Ref: Memo.No. 3000/Ser.C/76-4 GA.(Ser.C) Dept., dt. 28-6-77.
@@@@@
Instructions were issued in the Memorandum cited that ordinarily cases of proved misappropriation would justify dismissal from service and action should be taken accordingly. It was also clarified that distinction should be drawn between the cases of "delayed remittance" and "mis-appropriation" having regard to the fact that in proved cases of mis-appropriation, 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. In this connection, the issue has arisen as to the criterion for
making a distinction between 'temporary misappropriation' and
'mis-appropriation'. It is clarified that the cardinal test to treat a case as
a case of misappropriation would be whether the amount has been put to use for
the benefit of the person who has misappropriated it. It should be the
intention and purpose that should be the criterion and not whether the amount
has been ultimately made good voluntarily. If there are cases where the
attendant circumstances do not render it as misappropriation, then such cases
should not be classified for the purpose of audit as cases of misappropriation.
OPEN - CCA Rules - References (open)
