5th Part of C.C.A Rules

6. Stoppage of Increments with cumulative Effect – Consultation with Public Service Commission for Concurrence – Orders – Issued.

(G.O. Ms. No. 536, G.A.(Ser.C) Department, dated 8-12-1997)

Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 335, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department, dated 14-6-1993.

2. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commissioner, Lr. No. 124/ VC/E.II/95-7, dated 20-11-1996.

Order: – In the order first read above, it is ordered that for imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall be followed. It was also ordered therein that the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect shall be treated as a major penalty.

2. In Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963, it is mentioned that consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be necessary where the State Government propose to pass an original order imposing any of the following penalties:

(i) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale whether in the same service or in another service, State or Subordinate or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a local body by negligence or breach of orders;

(iii) compulsory retirement otherwise than under Article 165(2) or under Note 1 to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations;

(iv) removal from service; or

(v) dismissal.

3. Since the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty, it is necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission before imposing the said penalty.

4. Accordingly, it is ordered that where it is proposed to impose the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, it is necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission as per Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963.

5. The General Administration (Services.A) Department will issue suitable amendments to   the Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963.

7. Government employees convicted in a Criminal Charge/convicted in corruption cases – Action to be taken – Instructions – Reiterated.

(Cir. Memo. No. 3824/Ser.C/98-2, G.A.(Ser-C) Department , dated 9-2-1998)

Ref : – 1. Memo. No. 3037/Ser.C/64-3, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 26-11-1964.

2. Memo. No.1017/Ser.C/66-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 18-6-1966.

3. Memo. No.1718/Ser.C/75-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 22-11-1975.

4. Memo No.3000/Ser.C/76-4, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-6-1977.

5. U. 0. Note No.32/Ser.C/81-2, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 9-2-1981.

6. Memo. 169/Ser.C/77-8, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 10-02-1978.

7. Memo. No. 637/Ser.C/83-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-06-1983.

8. Memo. No. 1317/Ser.C/88-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 31-12-1988.

9. Cir. Memo. No. 100/Ser.C/93-22, G.A.D (Ser.C), dated 23-12-1995.

10. From Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vig. Comm., Lr.No.2024/VC-C2/97-2, dated 06-01-1998.

Order: – In the reference 1st cited (copy enclosed) instructions were issued, among others that, in proved cases of bribery and corruption, no punishment other than that of dismissal should be considered adequate and if any lesser punishment is to be awarded in such cases, adequate reasons should be given for it in writing.

It is also mentioned therein that a close watch on corrupt officials shall be maintained and there should be no reservation in making entries in the personal files of the employees about their integrity and for expeditious disposal of the disciplinary cases, it is suggested to pursue the cases on day to day basis. In the reference 2nd cited, in order to ensure that the instructions on disciplinary action against Government employees involved in corruption, bribery or moral turpitude are followed scrupulously, the Inspecting Officers were requested to review at the time of their inspecting the offices all cases of corruption and bribery where the maximum penalty has not been awarded by the competent authority. The Heads of Departments and District Collectors were informed in the reference 3rd cited, that officers convicted in criminal cases should normally be dismissed from service and it is not necessary either to await the outcome of an appeal or the expiry of the appeal time, where an appeal may have been preferred. In the reference 4th cited it has been directed that a clear distinction should be drawn between the cases of delayed remittance and mis-appropriation having regard to the fact that in proved cases of misappropriation no punishment short of dismissal is normally justified and accordingly the case of delayed remittance need not always be classified for the purpose of audit as a case of mis-appropriation.

2. To minimise the delay in investigation of cases of corruption and misappropriation, the Secretaries to Government of the Departments of Secretariat have been directed in reference 5th cited to review every month the cases pending for more than a year with the Police/Anti-Corruption Bureau in a meeting and write to the Director General of Police/Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau for speeding up the investigation. It was a fact that however complicated a case may be, the investigation should not take more than one year after it is entrusted to the Police or Anti-Corruption Bureau.

3. In the Memo. 6th cited (copy enclosed) instructions were issued regarding action to be taken in cases where Government Servants are convicted on a criminal charge or where an appeal/revision in a High Court succeeds. Similarly, instructions were issued in the reference 7th and 8th cited regarding action to be taken in cases where Government servants are not convicted in a criminal case.

4. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee the following instructions have been issued in the Circular Memo. 9th cited :

“In all cases of misappropriation, after investigation is completed by the Police and charge sheets filed, such cases should be pursued effectively to ensure that there is no let-up in prosecuting the cases effectively and that there is no failure on the part of Asst. Public Prosecutor, etc., in conducting the prosecution property. In cases, where the trial ultimately ends in acquittal, immediate action may be taken to file appeals, after obtaining legal opinion. In cases, where it is felt that the prosecution was conducted improperly and the Prosecuting Officers have not taken adequate interest, responsibility must be fixed for their failure to conduct the prosecution successfully. To ensure a proper watch, the Departments should review all such cases periodically for the half years ending 30/6 and 31/12 of every year and furnish their reviews to the General Administration (Ser.C) Department. Even when there are no such cases, a ‘Nil’ report has to be furnished.”

5. In the reference 10th cited, the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission has stated that while interpreting Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sri Ramesh Kumar (1997 (5) SCALE 660) has held that-

“a bare reading of Rule 19 shows that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to take action against a Government Servant on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.” The rules, however do not provide that on suspension of execution of sentence by the Appellate Court, the order of dismissal based on the conviction stands obliterated and dismissed Government Servant has to be treated under suspension till disposal of appeal by the Appellate Court. The rules also do not provide for the Disciplinary Authority to await disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court filed by the Government Servant for taking action against him on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a Competent Court of Law. Having regard to the provisions of the rules, the order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his conviction by a Competent Court of Law has not lost its sting merely because a criminal appeal was filed by the Respondent against his conviction and the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged the Respondent on bail. The matter may also be examined from another angle. Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellate Court has power to suspend the execution of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When the Appellate Court suspends the execution of sentence and grants bail to an accused, the effect of the order is that, sentence based on conviction is for the time being postponed or kept in abeyance, during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.0 an accused avoids under going sentence pending Criminal Appeal. However, the conviction continues and it is not obliterated and if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a Government Servant for misconduct which led to his conviction by the Court of Law does not lose its efficacy merely because Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence.

6. The Vigilance Commissioner has further stated that the Law Department has observed that in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India a delinquent Government Servant who has been dismissed/removed from service on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, is not entitled to reinstatement into service merely because a Criminal Appeal was filed by the delinquent Government Servant against his conviction, and the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence and the accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. The Vigilance Commissioner also desired to reiterate the existing instructions for the strict compliance.

7. Accordingly, the instructions issued in the reference 1st to 9th cited are reiterated for strict compliance. A book containing the copies of the above instructions has already been made available to all Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors for their guidance in dealing with disciplinary cases. The A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 have been reissued and the new A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 have come into force with effect from 01-10-1992. Wherever it is proposed to initiate disciplinary action, the same shall be taken up strictly as per the provision contained in the New Rules, 1991.

8. It is the earnest endeavour of the Government to root out corruption and deal sternly with the corrupt officials. The employees convicted in criminal cases/corruption cases should be punished in the least possible time.

9. Government, therefore, direct that the above instructions shall be followed scrupulously and any lapse on the part of the concerned authority in implementing the order shall be viewed seriously and disciplinary action initiated against such erring officials.

8. Disciplinary cases – Awarding the Penalty to Delinquent Officers Further Orders – Issued.

(G.O.Ms.No. 2, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 04-01-99)

Ref : – 1. Cir. Memo. No. 3037/Ser.C/64-3, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 26-11-1964.

2. Government Memo. No. 1718/Ser.C/75-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 22-11-1975.

3. Cir. Memo. No. 3824/Ser. C/98-2, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 09-02-1998.

Order: – In the Memo. first read above, instructions were issued, among others, that in proved cases of bribery and corruption, no punishment other than that of dismissal be considered adequate and if any lesser punishment is to be awarded in such cases adequate reasons should be given for it in writing. In the Memo. second read above, instructions were issued to the effect that the officers convicted in Criminal Cases should normally be dismissed from service. The above instructions have been reiterated for strict compliance vide the reference third read above.

2. It is the earnest endeavour of the Government to ensure a clean and transparent administration. To have this policy transcended to the grass root level, it is keenly felt that the officers with doubtful integrity involved in criminal offences shall be weeded out in order to ensure efficient functioning. To ensure clean and efficient administration, the Government direct that in all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from service shall be imposed.

9. Disciplinary cases against members of service – Consultation with Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Regulation 17 for awarding major penalties – Clarification – Issued.

(Memo. No. 32667/Ser. C/98-8, G.A. (Ser. C) D, dated 13-05-99)

Ref : – From the Secretary, A.P. P. S. C. Letter No.1359/RT/1/1/98, dated 7-5-99.

Order: – Under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963, it shall be necessary to consult the Commission, where the State Government propose to pass an original order imposing any of the following penalties, as per Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 :

(i) reduction to lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time scale whether in the same service or in another service, State or Subordinate or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to a local body by negligence or breach of orders;

(iii) compulsory retirement otherwise than under Note 1 to Article 465-A of the Civil Service Regulations;

(iv) removal from service ;

(v) dismissal;

(vi) stoppage of increment(s) with cumulative effect.

2. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that the Disciplinary Authorities/Appointing Authorities, at district level and at the level of Heads of Departments are other addressing the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for concurrence to award the above mentioned penalties on the Delinquent Officers or approaching the concerned Administrative Department to obtain the concurrence of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and pass it on to them for passing final orders.

3. It is clarified that consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963 shall be necessary only where the Departments of Secretariat, at Government level propose to pass an original order of penalty against a delinquent employee as mentioned in para 1 above. Therefore, to pass an order imposing penalty as in Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 by any authority other than the Departments of Secretariat at Government level, it shall not be necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, under Regulation 17 of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963.

4. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the above clarification scrupulously.

10. Pensions – Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules 1980 can continue after retirement even in case where there is no pecuniary loss to Government – Clarification – Issued.

(Circular Memo. No. 3026/18/A2/Pen.1/99, Fin. & Plg., Department , dated 1-6-1999)

Order: – According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980, inter-alia, empowers the Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or part whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.

2. The Government have been receiving representations seeking clarifications whether disciplinary proceeding pertaining to a serious or grave misconduct or negligence committed by a Government Servant can be continued or instituted in terms of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 even if no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government.

3. According to ruling 8 under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, action can be taken under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Similar to Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980) and as per the clarification issued by the Government of India, Department of Pension and Training in O.M.No. 28027/3/87-Estt(A), dated: 29th June, 1990 even in the absence of any pecuniary loss to Government, the pension of the pensioner can be withheld or withdrawn after following due procedure for an act of misconduct or negligence committed while in service.

4. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India and others Vs. B. Dev, A.I.R. 1998, S.C. 2709, while explaining the scope of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 observed as follows :

“Rule 9 gives to the President the right of-

(1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part there of,

(2) either permanently or for a specified period, and

(3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss in caused to the Government that Loss. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable.”

5. In view of the clarification given by the Government of India, Department of Pension and Training and the rulings of the Supreme Court the Government hereby clarifies that disciplinary proceedings pertaining to a serious or grave act of misconduct/negligence committed by a Government Servant can be continued or instituted in terms of Rule 9 of R.P.Rules, 1980 or other corresponding rules, even if no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government.

11. Disciplinary cases against the Government employees – Detection of the delinquency, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, early completion of the enquiries and imposing adequate penalty – Instructions – Reiterated.

(Memo. No. 4439I/Ser.C/99, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 21-9-1999)

Ref : – 1. Government Memo No. 2261/Ser.C/79-2, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 23-10-1979.

2. U.O. Note No. 463/Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 20-12-1985.

3. Cir. Memo No. 100/Ser.C/93-22 G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 23-12-1995.

4. Cir. Memo No. 3824/Ser.C/98-2, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 09-02-1998.

5. G.O. Ms. No. 188, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 26-05-98.

6. Cir. Memo. No. 35676/Ser.C/98, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 01-07-1998.

7. G.O. Ms. No. 2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 4-1-1999.

8. Government Memo. No. 23537/Ser.C/99-5, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 28-7-1999.

Order: – Instructions have been issued from time to time for detection of the delinquencies, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, for early completion of the enquiries and for imposing penalties on the delinquent Government employees. Despite clear instructions, it is noticed that in several cases, there was undue delay in detecting the delinquency as well as in completing the enquiries, thereby the accused officer went scot free on retirement from service. The Public Accounts Committee of the State Legislature observed several times on the need for early completion of enquiries and for imposing penalties on erring Government Servants.

2. In the reference third cited, it has been requested that the departments should review all cases of misappropriation on half yearly basis and to ensure that the enquiries are completed at the earliest. The delinquencies generally noticed against the Government employees may be broadly classified as cases of misappropriation, corruption, misconduct, and dereliction of duty. As regards the corruption, the investigation is taken up by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and report submitted to the Vigilance Commission or to the Directorate of Vigilance and Enforcement. In case of misappropriation, the reports of the Public Accounts Committee of the State Legislature generally form the basis to detect the delinquency. Other agencies namely the Anti-Corruption Bureau and reports in the media are also the source of information about the misappropriation. For the misconduct the police investigation, the Anti-Corruption Bureau or departmental authorities are the sources for detection of the delinquency. The dereliction to duty is noticed by the Departmental Officers.

3. As and when, it comes to the notice of the disciplinary authority or any higher authority, it shall be necessary to take immediate steps to detect the delinquency and to initiate disciplinary action. Disciplinary action initiated shall be completed as per the time schedule prescribed in the references sixth and eighth cited. Adequate penalty should be imposed on the employees who were found guilty. In this context, the orders issued in the reference seventh cited shall be kept in view. To quote an instance, an officer “X” was involved in an irregularity and the case was brought to the notice in November, 1995. The authority concerned to initiate the disciplinary action, took two long years of time and by that time said officer retired from service. Against the retired officer no action could be taken in view of the time limit stipulated in the Pension Rules. This resulted in allowing the officer to go scot free even though he was guilty. It is absolutely necessary to remedy the situation and the existing instructions in force should be strictly followed for initiation and early completion of the enquiries and disciplinary proceedings.

4. It is reiterated that the Inquiring Authorities appointed to enquire into charges shall strive to complete the enquiries as per the time schedule indicated and however in cases where the enquiry could not be completed for various reasons in time, the enquiry can be continued. The Secretary to Government of the department concerned shall review the cases and submit a note to Chief Secretary and Chief Minister as per the instruction sixth cited.

5. The penalties awarded to the Delinquent Officers should not be reduced in a routine way. The gravity of charge and the delinquency established should be kept in view. The orders issued in the reference fifth cited should be followed.

6. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the existing instructions on detecting the delinquencies, initiation of disciplinary action and for completion of the disciplinary proceedings as per time schedule prescribed.

12. Penalties as per Rule 9 – Stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect – Currency of the penalty – Clarification – Issued.

(Cir. Memo. No. 34633/Ser.C/99, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 04-11-1999)

Ref : – G.O.Ms.No. 342, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 4-8-97.

Order: – Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 deals with “Penalties” and its classification as minor penalties and major penalties. Item (iv) specifies withholding of increment without cumulative effect which is a minor penalty and item (vi) specifies withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect which is a major penalty. The currency of these penalties and their effect on promotion was ordered in the G.O. cited. The currency of the penalty is for a minimum period of one year during which the delinquent employee shall not be recommended for promotion.

2. According to F.R. 24 an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld as a measure of punishment. An increment may be withheld from a Government Servant by the State Government, or by any authority to whom the State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments.

3. It is clarified that where the penalty of stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect is imposed, under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the increment or increments falling due immediately after the date of issue of the order should be withheld. It is also clarified that the employee whose increments were withheld shall not be recommended for promotion during the period for which the increments were ordered to be withheld with effect from the date of issue of the order imposing the penalty.

4. The District Collectors, Heads of Departments and Departments of Secretariat are requested to follow the above clarification in dealing with disciplinary cases.

13. Imposition of warning – Permissibility – Reg.

(Cir. Memo. No. 60897/Ser.C/99, G. A. (Ser.C) D, dated 12-11-1999)

Order: – It is observed in a good number of cases that final orders are being issued by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities with either “Warning” or “let off’ or “to be more careful in future” etc. None of these is a punishment listed in the A.P. Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules as a penalty under Rule 9 of the rules. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be deemed to have been concluded unless they end with one of the penalties mentioned under the C.C.A. Rules if any penalty is imposed or the Delinquent Officer is exonerated and specifically it is stated that charges are dropped. When words like warning, let off etc., are used, it is to be construed that the charges and the guilt of the Officer have been proved but a lenient view is taken and no punishment is awarded. Such action will not be in accordance with the C.C.A. Rules.

2. In view of the above, all the Departments of Secretariat are requested to keep the above in view while issuing final orders and suitably instruct the Officers under their control to clearly mention the penalty imposed if any under the C.C.A Rules or state the fact of exoneration in case the Charged Officer is proved not guilty, duly dropping the charges.

14. Disciplinary cases pending at the time of retirement – Finalisation of the proceedings and payment of interest – Orders – Issued.

(G.O. Rt. No.1034, Fin. & Plg. (FW-PEN.I) Department , dated 9-6-2000)

Order: – Generally the following two types of cases are being referred to this department for advice:

(I) Where court directed to dispose off the disciplinary case within a specified time period.

(II) Where charges are dropped and interest on pensionary benefits is claimed.

2. In respect of item (I) where in the disciplinary cases which are pending at the time of retirement and not concluded for a longer period or many years, the courts are directing to conclude such cases within a specified period i.e., say within 2 or 3 months etc., but the departments are not concluding within the specified period. As a result, the final orders issued in such cases imposing either recovery or cut in pension are being dismissed by the courts since it was not concluded within the stipulated period as directed by the courts. As such, ultimately, the accused is being escaped from the punishment due to administrative delay.

3. In the above circumstances, Government hereby order that the disciplinary cases against the retired Government servant shall be concluded as quickly as possible. If court directs to conclude the same within a specified period, it should be concluded within the said period only. If not, time may be obtained from the court to conclude the same. In such a cases, final orders issued after the period specified by the courts and the court dismisses such final order due to non-conclusion of the same within time specified by them, action against the concerned persons shall be taken for not taking prompt action within the time and loss caused if any, thereto to the Government in such cases shall be recovered from the concerned.

4. In respect of item (II) wherein the disciplinary cases which are pending at the time of retirement of the Government servant and subsequently further action was dropped, the individual is eligible for interest on retirement Gratuity from the date of issue of final orders thereon. In many cases, where charges and further action was dropped after retirement, the charged officers are requesting for interest from the date of retirement, but not from the date of final orders since charges are dropped.

5. In the above circumstances, Government hereby order that if the department decides to drop the charges, they shall take a decision as quickly as possible and they should draft the order carefully duly indicting that the individual shall be eligible for interest subject to the conditions specified under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, from the date of final orders only. For this purpose the following lines are prescribed for guidance in respect of the orders proposed to be issued in this regard.

“In the circumstances stated above, the Government have taken a lenient view and further action is hereby dropped. The individual is eligible for terminal benefits due to him from the date of issue of these orders”.

15. Pensionary benefits to the Government Servants retired from service pending disciplinary action – Action against the retired persons for their lapses – Consolidated – Orders – Issued.

(G.O. Rt. No. 1097, Fin. & Plg., dated 22-6-2000)

Ref : – 1. Memo. No. 37254/36I/A2/Pen.1/98, Fin. & Plg. (FW-Pen 1), dated 4-7-1998.

2. Memo No. 3026/18/A2/Pen.1/99, Fin. & Plg. (FW-Pen-I) Department , dated 1-6-1999.

3. Cir. Memo No. 37989-A/494/A2/Pen.I/98, Fin. & Plg., Department , dated 21-4-1999.

4. G.O. Ms. No. 11, F&P (FW-FR I) Department , dated 15-1-1997.

5. D.O. Lr. No. 368NC.A2/99, dated 17-2-2000 of Vigilance Commissioner, AP.

Order: – The Vigilance Commissioner in the reference 5th read above, has stated that references are being made to that Commission by the departments of secretariat wanting to know the terminal benefits that can be sanctioned and those that are necessarily to be withheld on retirement of an Officer facing charges in departmental proceedings or criminal prosecution. Hence he has requested to issue consolidated instructions indicating the terminal benefits that can be released and those that are to be withheld in the above referred cases, so that a lot of unnecessary file work, litigation in Courts and harassment of retired Officers can be prevented. Accordingly, the following orders are hereby issued.

2. According to the existing rules, the following are the terminal benefits to be sanctioned to a retired Government employee.

(1) Family Benefit Fund

(2) Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance amount

(3) General Provident Fund amount

(4) Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance amount

(5) Encashment of Earned Leave

(6) Retirement Gratuity

(7) Pension/Provisional Pension

(8) Commuted Value of Pension

3. In case of Government Employees against whom the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, all the above terminal benefits need not be released. Proceedings pending means, there must be proceedings already initiated and pending within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. A Government Servant who attains the age of superannuation while under suspension should be allowed to retire on the due date of superannuation. But pensionary benefits can not be settled until the conclusion of the enquiry or disposal of charges. In such cases, the payment of terminal benefits shall be regulated as follows:

A. The following amounts shall be paid to the retired employee since no recoveries can be made from these amounts:

1. Family Benefit Fund.

2. Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance Scheme

3. General Provident Fund

4. Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance.

B. Encashment of Earned Leave: – As per the orders issued in G.0 fourth read above, the authority competent to grant leave, in the above mentioned cases may with hold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave, if in the view of the competent authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion, the retired employee will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of the Government dues, if any. As such, Encashment of Earned Leave can be regulated accordingly.

C. Retirement Gratuity: – According to clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no Gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders. According to the proviso to the above said rule, where depaltuiental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 of the said rules, except the cases falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant. It is also further provided in the said rule that where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be withheld or withdrawn and the retirement gratuity remains unaffected in the contemplated final orders, the retirement gratuity can be released upto 80% of the eligible retirement gratuity.

D. Provisional Pension: – 1. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the retired employees mentioned in the above cases shall be sanctioned provisional pension as provided in Rule 52 of the said rules. According to Rule 52 of the said rules, the Audit Officer/Head of Office shall pay the provisional Pension not exceeding the eligible pension. The provisional pension shall be paid from the date of retirement to the date on which, final orders are passed by the competent authority on conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retired employee. The Provisional Pension shall not be less than 75% of the normal pension entitlement.

2. Pension sanctioning authorities are competent to sanction provisional pension to the Non Gazetted Officers. It shall be sanctioned by the Government in the case of Gazetted Officers.

3. In the above mentioned cases, the department shall send pension papers to the Accountant General and it should be mentioned in the forwarding letter that departmental/judicial proceedings are pending an.’ with a request to indicate only the quantum of pension that would be admissible which should not be released till further orders as only provisional pension has to be released. The Accountant General may then verify the pensionary benefits admissible and indicate the quantum of Pension, where upon, the Head of the department may intimate the quantum of provisional pension for payment in case of Gazetted Officers, so that Government will sanction the same. The Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad will straight way authorise the minimum provisional pension i. e., 75% of the quantum of pension verified by his office, pending sanction by the pension sanctioning authority and that if the appropriate authority sanctions more than 75% of the eligible pension as provisional pension, the Accountant General will issue an amendment accordingly.

E. Commuted value of Pension: – No commutation of pension shall be allowed in the above mentioned cases since sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Commutation Rules, do not permit a Government servant against whom judicial or departmental proceedings has been instituted or pending, to commute any part of his pension during the pendency of such proceedings. Further, in the case of those to whom only provisional pension is granted, if after conclusion, entire pension is withheld, the question of commutation does not arise. In the case of others to whom pension was allowed either in full or in part, the period of one year for commutation without medical examination has to be reckoned from the date of issue of orders on conclusion of the proceedings.

4. Action against a retired officer who commits irregularities can be taken on three counts: (1) Criminal Prosecution; (2) Disciplinary action; and (3) Recovery of the amount ;

In case of the death of the retired officer, action on first two counts will abate but as per the orders issued in the G.O. Ms. No. 85, Finance and Planning (FW-Pen I) Department, dated 12-7-1999, the loss or mis-appropriated amounts can be recovered from the terminal benefits of the retired officer.

5. If any irregularity of a retired employee is noticed after his retirement and no departmental proceedings can be instituted under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the department can initiate criminal action against the retired officer or action under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to recover the loss if any caused to the Government by him.

16. Dismissal of accused officers from service immediately on conviction even if the appeal filed by him is pending before the Appellate court – Government Servants convicted are not eligible to be in service till they are honourably acquitted by the Appellate Court.

[Memo. No. 1621/SPL.B/2001-1, G.A.(SPLB) Department , dated 26-11-2001]

Order: – The Supreme Court in its latest judgement in K.C.Sareen Vs. CBI Chandigarh, 2001(5) Supreme 437 decided on 2-8-2001 as follows:

“Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the Republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could gamer momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence, it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence or imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction inspite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision”.

In the light of the above categorical direction of the Supreme Court, Government hereby instructs that to take action forthwith for dismissal of public servants convicted of corruption and criminal misconduct immediately upon such conviction without waiting for any appeal and that the appointing/disciplinary authorities will be personally held responsible for non-implementation of these instructions and that they will be liable for disciplinary action if inspite of these instructions it is found convicted officers continuing in service without being dismissed immediately or continue to receive provisional pension if they have already retired in the meantime without action to withhold pension and other pensionary benefits or withdraw pension entirely as the case may be disregarding these instructions. It is also directed that salary/ pension/ provisional pension paid after the judgement convicting the accused public servant shall be liable to be recovered from the appointing authority. Consultation with Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in such cases has also been dispensed with.

All Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to oppose any application for the suspension of conviction in such cases quoting the above judgement of the Supreme Court.

All Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to follow the above instructions Scrupulously and also to communicate the above instructions to the public enterprises, autonomous bodies and other institutions receiving grant-in-aid, etc., under their administrative control.

17. Misappropriation of funds – Procedural instructions to deal with misappropriation cases – Further orders – Issued.

(Cir. Memo. No. 51375/Ser.C/2002.-2, G.A.(Ser. C) Department , dated 28-11-2002)

Ref. : – 1. Memo. No. 3000/Ser.G/76-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-06-1977.

2. Memo. No. 2106/Ser.C/77-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 27-10-1977.

3. Memo. No. 2261/Ser.C/79-2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 23-10-1979.

4. U.O. Note No. 646/Ser.C/80-1, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 21-07-1980.

5. U.O. Note No. 32/Ser.C/81-2, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 09-02-1981.

6. U.O. Note No. 4637Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 20-12-1985.

7. Circular Memo. No. 100/Ser.C/93-22, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 23-12-1995.

8. G.O.Ms. Mo. 2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 04-01-1999.

9. Memo. No. 44391/Ser.C/99, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 21-09-1999.

Order: – Instructions were issued, time and again, for prompt action in dealing with the cases of misappropriation of Government money.

2. A study of few major misappropriation cases in different Departments has revealed serious short comings in the matter in which such cases are being dealt with. It is keenly felt necessary to plug the loopholes in the management of Government money and to take stern action against the employees / persons responsible for the misuse /misappropriation, by initiating disciplinary action, criminal action and to recover the amount. The existing instructions have been reviewed and the following further instructions are issued:

(1) Internal inspections /audit of the Accounts should be carried out as per a specific schedule in each Department. The drawing officer of the Department should be -held responsible for the maintenance, inspection and audit of the Accounts. The unit head of the Department shall review the procedure being followed in incurring the expenditure. Such review should be submitted to the Heads of Departments concerned.

The Heads of Departments shall review the expenditure incurred with an objective whether the expenditure is strictly as per norms prescribed, for every 4 months and shall submit the same to the Secretary to Government concerned.

As per the instructions issued in Circular Memo. No. 100/Ser.C/93-22, General Administrative (Ser.C) Department, dated 23-12-1995, the Secretary of the Department concerned shall review all the misappropriation cases at an interval of 6 months and shall submit such review to the General Administrative (Ser.C) Department.

(2) As and when a misappropriation embezzlement case is noticed a Complaint shall be registered with Locals Police or the case may be entrusted to the criminal investigation Department for investigation. The instructions issued in the U.O. Note No. 32/Ser.C/81-2: General Administrative (Ser.C) Department, dated 09¬02-1981 should be scrupulously followed.

(3) Simultaneously disciplinary action shall be taken against those who are responsible for misappropriation and those who failed to supervise the accounts and conducting audit as per schedule which led to the offence.

The instructions issued in the following references shall be followed:

1. Memo. No. 2261/Ser.C/79-2, GA(Ser.C) Department , dated 23-10-79.

2. U.O. Note No. 646/Ser.C/80-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 21-07-1980.

3. U.O. Note. No. 463/Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 20-12-1985.

4. The policy of the Government is to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the officers who are convicted in a criminal case by Court of Law. In G.O. Ms. No. 2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department dated 04.01.1999, orders have been issued that in all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from services shall be imposed.

(4) The amount misappropriated shall be recovered from the Government employees who are responsible for misappropriation. The recovery shall be from the Pay, Pension and other retirement benefits. The attachment of the property shall be as per law by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

3. All the Departments of Secretariat, the Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the instructions. They are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance.

18. Maintenance of Lists of Officers of Doubtful integrity and Suspect Officers – Instructions – Issued.

(G.O. Ms. No. 232, G.A.(Spl-C) Department , dated 06-08-2003)

Order: – Government places highest importance on providing clean and corruption free administration in the State. The Government have examined practices of the Government of India in maintaining an annual list of officers of Doubtful Integrity and obtaining Vigilance Clearance for promotions of Senior Officers from the Central Vigilance Commission, and decided to implement the practice of the Government of India. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the High Level Committee on Anti-Corruption and the Committee in its meeting held on 26-10-2002 agreed that within a time span of three months the exercise for preparation of the following documents should be completed by all Departments in consultation with the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.

(a) List of Officers of Doubtful Integrity

(b) Agreed list of Suspect Officers

(c) List of Points or places of corruption

(d) List of unscrupulous contractors, suppliers and firms

(e) List of Unscrupulous contact-men

2. After examining the recommendation of the High Level Committee on Anti Corruption, the Government hereby order that the above lists should be maintained by the Secretaries of the Departments of Secretariat. The procedure for maintaining lists is as follows:

List Of Public Servants Of Gazetted Status Of Doubtful Integrity:

It will include names of those Gazetted officers only who, after enquiry or during the course of enquiry, have been found to be lacking in integrity. It will thus include the names of the officers falling under one of the following categories:

(i) Convicted in a court of law on a charge of lack of integrity or for an offence involving moral turpitude but on whom, in view of exceptional circumstances, a penalty other than dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is imposed.

(ii) Awarded departmentally a major penalty

(a) On Charges of lack of integrity

(b) On charges of gross dereliction of duty in protecting the interests of Government although the corrupt motive may not be capable of proof.

(iii) Against whom proceedings for a major penalty or a court trial are in progress for alleged acts involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude.

(iv) Who were prosecuted but acquitted on technical grounds and in whose case on the basis of evidence during the trial there remained a reasonable suspicion against their integrity.

The names of the officers of the following categories should not be included in these lists:

(a) Officers who have been cleared or honourably acquitted as a result of disciplinary proceedings or court trial.

(b) Officers against whom an enquiry or investigation has not brought forth sufficient evidence for recommending even a disciplinary case.

(c) Officers who have been convicted of offences not involving lack of integrity or moral turpitude.

(d) Officers against whom disciplinary proceedings have been completed or are in progress in respect of administrative lapses, minor violation of Conduct Rules and the like.

3. These lists are intended to keep the Departments/Public Undertakings concerned informed about such officers of doubtful integrity to ensure that they are not posted to sensitive assignments and that this fact is given due consideration when deciding administrative matters affecting the services of these officers. These lists would also help the departments to know about the officers, whose work and conduct need both special attention and close supervision and scrutiny.

4. The Vigilance Organization of Departments will prepare a list of public servants of Gazetted status against whom any disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty are in progress or who have been punished in disciplinary proceedings on a charge involving lack of integrity. A copy of these lists will be sent by the department in respect of all departments under them to the ACB every year in the last week of February. As soon as adverse report against the officer of the nature mentioned above is received, the Vigilance Officer should bring it to the notice of the Secretary/ Head of the Department concerned immediately. A decision in regard to the inclusion of the name of such officer in the list should be taken as soon as possible. The ACB will suggest addition or deletion of names on the basis of information available with them and return the lists to Secretaries concerned, who would in turn furnish the list to the Heads of Department/Chief Executives of Public Enterprises. The purpose of maintenance of these lists is also to enable the Departments to take such administrative action as is necessary and feasible. The following courses of administrative action are open:

(i) Withholding certificate of integrity.

(ii) Transfer from “sensitive” post.

(iii) Non-promotion after consideration of his case, to a service grade or post to which he is eligible for promotion.

(iv) Compulsory retirement in the public interest (otherwise than as penalty) in accordance with the order issued by the Government. This is now permissible on completion of the age of 50 with certain exceptions.

(v) Refusal of extension of service or re-employment either under Government or in public sector undertakings.

(vi) Non-sponsoring of names for foreign assignment/deputation.

(vii) Refusal of permission for commercial re-employment after retirement.

When the name of the officer has been entered in the list, it will not be removed until a period of three years has elapsed. The period of 3 years for which the name will be current on the list will count from the date of punishment in the disciplinary proceedings or from the date of conviction in a court trial. On the conclusion of the period, the cases of such officers may be reviewed by the Department in consultation with ACB and if during the intervening period there has been no further complaint against the officer touching on his integrity the name may be removed from the list. If at the time of review, it is proposed to continue the name of the officer on the list, cogent reasons for doing so should exist. In the event of the officer being transferred to another Department/Public Undertaking, the fact of the officer’s name being on the list, undertaking should be furnished to the Department under copy to the ACB. List of such officers once every year i.e., in June through the Secretaries to Government. It will be the duty of the Chief Vigilance Officer Nigilance Officer of the department/Public undertaking to maintain these lists up-to-date. The list will be treated as “SECRET” and the Secretary/Head of the Department/Chief Executive of Public undertaking will be responsible for its safe custody.