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.O. 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.
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.C an accused avoids undergoing 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.
