Executive Instruction
1. Empowering the District Collectors for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the District Officials
[G.O.Ms.No. 77, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 27-2-19961
Order: – The need for effective coordination of administration of District levet and for smooth implementation of various Programmes/Schemes is keenly felt. The District Collectors were stating that in many cases, the District Officers were not keeping the Collectors informed when going on leave. The Collectors were also mentioning that some minimum powers of taking disciplinary action should be given to the Collectors so that the Collectors would be able to exercise effective control over the District Officers. Their submission was that even if they initiate action and if it is followed up by the Head of the Department, it would still serve the desired objective.
2. The District Collector is empowered to impose on Tahsildars now called the Mandal Revenue Officers the penalties of censure, withholding of increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect. According to the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the District Collector is not empowered with any disciplinary powers on any other Departmental Official. The District Collector is the modal authority at the District level to coordinate, monitor and supervise the activities of the different departments to ensure smooth and effective implementation of the Government policies. To achieve the desired objective, it is considered necessary to empower the District Collector with disciplinary powers on the Government Officials irrespective of the Department to which they belong whenever there is serious lapse on their part.
3. Under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, “disciplinary authority” means the authority competent under the rules to impose on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 or Rule 10. While usually the appointing authority is the disciplinary authority, Rule 11 of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, specified the various disciplinary authorities to inflict specified penalties in respect of the State Services. According to sub-rule (27) thereunder :
(i) every Head of Department may impose on a member of the State Service under his control, the penalty specified in clause (iii) of rule 9, except in the case of such member holding a post immediately below his rank; and
(ii) every Head of Department declared to be the appointing authority may impose on a member of the State Service holding an initial Gazetted post under his control any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (vii) of Rule 9.
4. According to Rule 12, notwithstanding anything in Rule 11, the Government may impose any of the penalties specified on the members of the State Services. By virtue of this provision, the State Government may inflict any penalty on a member of either a State or Sub-ordinate Service, irrespective of the fact whether it is the appointing authority or not.
5. According to Rule 19(1) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, the Government or any other authority empowered by it by general or special order may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant.
6. Government, therefore, hereby authorise the District Collectors to initiate disciplinary action against erring District Officials by issuing Show Cause Notice and obtain their explanations. Thereafter, basing on the merits of the Explanation, the District Collectors should send the material to the concerned Head of the Department or Government for taking further necessary action. The District Collectors are advised to resort to the aforesaid process sparingly and in exceptional circumstances only.
2. Delegation of Disciplinary powers to Regional Officers and Heads of Departments – Reg.
(Memo. No. 32665/Ser.C/99-2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 27-10-1999)
Ref :– G.O. Ms. No. 428, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 13-10-1999.
Order: – In the order cited, amendments have been issued to Rule 11 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, empowering the Heads of Departments to impose penalties specified in clauses (i) to (viii) of Rule 9 on first and second level officers in the State Service. Rule 13 was also amended to confer disciplinary powers on Regional authority, whenever it exists, to place under suspension the officer holding the post of first level category in State service and where no such authority exists, the Head of the Department is empowered to place under suspension the first and second level officers in the State Service.
2. The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to take expeditious action to identify and designate the authorities in the respective service and departments the disciplinary authorities in accordance with the order cited and issue executive orders immediately. In processing the issue, they are requested to keep in view the authorities designated as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 (Presidential Order) issued by the General Administrator (SPF.A) Department. The orders issued by the Departments of Secretariat shall be furnished to the General Administrator (Ser.C) Department to take action for issue of amendments to the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
12. Government’s power to impose penalties on members of State Services: – Notwithstanding anything in Rule 11, the Government may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 on members of the State Services.
13. Authorities competent to suspend members of State Services: – The authority which may place under suspension under Rule 8 on members of the State Services mentioned in column (1) of the table below shall be the authority mentioned in column (2) thereof :
TABLE
Class of members of the State Service | Authority which may place under suspension under Rule 8 | |
| 1. Members of the State Judicial Service. | High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. | |
| 2. Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildars) (including Mandal Revenue Officers, Civil Supplies), Assistant Civil Supply Officers (Civil Supplies), Assistant Excise Superintendents (including Chemical Examiner) and Deputy Commercial Tax Officers. | Commissioners concerned. [The District Collectors are empowered to place to Mandal Revenue Officers (Tahsildar Cadre) under suspension for a period of three months and to obtain the approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, if the suspension period has to be extended beyond the period of three months]. | |
| [2A. Mandal Parishad Development Officers, Divisional Panchayat Officers, Extension Officers (Panchayats), Extension Officers (Rural Development), Executive Officers (Gram Panchayats)] | Collector and District Magistrate | |
| 3. Section Officer in the Departments of Secretariat and Governor’s Secretariat. | Chief Secretary to Government Principal Secretary to Government , Second Secretary to Government , Special Secretary to Government or the Secretary to Governor, as the case my be. | |
| [3(A) Private Secretaries to Secretaries to Government in the Departments of Secretariat and Governor’s Secretariat.] | Chief Secretary to Government, Principal Secretary to Government , Second Secretary to Government , Secy. to Gov., Special Secy to Government. or the Secretary to Governor, as the case may be. | |
| [4.(i) Assistant Executive Engineers (Irrigation) (ii) Deputy Executive Engineer (Irrigation)] | Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Superintendent Engineer, (Irrigation)] | |
| 5. Asst. Research Officers in the Engineering Research Department. | Chief Engineer incharge Engineering Research Department . | |
| 6. (i) Deputy Executive Engineers, Roads and Buildings Department. (ii) Non Technical Personal Asst. to the Chief Engineer (Roads & Buildings) | (i) Engineer in Chief (R&B). (ii) Chief Engineer concerned to whom the Non-Technical Personal Assistant is attached. | |
| [7.(i) Assistant Executive Engineers (Public Health) (ii) Deputy Executive Engineer (Public Health)] | Executive Engineer (Public Health) Superintendent Engineer (Public Health) | |
| 8. Deputy Executive Engineer of Panchayat Raj Engineering Department-Non-Technical Personal Assts. to the Chief Engineer (Gent. & P.R.) | Chief Engineer ( General & P.R.) | |
| 9. Civil Assistant Surgeons and Health Officers. | Director of Medical Education or Inspector-General of Prisons if the misconduct relates to professional duties of Jail discipline. | |
| 10. Statistical Officers and Medical Officers (Maternity and Child Health), Grade-II. | Director of Medical Education | |
| 11. Lay Secretary and Treasurers in Government Medical Institutions. | Director of Medical Education or Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy as the case may be. | |
| 12. Members in Class IV of the Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Service. | Director of Animal Husbandry. | |
| 14. Inspector or Inspectress of Factories, Inspector of Boilers, District Inspector of Labour, Inspector of Evaluation and Implementation and Administrative Officers (Subsidised Housing Scheme). | Commissioner of Labour. | |
| 15. Inspectors of Police, Reserve Inspectors, Armed Reserve, Reserve Inspectors of Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Inspectors of Police, Shorthand Bureau, Inspectors of Police, Communications, Inspectors of Police, Transport Organisation, Inspectors of Women Police. | Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Police or Officer of corresponding rank concerned. | |
| 16. Deputy Director working in the Department of Printing and in its various wings. | Director of Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase, Hyd. | |
| [16(a) Assistant Conservator of Forest working in the Forest Department.] | [Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.](Added by G.O. Ms. No. 496, G.A.D., dated 29-11-1996) | |
| [17. (a) Other members of State Services holding initial Gazetted post.(b) Other members of State Services holding second level Gazetted post.] | Regional authority or where no regional authority exists, the Head of the Department. Heads of Departments concerned. | |
14. Disciplinary Authorities and Authorities competent to suspend, in respect of Subordinate Services: – (1)(a) (i) The authority which may place a member of a Subordinate Service under suspension under Rule 8 or impose on such member the penalties specified in clause (i) of Rule 10 and clauses (i) and (iv) of Rule 9 shall be his immediate superior gazetted officer or where the appointing authority for such member is a non¬gazetted officer, such officer, or any authority to which he is subordinate;
(b) (i) The authority which may impose, on a member of a Subordinate Service, the penalty specified in clause (iii) of Rule 9 shall be the officer next above the immediate superior gazetted officer :
Provided that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate may also impose the aforesaid penalty;
Provided further that the Assistant Excise Superintendent, Tahsildar, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Personal Assistant to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, except to the extent provided in the first proviso to sub-rule (2), shall not exercise the powers vested in a gazetted officer under this sub-rule; but such powers shall be exercised by Superintendent of Excise, Revenue Divisional Officer, Commercial Tax Officer, Superintendent of Police or Additional Superintendent of Police, as the case may be;
Provided also that in the case of the members belonging to the categories of officers specified in Appendix II to these rules, the authority which may impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 or place under suspension under Rule 8 shall be as specified thereof against each such category.
(2) (i) The authority which may impose on a member of a Subordinate Service, the penalties specified in [clauses (ii) and (v) to (x)] of Rule 9 shall be the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate :
Provided that in case of the members of the Services specified in Appendix III to these rules, the authority which may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 and clause (i) of Rule 10, shall be as specified thereof against each;
Provided further that in case of a member of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service or the Andhra Pradesh Special Armed Police Service, the authority which may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 9, shall be as specified against each of the categories in Appendix IV;
Provided also that the Superintendent, Forest School, Yellandu, Forest Utilisation Officer, State Sylviculturist, Working Plan Officer or District Forest Officer concerned, as the case may be, or any authority to which it is subordinate, may impose the penalty specified in clause (ii) of Rule 10 on Government servants mentioned in sub-clause (a) thereof;
Provided also that the authority specified as competent to impose the penalty of suspension under clause (v) of Rule 9 in Appendix IV, as the case may be, or any authority to which it is subordinate may impose the penalty specified in clause (ii) of Rule 10 on Government servants mentioned in sub-clause (b) thereof;
Provided also that the Additional Director of Fire Service or the Regional Fire Officer concerned, as the case may be, or any authority to which it is subordinate may impose the penalty specified in clause (ii) of Rule 10 on Government servants mentioned in sub-clause (c) thereof.
15. Power of appointing authority etc., to suspend members of State and Subordinate Services: – Notwithstanding anything in these rules, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate including Government may also place under suspension under Rule 8, any member of a Service to whom these rules apply.
16. Disciplinary authority in case of promotion or transfer of a member of a Service and a reversion or reduction therefrom: – (1) Where, on promotion or transfer, a member of a service in a class, category or grade is holding an appointment in another class, category or grade thereof or in another Service, State or Subordinate, no penalty shall be imposed upon him in respect of his work or conduct before such promotion or transfer except by authority competent to impose the penalty upon a member of the Service in the latter class, category, grade or service, as the case may be. This provision shall apply also to cases of transfer or promotion of a person from a post under the jurisdiction of one authority to that of another authority within the same class, category or grade:
Provided that the authority which may impose any of the penalties on a member of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service or the Andhra Pradesh Special Armed Police Service or the Deputy Superintendent of Police or Assistant Commissioner of Police in Category 2 and the Inspector of Police in Category 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Service in cases not involving promotion or appointment by transfer, shall be the competent authority having jurisdiction over such member at the time of commission of such act or omission, as the case may be, or any authority to which it is subordinate;
Provided further that in case of a member of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service or the Andhra Pradesh Special Armed Police Service, an Officer superior to the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer a record of enquiry in a disciplinary case, from the competent authority to any other authority holding the same rank for disposal.
(2) Where a person has been reverted or reduced from a State Service to a Subordinate Service, or from one Service to another or from one class, category or grade of a Service to another class, category or grade thereof, no penalty shall be imposed upon him in respect of his work or conduct while he was a member of the service, class, category or grade, as the case may be, from which he was reverted or reduced, except by an authority competent to impose the penalty upon a member of such service, class, category or grade.
17. Special Provision in respect of Police Officials employed in Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vigilance and Enforcement Department and Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta: – No member of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service or an Inspector of Police employed in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Department of Vigilance and Enforcement, General Administration Department or under the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta shall be compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed from service during the period of his employment in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Department of Vigilance and Enforcement, General Administration Department or under the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta for a period of three years from the date on which he ceased to be employed therein, without the previous sanction of the State Government;
Provided that the previous sanction of the State Government shall not be necessary for compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal of a member of the Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service or an Inspector of Police employed in the Anti-Corruption Bureau, the Department of Vigilance and Enforcement, General Administration Department or under the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta, for any act done by him prior to his employment therein.
18. Lower authority not to reopen case : Higher authority can exercise power: – (1) Where in any case a higher authority has imposed or declined to impose a penalty under Rule 11,12 or 14, a lower authority shall have no jurisdiction to proceed under these rules in respect of the same case.
(2) Where in any case a lower authority has imposed a penalty or exonerated a member of a service, it shall not debar a higher authority from exercising his powers under these rules in respect of the same case. The order of such higher authority shall supersede any order passed by a lower authority in respect of the same case.
19. Authority to institute proceedings: – (1) The Government or any other authority empowered by it by general or special order may-
(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant;
(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 or Rule 10.
(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9 or in Rule 10 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in [clauses (vi) to (x)] of Rule 9 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties.
Executive Instructions
1. Procedure for imposing major penalties – Examination of Charged Officer by the Presenting Officer – Clarification.
[Memo. No. 650/Ser.-C/94-3, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 6-1-1995]
Ref: – From the Director of Treasuries & Accounts Lr.No. K1/29602/94-3, dated 15-11-94.
Order: – With reference to the letter cited the Director of Treasuries and Accounts is informed that the departmental enquiry is not a dispute between two parties to be decided by a third party. It is only a proceeding instituted by the Government as employer, to satisfy itself if the employee has committed misconduct. Technicalities of Criminal Law and the proof prescribed by Evidence Act are not applicable to departmental enquiries; but the Enquiry Officer has to follow the Rules governing departmental enquiries and also the principles of natural justice.
Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991 lays down the procedure to be followed during departmental enquiry. Sub-rules (16) to (18) of Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991 operate after the “Presenting Officer” adduces the evidence in support of the charges framed against the delinquent officer. Rule 20 (16) lays down that after the case of the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant (i.e., delinquent) shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing, as he may prefer. Thereafter, (as per Rule 20 (17)) evidence on behalf of the delinquent officer should be adduced. As per rule 20 (18), if the Government servant has not examined himself, the inquiring authority may generally question the delinquent on the circumstances appearing against him in evidence, for the purpose of enabling the Government Servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The object of examining the delinquent is only to give him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced against him (i.e., the delinquent).
In view of the above, the points raised in the letter cited are clarified as follows :
Point Raised | Clarification |
| (i)Whether the charged Officer can be examined / cross examined by the presenting officer, to elicit truth in support of the Articles of Charge; when the Charged Officer does not prefer to the examination of himself as a Defence Witness and when there are no other defence witnesses in this case. | “No.” |
| (ii)Whether the enquiry officer can examine and cross examine, if necessary the charged officer in detail in the absence of any specific provision for examination of charged officer by the Presenting Officer. | The Charged Officer cannot be examined or cross examined by the Presenting Officer or the Inquiry Officer to elicit truth in support of the articles of Charge when the charged officer does not prefer to examine himself or examine any witnesses. |
| (iii)Whether the Defence Assistant for one Charged Officer can examine/cross examine the other charged officers in the same case, when he prefers to do so. | Defence Assistant for one Charged Officer can examine the other Charged Officer only if the other Charged Officer volunteers to give evidence. But a charged Officer cannot be compelled to give evidence at the instance of the other Charged Officer. When one Charged Officer chooses to examine himself as a witness, the defence assistant of (or) the other Charged Officer, can cross examine, him, especially when such Charged Officer (who choose to examine himself) were to speak anything incriminating against the other Charged Officer. |
2. Taking the assistance of retired Government Employees – Further Instructions – Issued.
[Memo.No. 657/Ser. C/94-4, G.A. (Ser.-C), dated 9-3-1995]
Order: – Rule 20(8)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 provides that the Government Servant may also take the assistance of a retired Government Servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government from time to time by general or special order in his behalf.
2. In O.M.No. 11012/2-Estt. (A), dated 22-5-1992, the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, have stipulated certain conditions for engaging retired Government Employees by the delinquent Government Servants, to present their case in departmental disciplinary proceedings. Keeping this in view, the following conditions are stipulated in regard to taking of assistance of retired Government employees by the delinquent Government Servants to present their case in departmental proceedings in terms of Rule 20(8)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991-
(i) The retired Government Employee concerned should have retired from service under the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
(ii) If the retired Government Employee is also a legal practitioner, the restrictions on engaging a legal practitioner by a delinquent Government Servant to present the case on his behalf, contained in Rule 20(8)(b) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 would apply.
(iii) The retired Government Employees concerned should not have, in any manner, been associated with the case at investigation stage or otherwise, in his/ her official capacity.
(iv) The retired Government Employee concerned should not act as Defence Assistant in more than five cases at a time. The retired Government Employee should satisfy the Inquiry Officer that he/she does not have more than five cases at hand including the case in question.
3. The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to bring to the notice of all concerned disciplinary authorities the above instructions and to follow them scrupulously.
3. Rule 20(5)(c) – Appointment of Legal Practitioners as the ‘Presenting Officers’.
[Memo.No. 22/Ser.-C/93-3, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 1-5-1993]
Ref: – 1. G.O.Ms.No. 487, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 14-9-92.
2. U.O. Note No. 27/Ch. C01/93-1, dated 18-1-93.
Order: – According to sub-rule 5(c) of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 where the disciplinary authority itself inquiries into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as the “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.
2. The Chairman, Commissionerate of Inquiries in his U.O. Note 2nd cited, while quoting a case where the disciplinary authority has appointed a Government Servant as “Presenting Officer” who is lower in rank than the Charged Officer, has stated that such difference between the Charged Officer and Presenting Officer might result in putting the Presenting Officer under pressure, which would impair the effectiveness of the Presenting Officer. He has, therefore, suggested to issue instructions to all concerned, that, whenever a disciplinary authority, under Rule 20(5)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 proposed to appoint a Government Servant as Presenting Officer, such Presenting Officer should be senior to the Charged Officer and occupying a higher rank than the Charged Officer in the hierarchy.
3. The suggestions of the Chairman, Commissionerate of Inquiries, has been examined in consultation with Law Department and it is decided to accept the suggestion of the Chairman, Commissionerate of Inquiries. The Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are therefore, informed that whenever a disciplinary authority, under Rule 20(5)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, proposes to appoint a Government servant as “Presenting Officer”, it should be ensured that such Presenting Officer should be senior to the Charged Officer and occupying a higher rank than the Charged Officer in the hierarchy. In the Departments where there are no higher level position/ functionaries, disciplinary authority may consider to appoint a legal practitioner as Presenting Officer, under the existing provision in Rule 20(5)(c) of the CCA Rules, 1991.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat and all the Heads of Departments are requested to adhere to the above instructions scrupulously and bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates.
4. Appointment of Enquiry Officer under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 without following the procedure set out under Sub-rule (3) & (4) of Rule 20.
[Cir. Memo. No. 290/Ser.C/94-2, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 1-6-1994]
Order: – The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and Collectors are aware that the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1963 have been repealed by the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 which came into effect from 1-10-1992.
2. The new Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 corresponds to old Rule 19(2) which deals with the procedure for imposing a major penalty. The new Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991, prescribes entirely a new procedure for conducting an enquiry by the disciplinary authority where it is proposed to impose a major penalty prescribed under the said Rules. Some of the salient features of the new rule are given below for immediate guidance of the disciplinary authority/enquiry authority :
(i) For imposition of a major penalty an enquiry should be conducted either under the CCA Rules, or the Public Servant (Enquiry Act).
(ii) The disciplinary authority may itself conduct the enquiry or appoint an inquiry authority to conduct the enquiry.
(iii) The disciplinary authority itself can prepare or cause the preparation of the articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour.
(iv) The articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct and list of witnesses and documents should be served on the Government servant by the disciplinary authority or at its instance and the Government servant should be required to submit the statement of defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.
(v) The disciplinary authority on receipt of statement of defence or where no statement of defence is received within the stipulated time, conduct the enquiry itself or appoint an inquiry authority to do so.
3. It may be noted from the above that as per the old rules, the inquiry officer used to be in the picture right from the start of the disciplinary proceedings, whereas under the new rules he comes into picture only when the disciplinary authority, after considering the statement of defence submitted by the Government servants, decides to appoint an Inquiry Authority from conducting an inquiry.
4. It is brought to the notice of Government that the disciplinary authorities appointing the Inquiry Officers straight away on receipt of a complaint against a Government servant without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 20(3),(4) the new A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 in the first instance. Such a course of action evidently which is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the new rules is liable to be set aside when questioned in a Court of Law. It is, therefore, impressed on the disciplinary authorities that they should invariably follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20(3),(4) of the CCA Rules, 1991 before they consider the appointment of an inquiry authority. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure will be viewed seriously.
5. As per the provision of the new CCA Rules articles of charges, etc., will have to be prepared or got prepared by the disciplinary authority. Needless to say that the articles of charge form the basis of enquiry. Therefore utmost care and diligence is required to be taken while drawing up the articles of charges, as any defect or deficiency in the articles of charges will ultimately lead to vitiation of the entire proceedings. The disciplinary authority/inquiry authority should see that the charges are specific without any ambiguity and are fully supported by documentary evidence.
6. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and Collectors are requested to strictly follow the above procedure prescribed in the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991. Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance.
5. Appointment of Enquiry Officer under sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 duly following the Procedure laid down in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 20 – Instructions – Reiterated.
(Cir. Memo. No. 95941/Ser.C/97-2, G. A..(Ser.C) Department , dated 8-1-1998)
Ref. : – Circular Memo. No. 290/Ser.C94-2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 1-6-1994.
Order: – In the reference cited (copy enclosed) instructions were issued to the effect that the procedure laid down in sub-rules (3) and (4) shall be followed before appointing the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against any Government Servant.
2. Instances have come to notice of the Government that the procedure detailed in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is not being followed before appointing Enquiry Officer. In most of the cases, the Enquiry Officers are appointed even without framing and serving articles of charge on the delinquent officer which do not stand for legal scrutiny. Consequently, the entire process is vitiated resulting the delinquent officer scot-free due to their retirement.
3. Keeping the above in view, it is reiterated that the procedure detailed in sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall be followed scrupulously before taking a decision on the appointment of Enquiry Officer and the instructions issued in the reference cited shall be followed strictly.
4. The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the instructions issued in the reference cited and bring the same to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. Any deviation/ lapse in following the instructions shall be seriously and responsibility fixed on the erring authorities and suitable disciplinary action initiated.
6. Departmental Enquiries/ Enquiries by Commr. of Inquiries – Fixing the time limit for early completion of inquiries.
(Cir. Memo. No. 35676/Ser.C/98-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 1-7-1998)
Ref : – 1. U.O. Note. No. 1755/Ser.C/87-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 8-11-1978.
2. U.O. Note. No.1005/SC.E/97-3, G.A.(SC.E) Department , dated 27-9-97
3. Memo No. 3037/SC.E/97-1, G.A.(SC.E) Department , dated 27-4-98.
Order: – In the reference 1st cited, instructions were issued for expeditious completion of enquiries initiated against the Delinquent Officers. It was mentioned therein that the concerned Authorities should critically review the disciplinary cases to watch the progress in order to ensure that the Delinquent Officers are awarded the penalty at the right time. It was also mentioned that any undue delay on the part of the Enquiry Officers shall he viewed seriously and whenever the delay is attributed to the Enquiry Officers, suitable action shall be initiated against them.
2. In Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 which deals with the procedure for conducting the enquiry, film limit was to be prescribed to call for explanation from the Delinquent Officers on the charges made against them and also to make available the documents sought for by the Delinquent Officer, in order to minimise the time for completion of enquiry. Inspite of all clear instructions, it is noticed that there was “Undue Delay” in finalising enquiries, thereby the Delinquent Officers are not awarded the penalty at appropriate time. This led to inefficiency and also a sense of callousness is developed in administration. It was keenly felt that there is need to fix the time in normal cases and complicated cases, so as to ensure that the enquiries are completed in time.
3. In the references 2nd & 3rd cited, comprehensive guidelines were issued on the nature of cases to be referred to Commissionerate of Inquiries.
4. The delay in completion of inquiries is mainly attributed for non-presence of witnesses and also the relevant documents required to conduct enquiry. In this context, it is brought to the notice of all concerned that the A. P. Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance, Witness and Production of Documents) Act, 1993, empowers the Enquiry Officers to summon any individual to depose before Enquiry Officer and also for production of documents. The Secretaries of Departments concerned and also the Chairman of Commissionerate of Inquiries were designated to authorise the Inquiring Authority to summon the witnesses and also production of documents as per Section 4 of the said Act.
5. It has been decided that in simple cases the enquiry initiated shall be completed within 3 months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the enquiry should be completed within 5 to 6 months.
6. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the enquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time indicated in para 5 above, to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister. The object is to ensure timely action in all disciplinary cases and also adhere to the time limit prescribed.
7. Promotion/Appointment to Higher Posts of Officers who are involved in Enquires – Further Orders.
(G.O. Ms. No. 968, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 26-10-1998)
Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 187, G.A.(Ser.B) Department , dated 25-4-1985.
2. G.O. Ms. No. 335, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 14-6-1993.
Order: – In para II of the G.O. first read above, orders were issued that an individual who is undergoing punishment should not be recommended for promotion. In cases, where the period of punishment imposed is already over, each case has to be evaluated by the Departmental Promotion Committee on merits. In the G.O. second read above, orders were issued to the effect that the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the elaborate procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the said rules is to be followed.
2. A question arose whether the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect constitutes a permanent bar for promotion and also whether it is with or without cumulative effect, the punishment should be deemed to be subsisting to the extent of the number of annual grade increments stopped. There is a suggestion that if it is a case of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, the punishment should be deemed to run for twice the period for which the increment is stopped for. For example, if the punishment is the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the Officer should be denied of his promotion/appointment by transfer for four years.
3. After careful consideration, it has been decided that since the fact that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, the Government direct that whenever any Government servant is punished with the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the cases of such Officers shall not be considered for promotion/appointment by transfer for twice the number of years for which the increment(s) is/are stopped with cumulative effect.
8. Procedure to be followed on receipt of the Enquiry Report.
(U.O. Note No. 1107/Ser. C/99, Gent. Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 01-03-1999)
Order: – Rule 21 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 lays down the procedure, on further action to be taken on receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary authorities shall take an independent view based on the findings in the Enquiry Report with reference to the record after due consultation with Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission/Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission wherever such consultation is necessary.
2. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that certain Departments of Secretariat are obtaining the remarks of the Heads of Departments on the report of the Enquiry Officer which is not contemplated in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. This practice is also delaying the issue of final order on the disciplinary case. As per rules, the Departments as a Disciplinary Authority have to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer independently and come to its own conclusion.
3. It is also brought to the notice that some Departments are referring the report of Enquiry Officer to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau for remarks which is also not provided for in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and therefore such action is not in order.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat are requested to ensure that in all disciplinary cases, final decision on the enquiry report shall be taken by the concerned Disciplinary Authority alone and in consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission/Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, wherever it is necessary as per rules and they shall not seek the views/remarks of the Heads of Departments on the reports of Enquiry Officer. However, after issue of final orders on enquiry report, such order shall be communicated to the Delinquent Officers through the Heads of Departments under intimation to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.
9. Departmental Inquiries pending consideration of his appeal – Time Schedule to expedite the Inquiries – Orders – Issued.
(Memo. No. 23537/Ser.C/99-5, G. A. (Ser.C) D, dated 28-7-1999)
Ref :– Cir. Memo. No. 35676/Ser.C/98, G. A. (Ser.C) D., dated 1-7-1998.
Order: – In the reference cited, orders were issued, fixing a time limit for completion of departmental enquiries in all simple cases within a period of three months and in complicated cases within a period of five to six months.
2. In all departmental enquiries ordered, it has been decided by the Government that under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the following time limit shall be followed:
(a) | Fixing date of hearing, inspection of listed documents, submission of list of defence documents and nomination of a Defence Assistant (if not already nominated). | Within four weeks from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. |
(b) | Inspection of documents or submission of list of defence witnesses/defence documents or examination of relevancy of documents or witnesses, procuring the additional document and submission of certificates, confirming inspection of additional documents by Accused Officer or Defence Assistant. | Three (3) months. |
(c) | Issue of summons to witnesses, fixing the date of regular hearing and arrangement for participation of witnesses in the regular hearing | Three (3) months. |
(d) | Regular hearing on day to day basis | Three (3) months. |
(e) | Submission of written briefs by Presenting Officer | Fifteen (15) days |
(f) | Submission of written briefs by Accused Officer/Defence Assistant to Inquiry Officer. | Fifteen (15) days |
(g) | Submission of Inquiry Report by the Inquiry Officer. | Thirty (30) days. |
3. In all Departmental Enquiries the general norm of six months should be adhered to except in rare cases where number of witnesses go upto 30 or 40 in which case the time limit can be longer.
4. It is noticed that one of the causes for delay in departmental enquiries is due to non-production of documents cited by the Charged Officer as defence document during the course of enquiry. In order to ensure that the departmental enquiries are completed in time, the document asked for by .the Charged Officer should be produced by its custodian through Presenting Officer within a time limit fixed by Inquiry Officer failing which adverse note would be taken against the concerned Officer (custodian of the documents).
5. The other cause for the delay in completing departmental enquiries within time limit is taking unreasonable time by the Disciplinary Authorities or Appellate Authority in disposing the representation of the Charged Officer alleging bias against the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authorities or Appellate authority should therefore, decide the representation of the Charged Officer within fifteen days after receipt of the representation of the Charged Officer failing which an adverse view will be taken against the concerned authority.
6. Government reiterated that the Secretaries or Principal Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the enquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to the Chief Secretary to Government and also to the Chief Minister.
10. Disciplinary Cases against Government employees – Procedural aspects – Check list.
(Circular Memo. No. 20922/Ser.C/99, G.A.(Ser-C) Department , dated 28-09-1999)
Order: – Instructions have been issued from time to time on various procedural aspects in dealing with disciplinary cases against Government employees. For better understanding, clarifications/instructions are issued on step by step procedure to be followed from the stage of initiation of disciplinary proceedings till its conclusion. Instances have come to notice that there are procedural infirmities in dealing with the disciplinary cases, resulting in legal angles. It is keenly felt to remedy the situation.
2. A check list of the action at each stage to be verified on different parts namely – (1) Institution of Disciplinary Proceedings, (2) Processing the Enquiry Report and (3) Awarding Penalties has been evolved and communicated herewith for guidance of the Disciplinary Authorities.
3. The Departments of Secretariat, the Heads of Departments and the District Collectors are requested to follow the check list in dealing with disciplinary cases and also bring this to the notice of all other concerned authorities.
Check List
| I. Institution of Disciplinary Preoceedings : | |
| (i) If it is proposed to hold a detailed enquiry against any Government Servant to whom A.P. Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules applies, the following points shall be kept in mind: | |
(a) Whether specific charges are framed as required in Government Memo.No.290/Ser.C/94-2, G.A.D. Dated 01-06-94. | Yes/No |
(b) Whether the charges are framed in the format prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.92, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , Dated 01-03-96. | Yes/No |
(c) Whether explanation is received from the Delinquent Officer within the time stipulated | Yes/No |
(d) Whether the Delinquent Officer asked for any further information/additional documents | Yes/No |
(e) Whether it is decided to impose a Minor penalty. | |
(f) Whether it is decided to impose a major penalty and to conduct detailed enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer or through Commissioner of Enquiries/entrust the Disciplinary case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for detailed inquiry. | |
| (ii) Whether the appointment of the Inquiring Authority is in accordance with format IV prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.82, G.A.(Ser.C) Department, dated 01-03-96. | Yes/No |
| (iii) Whether Presenting Officer is appointed as per sub-rule 5(c) of Rule 20 keeping in view the instructions in Memo. No. 22/Ser.C/93, G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 01-05-1993 and in the format of G.O. Ms. No. 82, G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 01-03-96. | Yes/No |
| (iv) In any disciplinary case where more than two members of service are involved, whether common disciplinary proceedings are instituted as per Rule 24 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules and in Form VII of G.O. Ms. No. 82, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , Dated 01-03-1996. | Yes/No |
| (v) Whether the A.P. Vigilance Commission is consulted to refer any disciplinary case for enquiry to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. | Yes/No |
| (vi) Whether exparte enquiry was conducted, in terms of orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 194, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 15.03.1990. | Yes/No |
| (vii) Whether the time schedule prescribed in Circular Memo. No. 35676/Ser.C/98, GA(Ser.C) Department , dated 01-07-98 and in Memo. No. 23537/Ser.C/99-5, Dated 28.07.99 is followed to complete the enquiry. | Yes/No |
| (viii) Whether the Departmental Proceedings could be delivered in person or leave address | Yes/No |
| (ix) if not, whether the same is published in the A.P. Gazette, as the case may be. | Yes/No |
| (x) Is the report of the Enquiry Officer as per sub-rule (23) of Rule 20. | Yes/No |
| 2. Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer contains the following : | |
(i) An introductory para, indicating appointment of Inquiry Officer and the dates of hearing. | |
(ii) Charges that were framed. | |
(iii) Brief statement of the case of disciplinary authority in respect of the charges enquired to | |
(iv) Brief statement of facts and documents admitted | |
(v) Brief statement of the explanation of the Government Servant. | |
(vi) Assessment of evidence in respect of each point | |
(vii) Finding on each charge whether the E.O. ensured that no recommendation was made about the quantum of punishment. | |
| 3. Whether the Inquiry Officer sent the following along with the enquiry report :— | |
(a) List of documents produced by the Presenting Officer | |
(b) List of documents produced by the Government Servant | |
(c) List of prosecution witnesses | |
(d) List of defence witnesses | |
(e) Deposition of witnesses in the order in which they were examined | |
(f) Written statement of defence. | |
(g) Applications if any, filed during the course of Inquiry, and orders passed thereon, as also orders passed on oral requests made during the inquiry. | |
| II. Processing the Enquiry Report | |
(i) Whether the further action on the enquiry report is as per Rule 21 of the CCA Rules. | Yes/No |
(ii) Whether the Disciplinary Authority after going through the inquiry report agree with the findings and if any error is noticed, whether the point at which it is erred is recorded and did the Disciplinary Authority ask the same Enquiry Officer to conduct further enquiry and report as there is no provision for denovo enquiry or to conduct fresh enquiry. | Yes/No |
(iii) Whether the Disciplinary Authority exercise his mind in arriving at the findings on the charges and independently arrive at the nature and quantum of punishment. | Yes/No |
(iv) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission is consulted as per the scheme of Vigilance Commission. | Yes/No |
(v) Whether the orders in circulation are obtained in case the A.P. Vigilance Commissioner’s recommendations are not agreed to. | |
(vi) Whether the APPSC needs to be consulted and if so, whether it was consulted. | |
(vii) Whether the final orders issued agree with the recommendation of APPSC. | |
(viii) If not whether orders in circulation obtained. | |
| III. Awarding Penalties | |
(i) Whether the instructions issued in U.O. Note. No. 28552/Ser.C/97-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 07-05-97, are kept in view while issuing orders. | Yes/No |
(ii) Whether the instructions issued in U.O.Note.No.1713/Ser.C/66-1 G.A.(Ser.C) Department Dated 01-07-1966 have been followed or not regarding punishment awarded. | |
(iii) Whether the instructions vide Memo. No. 1436/Ser.C/80-2 G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 07-02-1981 having been followed while imposing penalty of stoppage of Annual Grade increment with cumulative effect. | Yes/No |
(iv) Whether the order of penalty and other papers Communicated to the Delinquent Officer as per Rule 23 | Yes/No |
11. Procedure for imposing major penalties – Inquiry into the charges by disciplinary authority by itself or appointment of Inquiring Authority.
(Memo. No. 46733/Ser.C/99, General Administrator (Ser.E) Department , dated 22-10-1999)
Order: – Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 provided for enquiry into the articles of charges framed either by the Disciplinary Authority itself or by any Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority. Also on receipt of the explanation from the Delinquent Officer for the charges framed against him, wherever the Disciplinary Authority proposes to conduct a detailed enquiry in cases, where in the opinion of such Disciplinary Authority, the charges, if proved, warrant imposing any penalty other than the minor penalties, it shall be necessary to appoint an Enquiry Officer instead of the Disciplinary Authority itself enquiring into such articles of charges. The Supreme Court of India in its Judgement in Manaklae Vs. Dr. Premchand Singhvi reported in (AIR 1957) SC 425 observed that the Disciplinary Authority shall have clear application of mind and unbiased view in dealing with the disciplinary cases against Government servants.
2. In view of these observations of the Apex Court, the Disciplinary Authority shall necessarily appoint an Enquiry Officer under the CCA Rules when the Disciplinary Authority proposes to conduct detailed enquiry in cases where in the opinion of such Disciplinary Authority, the charge if proved warrants imposing any major penalty instead of the Disciplinary Authority itself taking up the enquiry, unless such appointment of the Enquiry Officer becomes impossible in view of the non-availability of the officers in the Department. Such cases shall be very rare and generally would obtain in very small Departments.
12. Reports of Anti-Corruption Bureau – Dealing of – Instructions – Reiterated.
(U.O. Note No. 1211/Spl.B/99-2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 23-02-2000)
Ref : – 1. U.O. Note No. 1298/S.C.D/91-1 G.A.D. Dated: 30-08-1991.
2. U.O. Note No. 694/S.C.D/94-1 G.A.D. Dated: 31-05-1994.
3. U.O. Note No. 2782/S.C.E/96-1 G.A.D. Dated: 30-06-1997.
4. U.O. Note No. 2518/S.C.E/96-1 G.A.D. Dated: 04-07-1997.
5. U.O. Note No. 3120/61-1 G.A. (Ser.C) Department Dated: 11-11-1961.
Order: – Instructions were issued in the references 1 to 4 cited, regarding the manner in which the reports of the Anti-Corruption Bureau should be dealt with. In the reference 5th cited, instructions were issued to claim privilege in Courts in respect of official records.
2. Inspite of the above instructions, it has come to the notice of the Government that, the reports of the Anti-Corruption Bureau are furnished to the Heads of Departments, to the Accused Officer(s) and other individuals/authorities who are not entitled for copy of the reports. In view of this Government have decided to reiterate earlier instructions in the matter.
3. While reiterating the earlier instructions issued in the references cited, the following further instructions are issued for strict compliance : –
(i) Part-B of the A.C.B. report should be sent only to the charge framing authority;
(ii) The Accused Officer is entitled only copies of statement of witnesses received by Anti-Corruption Bureau, provided those witnesses are proposed to be examined in the regular enquiry;
(iii) The Charge Framing Authority shall not call for the remarks of Heads of Departments or any other Authority on Part-B of the A.C.B. Report except on the procedure being followed as per the instructions issued in the U.O. Note third cited.
13. Departmental Inquiries – Further instructions – Issued.
(Circular Memo. No. 24637/Ser.C/2000-2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 5-9-2000)
Ref : – 1. Circular Memo. No. 290/Ser.C/94-2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 01-06-1994.
2. Government Memo. No. 650/Ser.C/94-3, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 06-01-1995.
3. Cir. Memo. No. 56183/Ser.C/99, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 15-10-1999.
4. From the Vigilance Commr., A.P. Vigilance Commission, D.O.Lr.No.194NC.A2/ 2000-1, dated 16-5-2000.
5. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission, Lr.No.194/ VC.A2/2000-2, dated 01-08-2000.
Order: – Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 deals with procedure for conducting Departmental Inquiry. Instructions were issued vide the reference first cited, highlighting the rule position to follow the procedure for initiating Departmental Inquiry. In the reference second cited various points on the course of conducting Departmental Inquiry were clarified. A check list was also communicated vide the reference third cited, on Departmental Inquiries.
In the reference 4th cited the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission has made certain observations on the “Role and Responsibility of the Inquiry Officers” as follows:
Inquiring officers regard themselves to be in the same position as judges or magistrates in criminal trials. They take the view that the Presiding Office is in the position of the “Prosecutor” in criminal trials and as the prosecutor cannot also be the judge in its own case, inquiring officers have been appointed as neutral third party Judges or Magistrates. This view is far from correct, because it is well recognised that these departmental inquiries which are conducted under the provisions of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 applicable to the State Government Servants are “domestic enquiries” in which the disciplinary authority is in the position of a Master in relation to the charged Government Servant.
The Departmental inquiries also have to be held according to the principles of natural justice which are fully incorporated in the CCA rules. It is the duty of the Inquiring Authority to the charged officers to ensure that these principles of natural justice are observed. The distinguishing feature, however, is that the inquiring authority, being a creature, or a delegate of the disciplinary authority, also retains, throughout the inquiry, clear responsibilities towards the disciplinary authority.
In criminal trails, the entire responsibility for producing the evidence in support of the charge is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the accused, the trial Magistrate or Judge will be entirely within his rights to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. The functions of an inquiring authority in a departmental proceeding are, however, more active. His duty, on behalf of the disciplinary authority is to find out all the true facts about the charge. A presenting officer is appointed, to assist the inquiring authority in presenting the facts in support of the Charge. Inquiring authority may summon the listed or other unlisted witnesses, if he considers that the evidence of such witnesses will materially assist in establishing the true facts.
The inquiring authority in a departmental proceeding, has no responsibility whatever in the matter of prescribing a penalty on the charged officer and should not in his report go into this question at all, though he may draw attention to certain proved facts which may extenuate the guilt of the charged officer. It is not expected, therefore, of an inquiring authority to launch forth on an analysis of legal technicalities and judicial precedents.
The only legal principles with which inquiring authorities are primarily concerned are the principles of natural justice which basically are that (i) the charged officer should be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case; (ii) evidence against him should be taken in his presence; (iii) he should have an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses produced in support of the charges and (iv) he should be given an opportunity to produce his own witnesses and documents. All other laws of procedure have been relaxed for departmental enquiries. Even the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, except in so far as they refer to the general principles of natural justice already referred to, are not applicable to a departmental enquiry. The principles of natural justice are already incorporated in the CCA Rules and as long as the Inquiring Authority follows these rules, particularly all the 23 sub-rules of Rule 20, which lay down step by step, stage by stage procedure, neither the disciplinary authority who has appointed him nor the law courts are likely to find fault with the Inquiry.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 SLR 355 SC, has clearly held that a disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial and that the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. H. C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 that a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not go into the question of sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion.
The emphasis in departmental inquiries is heavily on facts as the word ‘inquiry’ itself signifies the main thrust of the Inquiring Officer must be to inquire into all the facts either in favour of or against the charged officer and the quality and excellence of his work will be judged not by his ability to deal with legal technicalities but by his ability to bring out and assess all the facts relevant to the charge and come to findings that are based on formal logic as well as practical common sense. In doing so, while he must give every opportunity to the charged officer under the principles of natural justice and CCA Rules, he must also remember his basic responsibility to the disciplinary authority.
When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government Servant shall be required to State his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record. In a Departmental Inquiry in which the charge is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability and the emphasis is on true facts, the charged officer must indicate a coherent line of defence giving his version of what the true facts are. Thus, there is no obligation on the Inquiry Officer to examine any and every witness that the charged officer may suggest.
Inordinate delay in conducting the inquiry and in submitting the report is the bane of administration. Hardship is caused to a public servant by delay in dealing with a complaint against him. If an inquiry is started against a public servant on the allegation of lack of integrity, he immediately comes under a cloud, and even if subsequently he is cleared of the suspicion against him, the suspense and anguish which he suffers virtually amounts to punishment. It is only fair that all possible delay is avoided in taking the final decision even in a case where the public servant is found guilty.
This over riding necessity for conducting and completing departmental inquiries within a relatively short period of time is fully recognised and laid down in the CCA Rules. If inquiries are conducted strictly according to these Rules, an average inquiry not involving too many witnesses and documents, should take between three (3) and four (4 ) months only. It is deplorable that those provisions of the CCA Rules are honoured more in the breach than in observance, and departmental inquiries even on petty charges are found to linger on for years.
14. Disciplinary Cases – Government Employees convicted by a Court of Law or Special Court for S.P.E. & A.C.B. Cases – Consultation with A.P. Public Service Commission before imposing penalty – Procedure dispensed with – Further instructions – Issued.
(U.O. Note No. 43946/Ser. C/2000-3, G.A.D., dated 12-10-2000)
Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms. No. 204, G.A. (Ser. A) Department , dated 13-06-2000.
2. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission, Lr. No. 325/ VC. A2/99-6, dated 28-08-2000.
Order: – In the reference 1st cited, an amendment was issued to Regulation 17(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963, dispensing with the procedure of consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission before a major penalty is imposed on Government Employees who are convicted in a Court of Law or Special Courts for Special Police Establishment and Anti-Corruption Bureau cases.
2. The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to bring the above orders to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities for prompt action to impose appropriate penalty on Government Employees who are convicted by Court of Law or Spl. Courts for Special Police Establishment and Anti-Corruption Bureau cases. In this context, the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 2, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 04.01.1999, shall be kept in view.
3. The disciplinary cases wherein Government employees are convicted by Court of Law or Special Courts for Special Police Establishment and Anti-Corruption Bureau cases, pending for want of concurrence from the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be finalised immediately. The disciplinary cases which will arise in future and wherein Government employees are convicted shall be concluded promptly soon after receipt of the judgment of the Court.
15. Disciplinary Cases against Government Employees – Appointment of Departmental Enquiry Officer – Instructions – Issued.
(Circular Memo. No. 58414/Ser. C/2000-4, G.A.D., dated 07-02-2001)
Ref : – 1. G.O. Ms.No. 82, General Administration (Ser. C) Department , dated 01-03-1996.
2. Government Circular Memo. No. 56183/Ser. C/99, dated 15-10-1999.
3. Government Memo. No. 46733/Ser. C/99, dated 22-10-1999.
Order: – In the reference 1st cited, certain formats were prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991, among others, a format for appointment of Enquiry Officer under Rule 20 of the said Rules was prescribed. In the reference 2nd cited, a check list was prescribed on submission of Inquiry Report.
2. In the reference 3rd cited, instructions were issued, on the need for appointment of an Enquiry Officer under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991 for imposing major penalty, instead of the Disciplinary Authority itself conducting inquiry into the charges. The Supreme Court of India in its judgment in Manaklae vs. Dr. Premchand Singh, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 425 observed that the Disciplinary Authority shall have clear application of mind and unbiased view in dealing with the disciplinary cases against Government Servants. In the light of observations of the Apex Court, the Disciplinary Authority shall necessarily appoint an Enquiry Officer under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991, when the Disciplinary Authority proposes to conduct detailed enquiry in cases wherein the opinion of such Disciplinary Authority, the charge if proved warrants imposing any major penalty, instead of Disciplinary Authority itself taking up the enquiry, unless such appointment of the Enquiry Officer becomes impossible in view of the non-availability of the Officers in the Department. Such cases shall be very rare and generally would obtain in very small Departments.
3. Many a time clarification is being sought for on the status of the Enquiry Officer, whether the Inquiring Authority should be above the rank of Accused Officer or otherwise.
4. It is clarified that whenever it is decided to appoint an Inquiring Authority under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991 such Inquiring Authority should be above the rank of the Accused Officer.
5. The Departments in Secretariat, the Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the above instructions scrupulously.
16. Disciplinary cases against Government employees – Procedural aspects – Comprehensive Check list for use of the disciplinary and inquiry authorities – Communicated.
(Cir. Memo. No. 13673/Ser.C/2002-2, G.A.(Ser-C) Department , dated 05-07-2002)
Order: – Instructions have been issued from time to time on various procedural aspects in dealing with disciplinary cases against Government employees. For better understanding clarifications/instructions are issued on step by procedure to be followed from the stage of initiation of disciplinary proceedings till its conclusion. Instances have come to the notice that there are procedural infirmities in dealing with the disciplinary cases, resulting in legal tangle. Adoption of the check list by the disciplinary authorities and the enquiry officer would help them commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings strictly in accordance with the provisions of these rules and instructions, avoiding errors and illegalities likely to the challenged before the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. It is keenly felt to remedy the situation with the above objective in view, a check-list has been designed.
2. The Check list is divided into two parts namely, Part-I, dealing with service particulars and Part-II dealing with stages of disciplinary case has been evolved and communicated here with for guidance of the disciplinary authority and enquiry officers where major penalty proceedings have been initiated.
3. The Departments of Secretariat, the Heads of Departments and the District Collectors are requested to follow the Check List in dealing with disciplinary cases and also bring this to the notice of all other concerned authorities.
Check List for Disciplinary Cases
Part-I – Service Particulars
1. Name of the Charged Officer
2. Status
(A Gazetted Officer/NGO/PS Undertaking employee or other category)
Service to which he belongs :
The Rules applicable :
3. Whether permanent or temporary or Contact employee
4. Post held
(a) Designation
(b) Scale of Pay with Stages, Efficiency Bar, etc.
(c) Pay drawn
(d) Date from which present pay is drawn
(e) Date of next increment
(i) in the post held substantively
(ii) in the post in which officiating at present
5. Post next below which the officer would have held but for his appointment to the present post (specify name of the post & scale of pay)
6. Post if any in which the service of the officer has been regularised.
7. Date of birth
8. Date of joining Government service
9. Due date of retirement
10. (a) Actual date of retirement, if retired already
(b) Amount of monthly pension admissible.
(c) Amount of monthly pension sanctioned.
(d) Amount of gratuity admissible/sanctioned.
(e) Whether pensionary benefits are withheld pending finalisation of disciplinary case/criminal case if so, whether Provisional Pension is sanctioned?
(Required only in cases of recovery or withholding from pensionary benefits)
11. (a) Appointing authority in respect of the post held at present or the Authority which actually appointed the person if that authority is higher.
(b) Authority competent to impose the penalty in respect of post held now.
(c) Appellate authority at present.
Part-II Details Of Case
A.
1. Indicate advice of VC in the first stage through
Major Penalty Proceedings. | Minor Penalty Proceedings. |
TDP COI Dept. I.O. |
2. Whether common or individual inquiry?
3. In case of common disciplinary proceedings indicate order of competent authority under Rule 24 of the CCA Rules in the format VII, of G.O.Ms.No.82, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 01-03-1996.
5. Whether definite charges have been framed as per rules applicable to the officer with the statement of imputations along with enclosures viz., list of witnesses, list of documents etc., in terms of Government Memo. No. 290/Ser.C/94-C/94-2, GAD dated 1-6-1994 and G.O.Ms.No.82, GA (Ser.C), dated 1-3-96 (References of VC/ACB should not be quoted in charge memo.)
6. Record of delivering charge sheet to the charged officer whether available and date of service
7. Whether reply of the charged officer if any received. If not reasons
8. Whether it is decided to impose a minor penalty if so details thereon.
9. In case of decision to conduct major penalty proceedings the inquiry authority
(a) Suggested by Vigilance Commission
(b) Appointed by department
10. Date of appointment of inquiry authority in terms of format-IV prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.82, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 1-3-96 [In case of Department . I.O.. the I.O. should be an officer of higher rank to that of charged officer(s)]
11. Whether any presenting officer was appointed as per sub-rule 5(c) of Rule 20 keeping in view the instructions in Memo. No. 22/Ser.C/93, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 1-5-1993 and in the format of G.O.Ms.No.82, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 1-3-96 [Presenting Officer should be of higher rank to that of charged officer(s)]
12. (i) Whether the I.O. has maintained a daily order sheet indicating progress of oral inquiry?
(ii) Whether depositions of prosecution/defence witnesses recorded?
(iii) Whether statement of defence of charged officer(s) obtained.
(iv) Whether copies of relevant documents supplied to charged officer?
(v) Whether exhibits are marked as-
(a) Prosecution
(b) Defence
(vi) Whether presenting officer submitted any written brief?
(vii) Whether a copy of the same if any was supplied to charged officer?
(viii) Whether written brief submitted by charged officer ?
13. Was the inquiry exparte ? If so, was it in accordance with G.O.No.194, GA (Ser-C) Department , dated 15-3-1990.
Whether the departmental proceedings could be delivered in person or leave address?
If not, whether the same is published in the A.P.Gazette/ District Gazette, as the case may be?
14. Is the I.O’s report available and as per sub-rule 23 of Rule 20.
15. Whether the report of the I.O. contains the following as required under sub-rule 23 of Rule 20 of CCA Rules:
(i) An introductory para, indicating appointment of I.O. and the dates of hearing.
(ii) Charges that were framed.
(iii) Brief statement of the case of disciplinary authority in respect of the charges enquired into.
(iv) Brief statement of facts and documents admitted.
(v) Brief statement of the explanation of the Government servant.
(vi) Assessment of evidence in respect of each point.
(vii) Finding on each charge
(the inquiry officer to ensure that recommendation is made about the quantum of punishment)
16. Whether the inquiry officer sent the following along with the enquiry report.
(i) List of documents produced by the presenting officer.
(ii) List of documents produced by the Government servant.
(iii) List of prosecution witnesses.
(iv) List of defence witnesses.
(v) Deposition of witnesses in the order in which they were examined.
(vi) Written statement of defence.
(vii) Applications if any, filed during the course of inquiry, and orders passed thereon, as also order passed on oral requests made during the inquiry.
17. (i) Whether the further action on the inquiry report is as per rule 21 of the CCA Rules?
(ii) (a) Whether the disciplinary authority after going through the inquiry report agrees with the findings.
(b) If any error is noticed, whether the point in which it erred is recorded and did the disciplinary authority ask the same inquiry officer to conduct further inquiry? (there is no provision for denovoenquiry or to conduct fresh enquiry)
(iii) Whether disciplinary authority exercised its mind in arriving at the findings on the charges and independently arrived at the nature and quantum of punishment?
(iv) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission in consulted as per the Scheme of Vigilance Commission ?
18. (i) Whether the report of the inquiry officer communicated to the charged officer?
(ii) In case of disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Authority whether grounds for the same communicated to the charged officer along with the Inquiry Report.
(iii) Whether representation of the Charged Officer on the findings of the inquiry officer received ?
(iv) Parawise comments of the disciplinary authority on the representation of the charged officer, if any.
(v) Whether disciplinary authority has considered the merits of the case and come to the conclusion that a formal penalty is called for.
(vi) Whether the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission consulted as per the scheme of the Vigilance Commission and advice tendered.
(vii) Whether orders in circulation to CM obtained in case the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commissioner’s recommendations were not agreed to.
(viii) Whether Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission net,d be consulted and if so, whether it was consulted and advice of the APPSC thereon.
(ix) Whether the final orders issued agreed with the recommendation of APPSC.
(x) If not whether orders in circulation obtained in consultation with Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission.
19. Awarding penalties
(a) Whether the instructions issued in U.O.Note No.28552/Ser.C/97- 1, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 7-5-1997, are kept in view while issuing orders.
(b) Whether the instructions issued in U.O.Note 1713/Ser.C/66-1, dated 1-5-1993 have been following or not regarding punishment awarded.
(c) Whether the instructions vide Memo. No. 1436/Ser.C/80-2, dated 1-5-1993 have been followed while imposing penalty and other papers communicated to the delinquent as per Rule 23.
(d) Whether the order of penalty and other papers communicated to the delinquent as per Rule 23.
B. Penalty Under The A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980
No comments:
Post a Comment