructions in the matter.

17. Subsistence Allowance Pending Consideration of Appeal – Regarding.

(Cir. Memo. No. 39071/471/A2/FR.II/99, Fin. & Plg., (FW-F.R.II) dated 28-02-2000)

Ref : – 1. Cir. Memo.No.13431/1160-A/FR.II/93, dated 01-04-1993.

2. Cir. Memo.No.29730-A/458/A2/FR.II/94, dated 15-09-1994.

Order: – In the Circular Memos 1st and 2nd cited, detailed instructions were issued for prompt payment of subsistence allowance to the employees who were under suspension.

2. The Supreme Court of India in a case of the State of Maharastra Vs. Chandrabhan, 1983 (2) SLR 493, while allowing the Writ Petition, dismissed the Civil Appeal has clarified that on payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension when the Government Servant is lodged in prison on conviction by Trial Court. The observations of the Supreme Court is as follows:

“If the Civil Servant under suspension pending Departmental Enquiry on a criminal trial started against him, is entitled to subsistence allowance at the normal rate which is a bare minimum required for the maintenance of the Civil Servant and his family, he should undoubtedly get it even pending his appeal filed against his conviction by the Trial Court, and his right to get the normal subsistence allowance pending consideration of his appeal against his conviction should not depend upon the chance of his being released on bail and not being lodged in prison on conviction by the Trial Court. Whether he is lodged in prison or released on bail on his conviction pending consideration of his appeal, his family requires the bare minimum by way of subsistence allowance”.

3. Keeping in view the above judgment of the Apex Court, Government hereby order that a Government Servant under suspension whether he is lodged in prison or released on bail on his conviction pending consideration of his appeal, be paid subsistence allowance.

4. All the Departments of Secretariat and the Heads of Departments are requested to bring the aforesaid rulings of the Supreme Court to the notice of all the Officers under their administrative control for strict compliance.

18. Payment of Compensatory Allowance to the Government Servants under suspension – Further Clarificatory Instructions – Issued

(Cir. Memo. No. 40986/489/A2/FR.II/99-2, F & P (FW), dated 1-4-2000)

Order: – It has been brought to the notice of the Government that the Government Servants under suspension in some cases, are allowed Compensatory Allowances proportionate to the Subsistence Allowance sanctioned to them.

2. It is hereby clarified that as per the provisions under FR-53(1)(ii)(b), a Government Servant under suspension is entitled for Compensatory Allowance, such as House Rent Allowance and other allowances admissible from time to time on the basis of Pay of which the Government Servant was in receipt on the date of Suspension, subject to fulfilment of other conditions laid down for drawal of such allowances.

3. The above Rule position shall be followed scrupulously, while sanctioning Compensatory Allowances to the Government Servants under suspension.

19. Suspension – Guidelines for placing Accused Officers under suspension in Trap Cases – Classification of trap cases – Instructions – Issued.

(U.O. Note No. 1818/SPL.B/2000-2, G.A.D. (Spl. B), dated 21-11-2001)

Ref: 1. U.O. Note No.240/SC.D/93-3, GA(SC.D) Department, dated 5-10-1993

2. U.O. Note No.1595/SC.D/93-6, GA(SC.D) Department, dated 16-11-1994

3. Memo No. 554/Ser. C/93-6, GA(Ser.C)Department, dated 26-12-1994.

Order: – Instructions were issued in the references first and second cited for suspension of government servants involved in traps laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) as follows:

Trap Cases

(i) Where the accused officer is caught red-handed in the act of accepting bribe and where the phenolphthalein test has yielded positive result (and) such cases can be classified as successful traps and the charged officer has to be placed under suspension based on the preliminary report received from the Anti Corruption Bureau.

(ii) In other cases, where the accused officer is not caught red handed and where the phenolphthalein test has not yielded positive result and the case depends mostly on circumstantial evidence leaving room for benefit of doubt, decision for suspension or otherwise of the accused officer may be taken taking into account the advice tendered by the Vigilance Commissioner.

(iii) The departments of Secretariat are further instructed to suspend the Accused Officer even without waiting for recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner in cases where the Accused officer is caught red handed and the phenolphthalein test yielding positive result.

Government have reviewed these instructions in the light of advice of the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission (APVC) and issue the following instructions in supersession of the references cited.

It is well known that trap is the most effective and successful way of catching corrupt officers in the act of receiving bribe where the rate of conviction also is high. Corrupt officers habituated to receiving bribes have become cautious and alert and have devised methods of avoiding trap while continuing to receive bribes. Such methods include engaging private persons to receive bribe on one’s behalf, engaging personal servants to do so while at home requiring subordinates to accept the bribe, requiring complainant to place the bribe amount in or around the scene of offence unobtrusively without the officer having to accept the bribe directly thereby avoiding physical contact with the notes and the phenolphthalein powder.

It would not be in the public interest not to suspend or to delay the suspension of such corrupt officers who receive bribes indirectly in the manner indicated above. It should be open to the disciplinary authority to suspend such an officer pending investigation without waiting for the advice of the Vigilance Commission in the matter. Government therefore, direct that immediately upon receipt of preliminary report against an officer who is caught directly or indirectly in the act of accepting bribe, irrespective of whether the phenolphthalein test yielded positive results or not, the accused officer may be immediately placed under suspension pending investigation based on the preliminary report received from the ACB.