U.O.
Note No.19952/Ser.C/2000 Dated 27-4-2000
Sub: Public Services -
Disciplinary cases against Govt-Employees - Departmental Inquiries - Time
Schedule to expedite the Inquiries - further instructions - Issued.
Ref.: MemoNo.23537/Ser.C/99-5, G.A(Ser.C) Dept. dt. 28-7-99.
A review of the work turned out by Commissioner of Inquiries till 31-3-2000 showed that disposal on an average is about 10-12 cases per month. On an average a case is taking about 6 months for disposal. This should be brought down to 3 months.
2. Government is concerned not only about the speed of disposal but also about the quality of disposal. Both these can be achieved if the disciplinary authority and Inquiring authority work properly and sincerely with mutual cooperation and coordination. The following suggestions are made in this connection.
3. An important factor in the quality of disposal, is application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority while framing charges. In many cases it is found that the draft of the Charge Memo is prepared at section level, often copying verbatim the draft charges prepared by the Investigating Agency. Invariably at the level of the Prl. Secy. / Secy. to Govt., there should be careful application of mind at the stage of drafting of the charge memo which is an important aspect of the disciplinary proceedings. A related aspect is the non-availability of records in complete shape before the Disciplinary Authority at the time of framing of charges. It has been noticed also that in some cases the Charged Officer requests the Disciplinary Authority for permission to peruse the records / documents. It is hereby clarified that such perusal is not necessary to admit or deny the charges. So, such request should be rejected, pointing out that adequate opportunity to peruse records is available during the course of the Inquiry.
4. The Chairman, Commissioner of Inquiries, has already advised all the Departments that cases in which records are not received in complete shape will be returned to the Disciplinary Authority. This will apply to the pending cases also. Chairman and Members, Commissioner of Inquiries, are requested to implement these instructions strictly.
5. Cases of enquiry where the Charged Officer has approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal or other courts have often to be kept pending. This increases the pendency at the level of Commissioner of Inquiries. Chairman, Commissioner of Inquiries, is advised to return all such cases to the disciplinary Authority. This will serve as a reminder to the Disciplinary Authority to follow up such cases and get them disposed of expeditiously and revert to Commissioner of Inquiries at the appropriate stage.
6. It is found that the Disciplinary Authorities are routinely referring the cases to the Commissioner of Inquiries taking advantage of the existing rules/ instructions which state that all cases where the charges have not been admitted by the Charged Officers are to be referred to the Commissioner of Inquiries. It is not the intention of these rules / instructions that there should be no application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. Sometimes it is seen that in the course of his reply to the charge memo: the Charged Officer has raised some relevant points e.g., implicating another fellow officer, etc. Application of mind at this stage will help in ensuring that’, the disciplinary proceedings cover all the officers who are involved in the misdemeanour. Failure to ensure this has in the past resulted in charges being ultimately dropped against the Charged Officers in some cases.
7. There is a general tendency of Investigating Agency to cite, as witnesses, persons functioning at the lowest level or at a relatively lower level in the hierarchy, usually a dealing hand. Where the Charged Officer happens to be a Senior Officer, it would not be fair to expect such lower-level functionaries (appearing as witness) to give evidence without fear or favour against the Charged Officer. This may ultimately result in the charges being held not proved. If higher functionaries are cited as· witness, especially those who have actually taken the relevant decision in the file, they will be able to speak about the actual position of the file/ case. This practice will impart a healthy seriousness to the disciplinary proceedings and in general, result in better responsibility accounting.
8. Care should be taken in nominating the Presenting Officer. The person nominated should be of appropriate seniority, he should be physically in a position to attend the enquiry sessions; and, most importantly, he should have access to all records pertaining to the case in full shape including the charge memo, the written defense statement (WDS) of the Charged Officer submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and other relevant documents. In several cases it has been noticed that when the Commissioner of Inquiries asks the Presenting Officer to enter appearance before the Commissioner of Inquiries the Presenting Officer has not been given even a copy of the Written defense Statement submitted by the Charged Officer. He is also unaware of the case in its totality. This will, not only cause delay but hamper the quality of the presentation. In cases of departmental persons appointed as Presenting Officers, it is often found that Presenting Officers have to be changed subsequently on grounds of seniority or retirement of the Presenting Officer. These aspects must be foreseen at the time of nominating the Presenting Officer. In case of advocates appointed as Presenting Officers, when they, for the first time, see the records, including the charge memo and Written Defense Statement of the Charged Officer, on the date of the hearing such behaviour would be unprofessional. But where non legal officers are nominated as Presenting Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has the duty of ensuring that the Presenting Officer is adequately briefed in advance about the case records and procedure of conduct of the case.
9. The Disciplinary Authority must
invariably enclose the following, while sending the order of appointment of
Presenting Officer to the Presenting Officer.
a)
Charge memo with statement of imputations of misconduct and Misbehaviour.
b)
List of witnesses by whom the charges are to be sustained, and
c)
List of documents by which the charges are to be proved, and
d) Written Defense Statement of the Charged Officer submitted to the Disciplinary Authority along with its enclosures.
10. Based on the guidelines issued by the
Central Vigilance Commission, instructions were issued in Memo No. 23537/Ser.C/99-5, G.A.(Ser.C) Deptt., dated 28-7-99 with regard to time schedule to
expedite departmental enquires. The same are revised as follows:
|
a) |
fixing
date of hearing, inspection of listed documents, submission of list of defense;
documents and nomination of a defense assistant (if not already nominated). |
|
Within
two weeks from the date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer
|
|
b) |
Inspection
of documents or submission of list of defense witnesses / defense documents
or witnesses, procuring the additional documents and submission of
certificates, confirming inspection of additional documents by accused
officer or defense assistant.
|
|
2
Weeks |
|
c) |
Issue
of summons to witnesses, fixing the date of regular hearing and arrangements
for participation of witnesses in the regular hearing
|
|
2
Weeks |
|
d) |
Regular
hearing on day-to-day basis |
|
2
Weeks
|
|
e) |
Submission
of written briefs by Presenting Officer and Submission of written briefs by
Accused Officer / Defense Assistant to Inquiry Officer.
|
|
2
Weeks |
|
f) |
Submission
of Inquiry Report by the Inquiry Officer
|
|
2
Weeks
|
11. To ensure adherence to the above schedule the Secretary to Government should review all disciplinary cases on a weekly basis. Unless discipline is maintained by· -prompt disposal of disciplinary cases, no development can be done and achievements will be below the potential.
12. It must be ensured by the Disciplinary Authority that the documents cited by the Charged Officer as defense documents during the course of Inquiry should be produced by its custodian through Presenting Officer within a time limit fixed by the Inquiring Authority.
13. Representation from the Charged Officer, if any alleging bias against the Inquiring Authority should be decided by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority within fifteen days after receipt of the representation, without fail.
