State of Andhra Pradesh - Act
The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991
ANDHRA PRADESH
India
India
The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991
Rule THE-ANDHRA-PRADESH-CIVIL-SERVICES-CLASSIFICATION-CONTROL-AND-APPEAL-RULES-1991 of 1991
- Published on 14 September 1992
- Commenced on 14 September 1992
- [This is the version of this document from 14 September 1992.]
- [Note: The original publication document is not available and this content could not be verified.]
1. Short title and commencement:
2. Interpretation:
- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-3. Application:
4. Power to exclude from operation:
-Notwithstanding anything in Rule 3, the Governor may, by notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, exclude, wholly or in part, from the operation of these rules, the holder of any post or, the holders of any class of posts, in respect of whom the Governor decides that the rules cannot suitably be applied and these rules shall, thereupon to the extent of such exclusion, cease to apply to them accordingly.Part - II Classification5. Classification of Services:
8. Suspension:
1. Date of effect of an order of suspension - Regarding.
(Memorandum No. 1085/Ser. C/72-3, dated 10-5-1973)Order: - A question has often been raised as to the date from which an order of suspension pending inquiry will take effect, i.e., whether it is the date on which the competent authority has passed the order, whether it is the date of dispatch of the order, or whether it is the date on which the Government servant concerned has actually been served with the order of suspension.2. Except in cases where a Government servant is deemed to have been placed under suspension under Rule 13(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 the order of suspension will ordinarily be communicated to the Government servant immediately after it is passed. A difficulty may, however, arise in determining the date from which the Government servant is under suspension, if the Government servant placed under suspension is-
3. The Government have examined the question and they issue the following instructions :
4. It may be borne in mind that no order of suspension should be made retrospective effect, as a retrospective order of suspension is illegal.
5. The Government also direct that the above orders will apply mutatis mutandis to an order imposing the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement on a Government servant.
2. Suspension of Government servants - Pending enquiry - Consolidated instructions - Issued.
(Memo. No. 1470/Ser. C/77-2, General Administrator (Ser-C) Department , dated 26-12-1977)Instructions were issued from time to time regarding suspension of Government servants pending enquiry into charges against them, apart from the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1963. It is considered desirable to consolidate these instructions for information and guidance of the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and other officers. Therefore, the instructions are incorporated in the Annexure to this Memo. The officers concerned are requested to follow these instructions scrupulously.Annexure| Sl. No. | Name and designation of the officer undersuspension | Date of suspension | Date of appointment of Enquiry officer | (a) Have Charges been framed, if so, date | (b) Has it been served on the other officer, ifso, when date | (c) Has it been served on the other officer, if ,so, when date | (d) Has the case insupport of the charge been presentedbefore Enquiry officer, date | (e) has the officerunder suspension entered upon his defence.If So, the date | Reasons for asking for extension | Expected date of completion | Paid subsistence allowance | Remarks |
| (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | ||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
3. Prevention of corruption - Suspension of Officers involved in trap cases and with reference to the possession of disproportionate assets.
(Memo. No. 1095/Ser. C/84-4, Gen. Administrator (Ser-C) Department , dated 27-4-1985)Ref: - 1. Government Memo. No. 204/Ser.C/76-3, dated 31-5-1976.2. Memo. 355/Ser.C/69-1, G.A.D., dated 11-6-1970,
Order: - In the references cited, instructions were issued in regard to suspension of the Government employees on the basis of reports received from the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau.2. The matter regarding suspension of Government servants involved in cases of traps and possession of disproportionate assets taken up for investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau has been reviewed and the following instructions are issued:
3. Once a Government , servant has been placed under suspension in an A.C.B. enquiry of the nature contemplated supra, while revoking or continuing suspension. the disciplinary authority should have regard to the stage of investigation and progress achieved. In respect of cases where the A.C.B. has submitted a final report and where criminal prosecution is not envisaged, the continuation of suspension or revocation shall be considered by the competent authority keeping in view the gravity of charges held substantiated. (Para 3 as amended by Memo.No.638/Ser.C/86-3 General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 16-8-1986)
4. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the above instructions scrupulously and also communicated the above instructions to the concerned disciplinary authorities for their guidance while dealing with the above type of cases.
4. Instructions on Suspension of Government Employees involved in cases of Traps and Possession of Disproportionate Assets taken-up for Investigation by the ACB.
(G.O.Ms.No. 220/Ser.C/89-I, Gent. Administrator (Services-C) Department , dated 8-3-1989)Order: - (a) In trap cases, the Government servant should be suspended immediately after the trap basing on the preliminary report of the A.C.B.5. Payment of Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension.
(Circle Memo. No. 13431-160-AF.R.II/93, Fin. & Plg., dated 1-4-1993)Order: - It has come to the notice of Government that the employees who are kept under suspension beyond 6 months are not receiving subsistence allowance beyond 6 months on the ground that the suspension has to be reviewed by the competent authorities. In this connection, the following instructions are issued for implementation by all the competent authorities who place a Government servant under suspension in public interest.2. According to Rule 18 (c) (i) of A.P. Civil Services (CC &A) Rules, 1963, an officer should not be kept under suspension for a period exceeding 6 months normally and the disciplinary proceedings should be finalised within that period. The cases of Officers who are placed under suspension should be reviewed by the authorities higher or by the Government themselves every six months, in order to ensure that suspensions are not continued indefinitely without justification.
3. According to F.R. 53 (i) (ii) (a), subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the Government Servant would have drawn, if he had been on leave on behalf average pay, or half pay has to be paid, apart from the admissible allowances as per Rules. In terms of provision thereto, the amount of subsistence allowance can be enhanced or reduced by an amount not exceeding 50% of the subsistence allowance already admissible under the circumstances mentioned at (i)/(ii) under the above provision. Under Fundamental Rules, there is no bar or restriction limiting payment of subsistence allowance upto a period of six months in cases when the period of suspension is to be reviewed. In other words, the subsistence allowance according to F.R. 53(i)(ii)(a) and in terms of proviso thereto, depending upon the situation of the case specified in item Nos. (i) and (ii) under the proviso, as the case may be, has to be paid, as long as a person is continued under suspension even if the period is extended by undertaking a review or not.
4. Thus, the subsistence allowance shall not be denied to the suspended employee on any ground unless the suspended employee is unable to furnish a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment etc., during the period to which the claim relates.
5. According to the instructions, revision of subsistence in terms of proviso to Clause (ii) (a) of Sub-rule (i) of F.R. 53 should not be given retrospective effect.
6. It is observed that payment of subsistence allowance is being delayed on the ground that the suspension is being reviewed. In this connection, the attention of the Departments of Secretariat, and the heads of Departments is invited to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 205, G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 17-3-1990. There is no need for withholding the subsistence allowance pending review as, even if the higher authority decides, that it would no longer be necessary to continue the employee under suspension, the reinstatement will be only with prospective effect. In view of this, even if a review is pending with a higher authority, which is a non-statutory review it is not necessary to withhold the payment of subsistence allowance.
6. Orders of suspension - Prescription of format.
(G.O.Ms.No. 411, G.A.D., dated 20-7-1993)Ref : - G.O.Ms.No. 487, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 14-9-1992.Order: - Under Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, a member of service may be placed under suspension from service -2. The authority competent to order a Government Servant to be placed under suspension should apply his mind before passing such order and the order of suspension should be in the legally correct format. If the orders of suspension issued are defective and not in the correct format such orders are liable to be challenged in courts merely on technical grounds.
3. With a view to avoiding such situations and to bring uniformity in the forms of orders of suspension having regard to the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, it has been considered desirable to prescribe model formats of order for the guidance of the competent authorities who are empowered to pass suspension orders against the delinquent officers.
4. Government accordingly direct that the competent authority should issue order of suspension after due consideration, in the relevant proforma annexed to this order as indicated below :
5. All Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments etc., are requested to bring these orders to the notice of all competent authorities.
Annexure - IForm of order of suspension (where charge sheet has been issued) under Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1991Sub : - Public Services - Sri/Smt.................... Suspension from service - Orders - Issued.And whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned being the competent authority (appointing authority/any other competent authority) consider it necessary to place Sri/Smt........................... under suspension pending enquiry into grave charge or charges aforementioned.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority/any other competent authority) hereby place(s) the said Sri/Smt.............................. under suspension from the date of communication of this order and he/she shall continue to be under suspension in public interest until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge(s).It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force the headquarters of Sri/Smt.......................... (name and designation of Government servant) shall be (name of the place) and the said Sri/Smt............................ shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned.[It is further ordered that during the period of suspension, Sri/Smt................................. (Name and designation of the Government servant) shall be paid subsistence allowance equivalent to the leave salary on half pay leave. The D.A. and other compensatory allowances shall be paid along with subsistence allowance. The quantum of subsistence allowance will be reviewed and revised in terms of FR-53(i) after 3 months. Pending review he shall continue to draw the subsistence allowance now sanctioned.] [Added by G.O. Ms. No. 296, Fin. & Plg. (FW.FR.II), dated 14-10- 1996]SignatureName and Designation of the Suspending authority.Annexure - IIForm of order of suspension (where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated) under Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991Sub : - Public Service - Sri/Smt........................... Suspension from service - Orders - Issued.Whereas it has come to the notice of the Government of Andhra Pradesh/ Undersigned who is the competent authority (Appointing authority/any other competent authority) alleging that -And whereas disciplinary proceedings against Sri...................................... are contemplated;And whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority/any other competent authority) after careful consideration of the available material and having due regard to the circumstances of the case, are satisfied that it is necessary to place Sri/Smt................................ under suspension.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority/any other competent authority) hereby place(s) the said Sri/Smt...................................... under suspension from the date of communication of this order and he/she shall continue to be under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge(s).It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force, the headquarters of Sri/Smt............................ (name and designation of the Government servant) shall be........................ (name of the place) and the said Sri/Smt................................. shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned.SignatureName and designation of the Suspending authority.Annexure - IIIForm of order of suspension (where a case has been registered and it is under investigation) under Rule 8(1) of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991Sub : - Public Services - Sri/Smt............................... Suspension from service - Orders - Issued.Whereas it has come to the notice of the Government of Andhra Pradesh/ Undersigned who is the Competent authority (appointing authority or any other competent authority) alleging that-And whereas a case has been registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Officer incharge of the Police Station............................. in Crime No............................... under Section........................ of..............................And whereas it is considered that his/her continuance in Office will prejudice the investigation;And whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned (appointing authority or any other competent authority) after careful consideration of the available material and having due regard to the circumstances of the case, are satisfied that the Criminal charge under investigation is connected with his official position as a Government servant and involved moral turpitude and therefore consider it necessary to place Sri/Smt............................. under suspension.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 the Government of Andhra Pradesh/undersigned) appointing authority/any other under competent authority) hereby place(s) the said Sri/Smt..................................... under suspension from the date of communication of this order and he/she shall continue to be under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge(s).It is further ordered that during the period this order remains in force, the headquarters of Sri/Smt................................. (name and designation of the Government servant) shall be..................... (name of the place) and the said Sri/Smt........................................ shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned.SignatureName and designation of the Suspending authority.7. Review of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months - Authorities empowered to undertake review.
(G.O. Ms. No. 480, G.A.D., dated 7-9-1993)Ref : - 1. G.O. Ms. No. 205, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 17-3-1990.2. G.O. Ms.No. 487, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department . dated 12-9-1992.
Order: - Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, lays down that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service :2. In its order dated 10-4-1993 in O.A.No. 7109/92 the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has observed as follows :
"We wish to observe that the order of suspension needs to be reviewed by the authorities periodically. The criminal trial or disciplinary proceedings may take a long time and the Government is to review the need for continued suspension on relevant grounds periodically. The observation in para 5 of the impugned order that the applicant shall continue under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to the criminal charge does not imply that till the trial, if any, is concluded, the order of suspension need not be reviewed or revoked. It will be for the Government to review the need for continued suspension at reasonable periodical intervals say six months".3. In the G.O. 1st read above, executive instructions were issued for review of suspension at periodical intervals. Subsequently, the new Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 have come into force with effect from 1-10-1992 repealing the old Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1963. Consequently it has been decided to issue revised instructions for review of suspensions at periodical intervals.
4. Accordingly, the following instructions are issued for review of the suspension cases :
I. Gazetted Officers :8. Review of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months - Authorities empowered to review Revised Orders Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 578, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 31-12-1999)Ref : - 1. G.O. Ms. No. 480, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 7-9-93.2. G.O. Ms. No. 428, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 13-10-99.
Order: - In the reference first read above, orders were issued in regard to periodical review, at an interval of six months of the order of suspension, in disciplinary cases, duly indicating the authorities empowered to undertake the review. In the reference second read above, the disciplinary powers have been delegated to the Regional Authorities and Heads of Departments in respect of the officers of first and second level categories in the State Service. The implementation of the Government order first read above has been reviewed. To expedite disposal, the following revised orders are issued for review of suspension cases, in modification of the G.O. 1st read above.I. Member of service in Subordinate Service/Non-Gazetted Officers :9. Review of orders of suspension against Government Servants.
(G.O.Ms.No. 86, G.A.D.., dated 8-3-1994)Ref : - G.O.Ms.No. 480, G.A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 7-9-1993.Order :- In the G.O. read above, instructions have been issued for review of the suspensions of Gazetted and Non-Gazetted Officers, indicating the authorities empowered to undertake such reviews of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months.2. During the meeting of the Secretaries to Government held on 7-7-1992, the issue of inordinate delays in finalising enquiries both Departmental and ACB resulting in hardship to the employees was discussed and an Officers Committee was constituted to examine, among others, the issue of "Suspension of Public Servants" and to submit proposals for review of the existing instructions. The Committee has accordingly made certain recommendations which have been accepted by the standing sub-committee of Secretaries to Government in their meeting held on 6-12-1993.
3. Keeping the said recommendations in view following further orders are issued for review of suspension orders against the Government Servants :
4. The above benefit may be given to all existing cases as and when their half yearly review is taken up.
10. Payment of Subsistence Allowance during Suspension period - Further instructions.
(Circular Memo. No. 29730-A/458/A2/FR.11/94, Fin. & Plg., dated 15-9-1994)Ref: - 1. Circular Memo.No. 13431/160-A/FR.II/93, dated 1-4-1993 of the Fin. & Plg. (FW) Department .2. Recommendation of the High Power Committee Headed by Sri A.V.S. Reddy, IAS.
Order: - In the Circular Memo. 1st cited detailed instructions were issued for prompt payment of subsistence allowance to the employees who were placed under suspension. The Joint Action Committee of Employees, Teachers and Workers of Andhra Pradesh, however, represented to the High Power Committee of Secretaries to Government that the employees who were placed under suspension were not being paid subsistence allowance and were subjected to much difficulty and harassment. The High Power Committee in their Report submitted to Government made the following observations :According to the existing instructions, there is no bar or restriction limiting payment of subsistence allowance upto a period of six months. Subsistence Allowance is to be paid as long as a person is continued under suspension, even if the period is extended. The review envisaged for every six months during the period of suspension is only to ensure that the suspensions are not continued indefinitely without justification. There is, therefore, no need for with-holding the subsistence allowance pending review.The High Power Committee also recommended that instructions already issued by the Finance Department in Circular Memo. 1st cited may be reiterated and that disciplinary action may be taken against the officials who fail to comply with these instructions.All the Departments of Secretariat and the Heads of Department are therefore requested to follow the instructions issued in the Circular Memo first cited scrupulously and ensure prompt payment of subsistence allowance to the employees who are placed under suspension. They are also informed that any failure to comply with these instructions will attract disciplinary action against the officers concerned.All the Departments of Secretariat and the Heads of Departments are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the concerned under their administrative control for strict compliance.11. Prevention of Corruption - Suspension of Officers involved in trap cases.
[Memo. No. 357/Ser.C/94-1, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 4-8-1994]Ref: - 1. Memo. No. 220/Ser. C/89-1, dated 8-3-89.2. Memo. No. 1419/Ser. C/89-1, dated 25-10-1989.
Order: - In the references cited, instructions were issued regarding suspension/transfer of Government servants involved in cases of trap and possession of disproportionate assets taken up for investigations by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.It has been brought to the notice of Government that there are abnormal delays in taking action to suspend/transfer the Government servant concerned on receipt of advice tendered by the Vigilance Commission in cases taken up for investigation by the A.C.B. Due to the delay, the A.C.B. is handicapped in taking up the regular enquiry.While reiterating the instructions issued in the references cited, all the Departments of Secretariat/Heads of Departments are once again requested to take expeditious action to place the Accused Officer under suspension or transfer them as the case may be within a period of 15 days without fail and ensure that no delays occur in this regard.They are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of the disciplinary authorities under their administrative control.12. Interim Relief pending revision of scales of pay - Payment of Interim Relief to those who are under suspension - Clarification - Issued.
(Memo. No. 44113/541/PC1/1/98-1, Fin. & Plg. (FW.PC.1), dated 11-11-1998)Ref : - 1. G.O. (P) No. 117, Fin. & Plg. (FW.PC.I) Department , dated 3-7-1998.2. From the CAO 0/0 the DG and IGP, Lr.RC.No. P1/90/97, dated 28-10-1998.
Order: - In the G.O. first cited orders were issued sanctioning an Interim Relief of 11% to the State Government employees from 1-6-1998, pending revision of pay scales. In the reference 2nd cited, a clarification has been sought for regarding admissibility of Interim Relief to those who are under suspension.The issue has been examined. Interim Relief cannot be treated neither as pay or wage or as an allowance. Hence, it is hereby clarified that Interim Relief is not admissible during the period of suspension.13. Anti-Corruption Bureau - Trap cases - Transfer of trapped officers.
(Memo. No. 2487/SC.E/984 GA(Ser.E) Department , dated 19-11-1998)Ref.: - 1. Government Memo. No. 204/Ser.C/76-3; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , Dated 31-5-1976.2. Government Memo. No. 1095/Ser.c/84-4; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 27-4-1985
3. Government Memo. No. 220/Ser.C/89-11; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 8-3-1989
4. Government Memo. No. 853/Ser.C/90-2; General Administrator (Ser.C) Department dated 23-9-1991
5. From the Director General, Anti-corruption Bureau, A.P., Hyderabad, Letter C.No.96/RPC(C)/93, dated 16-11-1993
Order: - In the reference first cited, instructions were issued among others that in 'Trap Cases' if there is likely to be any interregnum between the trap and the actual relief of the Trapped Officer after being placed under suspension, the competent authorities should consider whether the Officers could be transferred immediately so that the material evidence is not destroyed and that arrangements should be made to relieve Trapped Officers forthwith. In the reference second cited and from time to time, the said instructions were reiterated, among others.2. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau in the reference fifth cited has brought to the notice of the Government that some Departments are not following the said instructions of the Government and are waiting till the Government orders are received by them without shifting the Trapped Officers from the places of their work. He has stated that as it would take about two to four weeks time for the Government to take a decision on the preliminary report of the Bureau, the Trapped Officers tend to remain at the same posts and as a consequence, thereof, there is every likelihood of their destroying or tampering with the records/evidence. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau has further stated that in some cases, the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence especially when the Trapped Officer is their immediate superior and as he/they continue to work at the same place.
3. The Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, has, therefore, requested to reiterate the Government instructions in the matter and also to issue further instructions to the effect that Trapped Officers should be transferred out of their work by the competent authorities, immediately, on receipt of Radio Message etc., by them from the Bureau so as to ensure that there is no tampering with evidence/ destruction of records by the Trapped Officers.
4. As such, the matter has been reconsidered by the Government in the light of facts brought out by the Bureau in the reference fifth cited and the request made therein. The Government, while reiterating the instructions issued in the references first and second cited, also direct that the trapped officers should be transferred out from the place of their work by the Head of the Department concerned/appointing authority/competent authority, immediately, on receipt of intimation about the trap by them by way of Radio Messages etc., from the Anti Corruption Bureau.
5. However, a decision to place the Trapped Officers under suspension can be taken as per the instructions issued by the Government on the subject from time to time.
14. Disciplinary Cases Review of orders of suspension against Government Servants - Instructions - Reiterated.
(U.O. Note. No. 2776/SC.E/98- 1, G.A.(Ser-E) Department , dated 3-12-1998)Ref : - 1. G.O. Ms. No. 480, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 7-9-1993.2. G.O.Ms.No.86, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 8-3-1994.
3. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission, D.O. Letter No.1974NC.F1/98-1, dated 27-11-1998.
Order: - In the G.O. 2nd cited while reiterating the instructions issued in the G.O. 1st cited, further orders were issued with regard to review of orders of suspension against Government Servants as follows:2. With regard to the above mentioned orders, the A.P. Vigilance Commission have made the following observations:
3. The matter has been carefully considered by the Government and the Government while reiterating the orders issued in the G.O. 2nd cited also direct that all the Government Departments should obtain the information as mentioned in sub para 2(i), (ii) and (iii) of para 2 above from the Anti-Corruption Bureau whenever necessary and then propose action as to whether to continue the Government Servant (Accused Officer) under suspension or to reinstate him as the case may be.
4. The Departments of Secretariat are also directed to consult the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission invariably before taking a decision in the matter as per the scheme of the Vigilance Commission.
15. Appointment by Promotion/Transfer to higher categories of employees who are facing disciplinary cases - Guidelines - Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 257, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 10-06-1999)Ref : - 1. G.O. Ms. No. 424, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 25-05-1976.2. G.O. Ms. No. 104, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 16-02-1990.
3. G.O. Ms. No. 66, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 30-01-1991.
4. From the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India Memo.No.22011/4/91-Estt.(A), dated 14-09-1992.
5. G.O.Ms.No.74, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 24-02-1994.
6. G.O. Ms. No. 203, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 05-05-1999.
Order: - In the G.Os. 1st to 3rd read above, orders were issued enunciating guidelines for consideration of employees who are facing disciplinary enquiries it regard to their appointment by promotion or transfer to higher categories.2. In the reference fourth read above, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India have issued guidelines in regard to consideration of Government Servants against whom disciplinary or Court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for promotion to next higher categories. Keeping in view the said guidelines, orders have been issued in the G.O. fifth read above, for consideration of employees for ad-hoc promotion where the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government employees is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first Departmental Promotion Committee, in which the employee was considered, in case the employee is not under suspension.
3. It has come to the notice of Government, that the guidelines issued in the said orders are not being strictly adhered to in several Departments and ad-hoc promotion is being considered on the simple ground, that two years period has elapsed after institution of disciplinary proceedings against the employee without going into the desirability of making ad-hoc promotion in such cases. The Government have carefully reviewed the issue and accordingly it has been decided to cancel the orders issued in the G.O. fifth read above and issue suitable guidelines on the subject.
4. Accordingly, orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.74, General Administrator Ser.C) Department, dated the 24th February, 1994 are hereby cancelled with immediate effect.
5. Government also order that with immediate effect the following procedure and guidelines, be followed to consider the employees against whom disciplinary cases or criminal prosecution are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for appointment by promotion or transfer, to next higher categories.
(A)The details of employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees:(i)Officers under suspension;(ii)Officers in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending;(iii)Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending.(B)Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations or charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely :(i)an Officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against who related to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved, would not stand in the way of his being promoted;(ii)an Officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and(iii)an Officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him.(C)The suitability of the Officers for inclusion in the panel should be considered on an overall assessment based on the record which should include namely:(i)Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports, the penalties awarded and the bad reputation of the Officer as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned;The above cases should be considered as falling under category (ii) of item (B) above.(ii)The Officers who do not have any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report and who have no penalties awarded against them in the entire duration of the post and not merely in the past five years and whose reputation is vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned should be considered as falling under category (iii) of item (B) above.The Officers categorised as under item (iii) of G.O. Ms. No. 424, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 25-5-1976 as mentioned above only should be considered for ad-hoc promotion after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Screening Committee Meeting in which their cases were considered for the first time.16. Acquittal by the Courts of ACB and SPE, based on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma vs State of Bihar - Instructions regarding revocation of suspension, regularisation of suspension period, etc. - Issued.
(U.O. Note No. 2715/SC.E3/98-9, General Administrator (Ser.E) Department , dated 28-6-99)Order: - It has been brought to the notice of the Government that following the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, certain Special Courts for ACB & SPE Cases are dismissing pending ACB cases in a routine manner on technical grounds without deciding the case on merits, solely on the ground that two years period has elapsed within which prosecution evidence has not been completed. Consequent on such acquittals by the trial Courts, on technical grounds, the Accused Officers are representing, and that the Departments are referring files to Vigilance Commission for (i) revocation of suspension orders, if they are under suspension and reinstatement in service; (ii) regularisation of the suspension period if they have already been reinstated into service, etc.2. All the Departments of Secretariat are informed that the Government have decided that, in cases of judicial acquittal based on the Supreme Court decision in the Bihar case, appeals should be filed in the High Court and Special Leave Petitions/ Review Petitions should be filed in Supreme Court. All Departments of Secretariat are requested that, pending outcome of the Appeals/Special Leave Petition/ Review Petition, no action to revoke suspension or regularise the period of suspension to close the case or to confer consequential reliefs etc., should be taken up.
3. All the Departments of Secretariat are requested to comply with the above instructions in the matter.
17. Subsistence Allowance Pending Consideration of Appeal - Regarding.
(Cir. Memo. No. 39071/471/A2/FR.II/99, Fin. & Plg., (FW-F.R.II) dated 28-02-2000)Ref : - 1. Cir. Memo.No.13431/1160-A/FR.II/93, dated 01-04-1993.2. Cir. Memo.No.29730-A/458/A2/FR.II/94, dated 15-09-1994.
Order: - In the Circular Memos 1st and 2nd cited, detailed instructions were issued for prompt payment of subsistence allowance to the employees who were under suspension.2. The Supreme Court of India in a case of the State of Maharastra Vs. Chandrabhan, 1983 (2) SLR 493, while allowing the Writ Petition, dismissed the Civil Appeal has clarified that on payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension when the Government Servant is lodged in prison on conviction by Trial Court. The observations of the Supreme Court is as follows:
"If the Civil Servant under suspension pending Departmental Enquiry on a criminal trial started against him, is entitled to subsistence allowance at the normal rate which is a bare minimum required for the maintenance of the Civil Servant and his family, he should undoubtedly get it even pending his appeal filed against his conviction by the Trial Court, and his right to get the normal subsistence allowance pending consideration of his appeal against his conviction should not depend upon the chance of his being released on bail and not being lodged in prison on conviction by the Trial Court. Whether he is lodged in prison or released on bail on his conviction pending consideration of his appeal, his family requires the bare minimum by way of subsistence allowance".3. Keeping in view the above judgment of the Apex Court, Government hereby order that a Government Servant under suspension whether he is lodged in prison or released on bail on his conviction pending consideration of his appeal, be paid subsistence allowance.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat and the Heads of Departments are requested to bring the aforesaid rulings of the Supreme Court to the notice of all the Officers under their administrative control for strict compliance.
18. Payment of Compensatory Allowance to the Government Servants under suspension - Further Clarificatory Instructions - Issued
(Cir. Memo. No. 40986/489/A2/FR.II/99-2, F & P (FW), dated 1-4-2000)Order: - It has been brought to the notice of the Government that the Government Servants under suspension in some cases, are allowed Compensatory Allowances proportionate to the Subsistence Allowance sanctioned to them.2. It is hereby clarified that as per the provisions under FR-53(1)(ii)(b), a Government Servant under suspension is entitled for Compensatory Allowance, such as House Rent Allowance and other allowances admissible from time to time on the basis of Pay of which the Government Servant was in receipt on the date of Suspension, subject to fulfilment of other conditions laid down for drawal of such allowances.
3. The above Rule position shall be followed scrupulously, while sanctioning Compensatory Allowances to the Government Servants under suspension.
19. Suspension - Guidelines for placing Accused Officers under suspension in Trap Cases - Classification of trap cases - Instructions - Issued.
(U.O. Note No. 1818/SPL.B/2000-2, G.A.D. (Spl. B), dated 21-11-2001)Ref: 1. U.O. Note No.240/SC.D/93-3, GA(SC.D) Department, dated 5-10-19932. U.O. Note No.1595/SC.D/93-6, GA(SC.D) Department, dated 16-11-1994
3. Memo No. 554/Ser. C/93-6, GA(Ser.C)Department, dated 26-12-1994.
Order: - Instructions were issued in the references first and second cited for suspension of government servants involved in traps laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) as follows:Trap Cases20. Combating corruption in public services. Suspension of corrupt officers on whom criminal misconduct cases - Instructions - Issued.
(Memo. No. I9179/Ser.C/2003, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , Dated 18-12-2003)Ref : - 1. U.O. Note No. 240/SC.D/93-3, G.A. (Ser.D) Department , dated 05-10-1993.2. U.O. Note No.1595/SC.D/93-6, G.A.(SC.D) Department , dated 16-11-1994.
3. Memo. No. 554/Ser.C/93-6, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 26-12-1994.
4. Government U.O. Note No. 1818/Spl.B/2000-2, dated 21-11-2001.
5. Government Memo. No. 596/Spl.B/2000-6, dated 10-06-2002.
Order: - To eliminate the long delays occurring in the matter of prompt suspension of corrupt officers both pending enquiry / trail and dismissal as contemplated in APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, Government have issued instructions from time to time in the references cited. To bring clarity, the Government instructions are summarized as below :Suspension of officers involved in Trap cases of the ACB:Officers involved in trap cases shall be suspended immediately upon receipt of preliminary report from the ACB - irrespective of the fact whether the officer is involved directly or indirectly in the act of accepting bribe and irrespective of the fact whether the phenolphthalein test yielded positive result or not.Suspension of officers involved in Disproportionate Assets cases:Based on the preliminary report and recommendation of the DG, ACB, Hyd., for suspension of officers involved in disproportionate assets cases, orders of suspension shall be issued promptly. Further based on the recommendation of the DG., ACB., Hyd., properties of officers against whom disproportionate cases are initiated, should be permitted to be attached under relevant sections of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the above instructions strictly without any deviation in placing the employees under suspension in the above referred cases. They are further requested to bring the same to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.21. Review of orders of suspension of Government Servants - Existing orders reiterated - Further instructions - Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 526, G. A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 19-08-2008)Ref : - 1. G.O. Ms. No. 86, G. A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 08-03-1994.2. G.O. Ms. No. 578, G. A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 31-12-1999.
Order: - In the G.O.s read above comprehensive instructions were issued on review of orders of suspension of Government employees at an interval of every six months and also to undertake specific review by the secretary to Government of the department at Government level when the employees are continued under suspension beyond two years, so as to consider such employees for reinstatement pending finalization of the disciplinary cases against them. It is brought to the notice of the government by the employees associations that the above orders inforce are not properly implemented and in several cases the employees are under suspension beyond two years and also the disciplinary cases are not concluded for several years.2. After careful consideration, Government direct that, all concerned authorities to strictly implement the policy decision enunciated in the G.O.s read above. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to review each and every case of suspension as per the orders in-force and consider the reinstatement of the employees. The objective is to complete the disciplinary cases against the employees as expeditiously as possible and to punish the guilty. This is the specific policy of the Government for efficient and smooth functioning of the administration.
3. Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. However, in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged Officers are not co-operating for completion of investigation / inquiry or when the inquiry / investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Head of the Department concerned and an Official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau investigation), shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors should follow the above instructions scrupulously and bring it to the notice of all the concerned for strict implementation of the above orders.
Part - IV Penalties And Disciplinary Authorities9. Penalties:
- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely-Minor Penalties :1. Imposing of penalty of reduction to the Lower Rank or Post.
(Memo. No. 928/63-3, dated 19-6-1963)Ref: - Office Memo. No. 9/13/62, Estt. (D), dated 10-10-1962 from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.Order: - Under Rule 8 of the Andhra Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules applicable to Andhra employees and under Rule 12 of Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, applicable to Telangana Employees, it has been provided that for good and sufficient reasons, one of the penalties to be imposed upon a Government servant is "reduction to a Lower Rank in the seniority list, or to a lower post or time scale, whether in the same service or in another service, State or Subordinate or to a lower stage in time-scale". It has been decided that, in future, an order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service grade, or post or to a lower time-scale, should invariably specify :2. Imposition of more than one penalty for a single lapse - Opinion of Law Department - Communicated.
(U.O. Note No. 1713/Ser. C/66-1, G.A.D., dated 1-7-1966)A copy of the Law Department's opinion on the above subject is forwarded to all Departments of Secretariat for information and guidance.ToAll Departments."true copy"Civil Services - (Classification, Control & Appeal Rules) - Procedure To Be Followed In Cases Of Minor Penalties - Regarding(Copy of Extract of Law Department's opinion taken from the file bearing C.No. 3286/63-Ser. C of G.A. (Ser. C) Department, dated 25-2-64)The scope of the expression "any of the penalties" occurring in Rules 12 and 14 of the Andhra C.C.A. Rules and in Rules 14 and 15 of the Hyderabad C.C.A. Rules cannot be cut down by understanding the same to mean as any one of the penalties. When a particular expression issued in a statute or statutory rule, it has to be presumed that the Legislature or the rule making authority, as the case may be, has used that expression in the sense in which it has been understood or interpreted by courts of law, unless a contrary intention appears from that statute or statutory rule. The word 'any' may have one of several meanings; according to the circumstances, may mean 'all', 'each', 'every', 'some or one or more' out of several vide the Law Lexicon by Ramantha Iyer. If the rule makers had intended that for any single lapse of which a Government servant has been found guilty in any disciplinary proceeding only one, but not more than one, of the several penalties specified in the CCA Rules should be imposed upon that Government servant that intention should have been brought out clearly in the relevant C.C.A. Rules. There is nothing in the Andhra C.C.A. Rules or the Hyderabad C.C.A. Rules from which such an intention can be gathered by implication, either.It may, however, be pointed out that imposition of several penalties indiscriminately for a single lapse on the part of a Government servant could not have been contemplated by the rule making authority. The imposition of multifarious penalties for one and the same dereliction must not be made if the cumulative effect of those penalties is far out of proportion to the gravity of the dereliction. The imposition of a single major penalty may be more severe in its effect than the imposition of two or more minor penalties. In a case where a severe penalty is called for, it is open to the punishing authority to impose two or more less severe penalties instead of severe penalty, taking a lenient view of the magnitude of the delinquency. In a case where the delinquency on the part of a Government servant consists in, say, misappropriation of Government funds, the penalty of recovery from the pay of that Government servant of the loss caused to the Government may merely compensate the Government for the loss sustained by it, but that by itself may not be a sufficient punishment for the delinquency. In such a case, the punishing authority while ordering recovery of the loss caused to the Government, from the pay of the delinquent officer, may impose upon him some other penalty. While the former may be intended to compensate the Government, the latter may be intended to make the delinquent suffer the consequences of his misdemeanour. As the rules stand at present, there does not seem to be any objection to the imposition of some penalty, in addition to the recovery from pay of the loss caused to the Government, upon a Government servant who is found in disciplinary proceedings to have caused loss to the Government as a result of his negligence or misconduct.3. Censure - Further Classification.
[G.O.Ms.No. 53, G.A.D. (Ser.C), dated 4-2-1997]Ref: - 1. G.O.Ms. No. 187, G.A. (Ser.B), Department , dated 25-4-1985.2. Memo.No. 322/Ser. B./87-6, GAD, dated 8-2-88.
Order: - According to sub-rule (i) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. "Censure" is declared as a minor penalty para 11 of the G.O. first read above provided that an individual, who is undergoing punishment, should not be recommended for promotion and where the period of punishment imposed is already over, each case has to be evaluated by Department Promotion Committee on merits. In the Government Memo. Second read above instructions were issued to the effect that solitary instance of minor punishment such as censure, fine, withholding of increments or recovery from pay of the pecuniary loss caused to the State Government or Central Government employee by itself does not automatically render a person unfit for promotion to a non selection post.2. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in its instructions issued O.M.No. 39/21/56 Ests. (A) dated 13-12-1956 has clarified that an order of "Censure" is formal and public act intended to convey that the person concerned has been guilty of some blameworthy act or omission for which it has been found necessary to award him a formal punishment and nothing can amount to a censure unless it is intended to be such a formal punishment and imposed for good and sufficient reason after following the prescribed procedure and that a record of the punishment so imposed is kept on the officers confidential roll and the fact that he has been censured will have its bearing on the assessment of his merit or suitability for promotion to higher posts.
3. As the penalty of censure has a bearing on the Assessment of the Government Servant about his merit or suitability for promotion to higher posts and as the currency of punishment based on previous record stands as an impediment for promotion, it is considered necessary to specify the time limit during which the said penalty of "Censure" is effective besides defining the penalty.
4. Hitherto there are no specific orders in regard to definition of Censure and its implications. After careful consideration, the Government decided to issue the following orders in regard to definition of Censure and it's implications in assessing the "merit" and suitability of the Government Servant for his promotion/ appointment by transfer.
Definition: - "Censure" is a formal and public act intended to convey that the person concerned has been guilty of some blameworthy act or omission for which it has been found necessary to a and him a formal Punishment, and nothing can amount to a "Censure" unless it is intended to be such a formal punishment and imposed for "good" and sufficient reason after following the prescribed procedure.Effect: - Every censure awarded shall debar a Government Servant for promotion/ appointment by transfer for one year to both Selection and Non-Section Posts.4. Disciplinary action in cases of misappropriation - Instructions.
(Memo. No. 3000/Services C/76-4. General Administrator (Services-C) Department , dated 28-6-1977)Order: - According to Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, the penalties specified in the said rule may be imposed on a member of a service for good and sufficient reason. The above rule also provides that the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Government, etc., by negligence or breach of orders may be recovered from the pay of the person concerned.2. Instructions were issued in confidential Memo No. 1718/Ser. C/75-1, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 22-11-75 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.
3. Several cases of misappropriation by Government employees of Government money have come to the notice of the Government. In one case, the employee concerned encashed a fixed deposit receipt and instead of depositing the amount realised by him to the Government account, he absconded from duty. Action has been taken for the recovery of the amount from the employee. A criminal case has also been filed against him. In another case, seven drafts of the Reserve Bank of India, for a huge amount were reportedly encashed in a sub-treasury.
The certificates of payment disclosed that the drafts had been issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Madras, for payment at the sub-treasury to different parties. The matter was referred to the Reserve Bank of India, Madras. According to the particulars furnished by the Bank, except for the serial numbers of the drafts and the office of the issue, the particulars of the amounts, the dates of issue, the names of the parties and the place of the payment were different from the particulars of drafts stated to have been encashed in the sub-treasury. The investigating officer observed, inter-alia, that the sub-treasury officer in connivance with his subordinate staff made some fictitious entries in the sub-treasury records and managed to withdraw the amount in two instalments. The sub-treasury officer and the staff of the sub-treasury had been placed under suspension and the case is pending trial in the Court.4. It was observed by the Public Accounts Committee that there is a wide discrepancy in the scales of punishment meted out in misappropriation cases as stated in the above para. The question of prescribing uniform scale of punishment in such cases has been considered by the Government. It has been decided that ordinarily cases of proved misappropriation would justify dismissal from service and action should accordingly be taken. There may, however, be rare cases where attendant circumstances, such as trivial amount, short duration, immediate payment on detection, all of which may raise a presumption that it was an error in accounting, which may justify a different punishment. A clear distinction should be drawn between the cases of "delayed remittance" and "misappropriation" 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 misappropriation.
5. Minor Penalties - Effect of Penalty - Orders - Issued
[G.O.Ms.No. 342, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 4-8-1997]Ref: - 1. G.O.Ms.No. 187, General Administrator (Ser.B) Department , dated 25-4-1985.2. G.O.Ms.No. 58, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 4-2-1997.
Order: - Under Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the following are the minor penalties :2. As per para 11 of G.O.Ms.No. 187, General Administration (Services B) Department, dated 25-4-1985 the individual who is undergoing punishment should not be recommended for promotion. In case, where the period of punishment imposed is already over, each case has to be evaluated by Departmental Promotion Committee on merits.
3. The need for issue of comprehensive instructions on the currency and effect of minor penalties on Government employees who were involved in disciplinary cases and who come up for consideration for vomotion to higher categories has been examined and further instructions are issued as follows :
| Penalty | Effect |
| (i) Censure | In terms of orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 53, General Administrator (Ser.C) dated 4-2-1997 “every Censure awarded shall debar a Governmentemployee for promotion / appointment by transfer for one year toboth selection and non-selection posts.” |
| (ii) Withholding of Promotion. | This penalty awarded to Government employees shall debar theindividual for promotion/appointment by transfer to a higher postduring the period of subsistence of penalty which shal beindicated in the order imposing the period of one year, both forselection and non-selection posts. |
| (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniaryloss caused by him to the State Government or the Central Government or toa Local Authority or to a Corporation owned or controlled by thestate or Central Government by negligence or breach or orders whileworking in any department of the State or the Central Government ,Local Authority or Corporation concerned. | Whenever a Government Employee is awarded the penalty ofrecovery from pay, it shall debar the individual for promotion/appointment y transfer to a higher post during the period ofpenalty which shall be indicated in the order imposing thepenalty subject to a minimum period of one year both forselection and non-selection posts. Even if an employee remits theamount in one lumpsum, he/she[Shall not be recommended forpromotion] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 431, G.A.D., Dated 14-10-1997.]/appointment by transfer for a minimum period of oneyear. |
| (iv) Withholding of increments of pay : | (i) In G.O. Ms. No. 335, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , Dated14-6-93 orders were issued to the effect that the penalty ofstoppage of increments with comulative effect amounts to a majorpenalty under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991and the elaborate procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the saidrules is to be followed. |
| (a) With Cumulative effect. | (ii) In terms of G.O. Ms. No. 968, General Administrator (Ser.-C), Department ,Dt. 26-10-95, whenever any Government employee is awarded thepenalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, thecases of such employees[Shall not be recommended forpromotion] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 431, G.A.D., Dated 14-10-1997.]/appointment by transfer for twice the period for whichthe increment (s) is/are stopped with cumulative effect, both forselection and non-selection posts. |
| (iii) Whenever any Government employee is awarded the penalty ofstoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the individual[Shall not be recommended for promotion] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 431, G.A.D., Dated 14-10-1997.]/appointment by transferfor twice the period with a minimum of one year both forselection and non-selection posts. | |
| (b) Without Cumulative effect. | This penalty awarded to Government employees Shall debar him/herfor promotion/appointment by transfer to a higher post during theperiod subsistence of penalty which shall be indicated in theorder subject to a minimum period of one year, both for selectionand non-selection posts. |
| (v) Suspension, where a person has already been suspendedunder Rule 8 to the extent considered necessary. | Where suspension is revoked exonerating a person fully his/hercase may be considered for promotion with retrospective effect.Where the disciplinary proceedings finally resulted in a penaltyhe/she will be debarred during the period of one year from thedate of reinstatement. In case the suspension period itself istreated as substantive penalty, he/she shall be debarred forpromotion/appointment by transfer for a period of minimum oneyear both for selection/non-selection posts. |
4. All Departments of Secretariat/Heads of Departments/all District Collectors shall follow the above orders scrupulously and bring it to the notice of all concerned.
6. Stoppage of Increments with cumulative Effect - Consultation with Public Service Commission for Concurrence - Orders - Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 536, G.A.(Ser.C) Department, dated 8-12-1997)Ref : - 1. G.O. Ms. No. 335, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department, dated 14-6-1993.2. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commissioner, Lr. No. 124/ VC/E.II/95-7, dated 20-11-1996.
Order: - In the order first read above, it is ordered that for imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall be followed. It was also ordered therein that the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect shall be treated as a major penalty.2. In Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963, it is mentioned that consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be necessary where the State Government propose to pass an original order imposing any of the following penalties:
3. Since the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty, it is necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission before imposing the said penalty.
4. Accordingly, it is ordered that where it is proposed to impose the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, it is necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission as per Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963.
5. The General Administration (Services.A) Department will issue suitable amendments to the Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963.
7. Government employees convicted in a Criminal Charge/convicted in corruption cases - Action to be taken - Instructions - Reiterated.
(Cir. Memo. No. 3824/Ser.C/98-2, G.A.(Ser-C) Department , dated 9-2-1998)Ref : - 1. Memo. No. 3037/Ser.C/64-3, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 26-11-1964.2. Memo. No.1017/Ser.C/66-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 18-6-1966.
3. Memo. No.1718/Ser.C/75-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 22-11-1975.
4. Memo No.3000/Ser.C/76-4, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-6-1977.
5. U. 0. Note No.32/Ser.C/81-2, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 9-2-1981.
6. Memo. 169/Ser.C/77-8, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 10-02-1978.
7. Memo. No. 637/Ser.C/83-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-06-1983.
8. Memo. No. 1317/Ser.C/88-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 31-12-1988.
9. Cir. Memo. No. 100/Ser.C/93-22, G.A.D (Ser.C), dated 23-12-1995.
10. From Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vig. Comm., Lr.No.2024/VC-C2/97-2, dated 06-01-1998.
Order: - In the reference 1st cited (copy enclosed) instructions were issued, among others that, in proved cases of bribery and corruption, no punishment other than that of dismissal should be considered adequate and if any lesser punishment is to be awarded in such cases, adequate reasons should be given for it in writing.It is also mentioned therein that a close watch on corrupt officials shall be maintained and there should be no reservation in making entries in the personal files of the employees about their integrity and for expeditious disposal of the disciplinary cases, it is suggested to pursue the cases on day to day basis. In the reference 2nd cited, in order to ensure that the instructions on disciplinary action against Government employees involved in corruption, bribery or moral turpitude are followed scrupulously, the Inspecting Officers were requested to review at the time of their inspecting the offices all cases of corruption and bribery where the maximum penalty has not been awarded by the competent authority. The Heads of Departments and District Collectors were informed in the reference 3rd cited, that officers convicted in criminal cases should normally be dismissed from service and it is not necessary either to await the outcome of an appeal or the expiry of the appeal time, where an appeal may have been preferred. In the reference 4th cited it has been directed that a clear distinction should be drawn between the cases of delayed remittance and mis-appropriation having regard to the fact that in proved cases of misappropriation no punishment short of dismissal is normally justified and accordingly the case of delayed remittance need not always be classified for the purpose of audit as a case of mis-appropriation.2. To minimise the delay in investigation of cases of corruption and misappropriation, the Secretaries to Government of the Departments of Secretariat have been directed in reference 5th cited to review every month the cases pending for more than a year with the Police/Anti-Corruption Bureau in a meeting and write to the Director General of Police/Director of Anti-Corruption Bureau for speeding up the investigation. It was a fact that however complicated a case may be, the investigation should not take more than one year after it is entrusted to the Police or Anti-Corruption Bureau.
3. In the Memo. 6th cited (copy enclosed) instructions were issued regarding action to be taken in cases where Government Servants are convicted on a criminal charge or where an appeal/revision in a High Court succeeds. Similarly, instructions were issued in the reference 7th and 8th cited regarding action to be taken in cases where Government servants are not convicted in a criminal case.
4. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee the following instructions have been issued in the Circular Memo. 9th cited :
"In all cases of misappropriation, after investigation is completed by the Police and charge sheets filed, such cases should be pursued effectively to ensure that there is no let-up in prosecuting the cases effectively and that there is no failure on the part of Asst. Public Prosecutor, etc., in conducting the prosecution property. In cases, where the trial ultimately ends in acquittal, immediate action may be taken to file appeals, after obtaining legal opinion. In cases, where it is felt that the prosecution was conducted improperly and the Prosecuting Officers have not taken adequate interest, responsibility must be fixed for their failure to conduct the prosecution successfully. To ensure a proper watch, the Departments should review all such cases periodically for the half years ending 30/6 and 31/12 of every year and furnish their reviews to the General Administration (Ser.C) Department. Even when there are no such cases, a 'Nil' report has to be furnished."5. In the reference 10th cited, the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission has stated that while interpreting Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sri Ramesh Kumar (1997 (5) SCALE 660) has held that-
"a bare reading of Rule 19 shows that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to take action against a Government Servant on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge." The rules, however do not provide that on suspension of execution of sentence by the Appellate Court, the order of dismissal based on the conviction stands obliterated and dismissed Government Servant has to be treated under suspension till disposal of appeal by the Appellate Court. The rules also do not provide for the Disciplinary Authority to await disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Court filed by the Government Servant for taking action against him on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction by a Competent Court of Law. Having regard to the provisions of the rules, the order dismissing the respondent from service on the ground of misconduct leading to his conviction by a Competent Court of Law has not lost its sting merely because a criminal appeal was filed by the Respondent against his conviction and the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence and enlarged the Respondent on bail. The matter may also be examined from another angle. Under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellate Court has power to suspend the execution of sentence and to release an accused on bail. When the Appellate Court suspends the execution of sentence and grants bail to an accused, the effect of the order is that, sentence based on conviction is for the time being postponed or kept in abeyance, during the pendency of the appeal. In other words, by suspension of execution of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.0 an accused avoids under going sentence pending Criminal Appeal. However, the conviction continues and it is not obliterated and if the conviction is not obliterated, any action taken against a Government Servant for misconduct which led to his conviction by the Court of Law does not lose its efficacy merely because Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence.6. The Vigilance Commissioner has further stated that the Law Department has observed that in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India a delinquent Government Servant who has been dismissed/removed from service on the ground of misconduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, is not entitled to reinstatement into service merely because a Criminal Appeal was filed by the delinquent Government Servant against his conviction, and the Appellate Court has suspended the execution of sentence and the accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. The Vigilance Commissioner also desired to reiterate the existing instructions for the strict compliance.
7. Accordingly, the instructions issued in the reference 1st to 9th cited are reiterated for strict compliance. A book containing the copies of the above instructions has already been made available to all Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors for their guidance in dealing with disciplinary cases. The A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 have been reissued and the new A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 have come into force with effect from 01-10-1992. Wherever it is proposed to initiate disciplinary action, the same shall be taken up strictly as per the provision contained in the New Rules, 1991.
8. It is the earnest endeavour of the Government to root out corruption and deal sternly with the corrupt officials. The employees convicted in criminal cases/corruption cases should be punished in the least possible time.
9. Government, therefore, direct that the above instructions shall be followed scrupulously and any lapse on the part of the concerned authority in implementing the order shall be viewed seriously and disciplinary action initiated against such erring officials.
8. Disciplinary cases - Awarding the Penalty to Delinquent Officers Further Orders - Issued.
(G.O.Ms.No. 2, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 04-01-99)Ref : - 1. Cir. Memo. No. 3037/Ser.C/64-3, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 26-11-1964.2. Government Memo. No. 1718/Ser.C/75-1, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 22-11-1975.
3. Cir. Memo. No. 3824/Ser. C/98-2, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 09-02-1998.
Order: - In the Memo. first read above, instructions were issued, among others, that in proved cases of bribery and corruption, no punishment other than that of dismissal be considered adequate and if any lesser punishment is to be awarded in such cases adequate reasons should be given for it in writing. In the Memo. second read above, instructions were issued to the effect that the officers convicted in Criminal Cases should normally be dismissed from service. The above instructions have been reiterated for strict compliance vide the reference third read above.2. It is the earnest endeavour of the Government to ensure a clean and transparent administration. To have this policy transcended to the grass root level, it is keenly felt that the officers with doubtful integrity involved in criminal offences shall be weeded out in order to ensure efficient functioning. To ensure clean and efficient administration, the Government direct that in all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from service shall be imposed.
9. Disciplinary cases against members of service - Consultation with Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Regulation 17 for awarding major penalties - Clarification - Issued.
(Memo. No. 32667/Ser. C/98-8, G.A. (Ser. C) D, dated 13-05-99)Ref : - From the Secretary, A.P. P. S. C. Letter No.1359/RT/1/1/98, dated 7-5-99.Order: - Under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963, it shall be necessary to consult the Commission, where the State Government propose to pass an original order imposing any of the following penalties, as per Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 :2. It has been brought to the notice of the Government that the Disciplinary Authorities/Appointing Authorities, at district level and at the level of Heads of Departments are other addressing the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for concurrence to award the above mentioned penalties on the Delinquent Officers or approaching the concerned Administrative Department to obtain the concurrence of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and pass it on to them for passing final orders.
3. It is clarified that consultation with the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission under Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963 shall be necessary only where the Departments of Secretariat, at Government level propose to pass an original order of penalty against a delinquent employee as mentioned in para 1 above. Therefore, to pass an order imposing penalty as in Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 by any authority other than the Departments of Secretariat at Government level, it shall not be necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, under Regulation 17 of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the above clarification scrupulously.
10. Pensions - Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules 1980 can continue after retirement even in case where there is no pecuniary loss to Government - Clarification - Issued.
(Circular Memo. No. 3026/18/A2/Pen.1/99, Fin. & Plg., Department , dated 1-6-1999)Order: - According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules 1980, inter-alia, empowers the Government reserves to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or part whether permanently or for a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.2. The Government have been receiving representations seeking clarifications whether disciplinary proceeding pertaining to a serious or grave misconduct or negligence committed by a Government Servant can be continued or instituted in terms of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 even if no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government.
3. According to ruling 8 under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, action can be taken under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Similar to Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules, 1980) and as per the clarification issued by the Government of India, Department of Pension and Training in O.M.No. 28027/3/87-Estt(A), dated: 29th June, 1990 even in the absence of any pecuniary loss to Government, the pension of the pensioner can be withheld or withdrawn after following due procedure for an act of misconduct or negligence committed while in service.
4. The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India and others Vs. B. Dev, A.I.R. 1998, S.C. 2709, while explaining the scope of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 observed as follows :
"Rule 9 gives to the President the right of-5. In view of the clarification given by the Government of India, Department of Pension and Training and the rulings of the Supreme Court the Government hereby clarifies that disciplinary proceedings pertaining to a serious or grave act of misconduct/negligence committed by a Government Servant can be continued or instituted in terms of Rule 9 of R.P.Rules, 1980 or other corresponding rules, even if no pecuniary loss was caused to the Government.
11. Disciplinary cases against the Government employees - Detection of the delinquency, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, early completion of the enquiries and imposing adequate penalty - Instructions - Reiterated.
(Memo. No. 4439I/Ser.C/99, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , dated 21-9-1999)Ref : - 1. Government Memo No. 2261/Ser.C/79-2, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 23-10-1979.2. U.O. Note No. 463/Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 20-12-1985.
3. Cir. Memo No. 100/Ser.C/93-22 G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 23-12-1995.
4. Cir. Memo No. 3824/Ser.C/98-2, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 09-02-1998.
5. G.O. Ms. No. 188, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 26-05-98.
6. Cir. Memo. No. 35676/Ser.C/98, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 01-07-1998.
7. G.O. Ms. No. 2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 4-1-1999.
8. Government Memo. No. 23537/Ser.C/99-5, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 28-7-1999.
Order: - Instructions have been issued from time to time for detection of the delinquencies, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, for early completion of the enquiries and for imposing penalties on the delinquent Government employees. Despite clear instructions, it is noticed that in several cases, there was undue delay in detecting the delinquency as well as in completing the enquiries, thereby the accused officer went scot free on retirement from service. The Public Accounts Committee of the State Legislature observed several times on the need for early completion of enquiries and for imposing penalties on erring Government Servants.2. In the reference third cited, it has been requested that the departments should review all cases of misappropriation on half yearly basis and to ensure that the enquiries are completed at the earliest. The delinquencies generally noticed against the Government employees may be broadly classified as cases of misappropriation, corruption, misconduct, and dereliction of duty. As regards the corruption, the investigation is taken up by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and report submitted to the Vigilance Commission or to the Directorate of Vigilance and Enforcement. In case of misappropriation, the reports of the Public Accounts Committee of the State Legislature generally form the basis to detect the delinquency. Other agencies namely the Anti-Corruption Bureau and reports in the media are also the source of information about the misappropriation. For the misconduct the police investigation, the Anti-Corruption Bureau or departmental authorities are the sources for detection of the delinquency. The dereliction to duty is noticed by the Departmental Officers.
3. As and when, it comes to the notice of the disciplinary authority or any higher authority, it shall be necessary to take immediate steps to detect the delinquency and to initiate disciplinary action. Disciplinary action initiated shall be completed as per the time schedule prescribed in the references sixth and eighth cited. Adequate penalty should be imposed on the employees who were found guilty. In this context, the orders issued in the reference seventh cited shall be kept in view. To quote an instance, an officer "X" was involved in an irregularity and the case was brought to the notice in November, 1995. The authority concerned to initiate the disciplinary action, took two long years of time and by that time said officer retired from service. Against the retired officer no action could be taken in view of the time limit stipulated in the Pension Rules. This resulted in allowing the officer to go scot free even though he was guilty. It is absolutely necessary to remedy the situation and the existing instructions in force should be strictly followed for initiation and early completion of the enquiries and disciplinary proceedings.
4. It is reiterated that the Inquiring Authorities appointed to enquire into charges shall strive to complete the enquiries as per the time schedule indicated and however in cases where the enquiry could not be completed for various reasons in time, the enquiry can be continued. The Secretary to Government of the department concerned shall review the cases and submit a note to Chief Secretary and Chief Minister as per the instruction sixth cited.
5. The penalties awarded to the Delinquent Officers should not be reduced in a routine way. The gravity of charge and the delinquency established should be kept in view. The orders issued in the reference fifth cited should be followed.
6. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the existing instructions on detecting the delinquencies, initiation of disciplinary action and for completion of the disciplinary proceedings as per time schedule prescribed.
12. Penalties as per Rule 9 - Stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect - Currency of the penalty - Clarification - Issued.
(Cir. Memo. No. 34633/Ser.C/99, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 04-11-1999)Ref : - G.O.Ms.No. 342, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 4-8-97.Order: - Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 deals with "Penalties" and its classification as minor penalties and major penalties. Item (iv) specifies withholding of increment without cumulative effect which is a minor penalty and item (vi) specifies withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect which is a major penalty. The currency of these penalties and their effect on promotion was ordered in the G.O. cited. The currency of the penalty is for a minimum period of one year during which the delinquent employee shall not be recommended for promotion.2. According to F.R. 24 an increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld as a measure of punishment. An increment may be withheld from a Government Servant by the State Government, or by any authority to whom the State Government may delegate this power if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments.
3. It is clarified that where the penalty of stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect is imposed, under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the increment or increments falling due immediately after the date of issue of the order should be withheld. It is also clarified that the employee whose increments were withheld shall not be recommended for promotion during the period for which the increments were ordered to be withheld with effect from the date of issue of the order imposing the penalty.
4. The District Collectors, Heads of Departments and Departments of Secretariat are requested to follow the above clarification in dealing with disciplinary cases.
13. Imposition of warning - Permissibility - Reg.
(Cir. Memo. No. 60897/Ser.C/99, G. A. (Ser.C) D, dated 12-11-1999)Order: - It is observed in a good number of cases that final orders are being issued by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities with either "Warning" or "let off' or "to be more careful in future" etc. None of these is a punishment listed in the A.P. Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules as a penalty under Rule 9 of the rules. The disciplinary proceedings cannot be deemed to have been concluded unless they end with one of the penalties mentioned under the C.C.A. Rules if any penalty is imposed or the Delinquent Officer is exonerated and specifically it is stated that charges are dropped. When words like warning, let off etc., are used, it is to be construed that the charges and the guilt of the Officer have been proved but a lenient view is taken and no punishment is awarded. Such action will not be in accordance with the C.C.A. Rules.2. In view of the above, all the Departments of Secretariat are requested to keep the above in view while issuing final orders and suitably instruct the Officers under their control to clearly mention the penalty imposed if any under the C.C.A Rules or state the fact of exoneration in case the Charged Officer is proved not guilty, duly dropping the charges.
14. Disciplinary cases pending at the time of retirement - Finalisation of the proceedings and payment of interest - Orders - Issued.
(G.O. Rt. No.1034, Fin. & Plg. (FW-PEN.I) Department , dated 9-6-2000)Order: - Generally the following two types of cases are being referred to this department for advice:2. In respect of item (I) where in the disciplinary cases which are pending at the time of retirement and not concluded for a longer period or many years, the courts are directing to conclude such cases within a specified period i.e., say within 2 or 3 months etc., but the departments are not concluding within the specified period. As a result, the final orders issued in such cases imposing either recovery or cut in pension are being dismissed by the courts since it was not concluded within the stipulated period as directed by the courts. As such, ultimately, the accused is being escaped from the punishment due to administrative delay.
3. In the above circumstances, Government hereby order that the disciplinary cases against the retired Government servant shall be concluded as quickly as possible. If court directs to conclude the same within a specified period, it should be concluded within the said period only. If not, time may be obtained from the court to conclude the same. In such a cases, final orders issued after the period specified by the courts and the court dismisses such final order due to non-conclusion of the same within time specified by them, action against the concerned persons shall be taken for not taking prompt action within the time and loss caused if any, thereto to the Government in such cases shall be recovered from the concerned.
4. In respect of item (II) wherein the disciplinary cases which are pending at the time of retirement of the Government servant and subsequently further action was dropped, the individual is eligible for interest on retirement Gratuity from the date of issue of final orders thereon. In many cases, where charges and further action was dropped after retirement, the charged officers are requesting for interest from the date of retirement, but not from the date of final orders since charges are dropped.
5. In the above circumstances, Government hereby order that if the department decides to drop the charges, they shall take a decision as quickly as possible and they should draft the order carefully duly indicting that the individual shall be eligible for interest subject to the conditions specified under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, from the date of final orders only. For this purpose the following lines are prescribed for guidance in respect of the orders proposed to be issued in this regard.
"In the circumstances stated above, the Government have taken a lenient view and further action is hereby dropped. The individual is eligible for terminal benefits due to him from the date of issue of these orders".15. Pensionary benefits to the Government Servants retired from service pending disciplinary action - Action against the retired persons for their lapses - Consolidated - Orders - Issued.
(G.O. Rt. No. 1097, Fin. & Plg., dated 22-6-2000)Ref : - 1. Memo. No. 37254/36I/A2/Pen.1/98, Fin. & Plg. (FW-Pen 1), dated 4-7-1998.2. Memo No. 3026/18/A2/Pen.1/99, Fin. & Plg. (FW-Pen-I) Department , dated 1-6-1999.
3. Cir. Memo No. 37989-A/494/A2/Pen.I/98, Fin. & Plg., Department , dated 21-4-1999.
4. G.O. Ms. No. 11, F&P (FW-FR I) Department , dated 15-1-1997.
5. D.O. Lr. No. 368NC.A2/99, dated 17-2-2000 of Vigilance Commissioner, AP.
Order: - The Vigilance Commissioner in the reference 5th read above, has stated that references are being made to that Commission by the departments of secretariat wanting to know the terminal benefits that can be sanctioned and those that are necessarily to be withheld on retirement of an Officer facing charges in departmental proceedings or criminal prosecution. Hence he has requested to issue consolidated instructions indicating the terminal benefits that can be released and those that are to be withheld in the above referred cases, so that a lot of unnecessary file work, litigation in Courts and harassment of retired Officers can be prevented. Accordingly, the following orders are hereby issued.2. According to the existing rules, the following are the terminal benefits to be sanctioned to a retired Government employee.
3. In case of Government Employees against whom the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, all the above terminal benefits need not be released. Proceedings pending means, there must be proceedings already initiated and pending within the meaning of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. A Government Servant who attains the age of superannuation while under suspension should be allowed to retire on the due date of superannuation. But pensionary benefits can not be settled until the conclusion of the enquiry or disposal of charges. In such cases, the payment of terminal benefits shall be regulated as follows:
A. The following amounts shall be paid to the retired employee since no recoveries can be made from these amounts:1. Family Benefit Fund.
2. Andhra Pradesh Group Insurance Scheme
3. General Provident Fund
4. Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance.
B. Encashment of Earned Leave: - As per the orders issued in G.0 fourth read above, the authority competent to grant leave, in the above mentioned cases may with hold whole or part of cash equivalent of earned leave, if in the view of the competent authority there is a possibility of some money becoming recoverable from him on conclusion of the proceedings against him. On conclusion, the retired employee will become eligible to the amount so withheld after adjustment of the Government dues, if any. As such, Encashment of Earned Leave can be regulated accordingly.C. Retirement Gratuity: - According to clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, no Gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders. According to the proviso to the above said rule, where depaltuiental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9 of the said rules, except the cases falling under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorised to be paid to the Government servant. It is also further provided in the said rule that where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be withheld or withdrawn and the retirement gratuity remains unaffected in the contemplated final orders, the retirement gratuity can be released upto 80% of the eligible retirement gratuity.D. Provisional Pension: - 1. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the retired employees mentioned in the above cases shall be sanctioned provisional pension as provided in Rule 52 of the said rules. According to Rule 52 of the said rules, the Audit Officer/Head of Office shall pay the provisional Pension not exceeding the eligible pension. The provisional pension shall be paid from the date of retirement to the date on which, final orders are passed by the competent authority on conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the retired employee. The Provisional Pension shall not be less than 75% of the normal pension entitlement.2. Pension sanctioning authorities are competent to sanction provisional pension to the Non Gazetted Officers. It shall be sanctioned by the Government in the case of Gazetted Officers.
3. In the above mentioned cases, the department shall send pension papers to the Accountant General and it should be mentioned in the forwarding letter that departmental/judicial proceedings are pending an.' with a request to indicate only the quantum of pension that would be admissible which should not be released till further orders as only provisional pension has to be released. The Accountant General may then verify the pensionary benefits admissible and indicate the quantum of Pension, where upon, the Head of the department may intimate the quantum of provisional pension for payment in case of Gazetted Officers, so that Government will sanction the same. The Accountant General, AP, Hyderabad will straight way authorise the minimum provisional pension i. e., 75% of the quantum of pension verified by his office, pending sanction by the pension sanctioning authority and that if the appropriate authority sanctions more than 75% of the eligible pension as provisional pension, the Accountant General will issue an amendment accordingly.
E. Commuted value of Pension: - No commutation of pension shall be allowed in the above mentioned cases since sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Commutation Rules, do not permit a Government servant against whom judicial or departmental proceedings has been instituted or pending, to commute any part of his pension during the pendency of such proceedings. Further, in the case of those to whom only provisional pension is granted, if after conclusion, entire pension is withheld, the question of commutation does not arise. In the case of others to whom pension was allowed either in full or in part, the period of one year for commutation without medical examination has to be reckoned from the date of issue of orders on conclusion of the proceedings.4. Action against a retired officer who commits irregularities can be taken on three counts: (1) Criminal Prosecution; (2) Disciplinary action; and (3) Recovery of the amount ;
In case of the death of the retired officer, action on first two counts will abate but as per the orders issued in the G.O. Ms. No. 85, Finance and Planning (FW-Pen I) Department, dated 12-7-1999, the loss or mis-appropriated amounts can be recovered from the terminal benefits of the retired officer.5. If any irregularity of a retired employee is noticed after his retirement and no departmental proceedings can be instituted under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the department can initiate criminal action against the retired officer or action under the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 to recover the loss if any caused to the Government by him.
16. Dismissal of accused officers from service immediately on conviction even if the appeal filed by him is pending before the Appellate court - Government Servants convicted are not eligible to be in service till they are honourably acquitted by the Appellate Court.
[Memo. No. 1621/SPL.B/2001-1, G.A.(SPLB) Department , dated 26-11-2001]Order: - The Supreme Court in its latest judgement in K.C.Sareen Vs. CBI Chandigarh, 2001(5) Supreme 437 decided on 2-8-2001 as follows:"Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the Republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could gamer momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralizing the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence, it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. The above policy can be acknowledged as necessary for the efficacy and proper functioning of public offices. If so, the legal position can be laid down that when conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant the appellate court or the revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence or imprisonment is suspended. It would be a sublime public policy that the convicted public servant is kept under disability of the conviction inspite of keeping the sentence of imprisonment in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or revision".In the light of the above categorical direction of the Supreme Court, Government hereby instructs that to take action forthwith for dismissal of public servants convicted of corruption and criminal misconduct immediately upon such conviction without waiting for any appeal and that the appointing/disciplinary authorities will be personally held responsible for non-implementation of these instructions and that they will be liable for disciplinary action if inspite of these instructions it is found convicted officers continuing in service without being dismissed immediately or continue to receive provisional pension if they have already retired in the meantime without action to withhold pension and other pensionary benefits or withdraw pension entirely as the case may be disregarding these instructions. It is also directed that salary/ pension/ provisional pension paid after the judgement convicting the accused public servant shall be liable to be recovered from the appointing authority. Consultation with Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in such cases has also been dispensed with.All Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to oppose any application for the suspension of conviction in such cases quoting the above judgement of the Supreme Court.All Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to follow the above instructions Scrupulously and also to communicate the above instructions to the public enterprises, autonomous bodies and other institutions receiving grant-in-aid, etc., under their administrative control.17. Misappropriation of funds - Procedural instructions to deal with misappropriation cases - Further orders - Issued.
(Cir. Memo. No. 51375/Ser.C/2002.-2, G.A.(Ser. C) Department , dated 28-11-2002)Ref. : - 1. Memo. No. 3000/Ser.G/76-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-06-1977.2. Memo. No. 2106/Ser.C/77-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 27-10-1977.
3. Memo. No. 2261/Ser.C/79-2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 23-10-1979.
4. U.O. Note No. 646/Ser.C/80-1, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 21-07-1980.
5. U.O. Note No. 32/Ser.C/81-2, G.A. (Ser.C), Department , dated 09-02-1981.
6. U.O. Note No. 4637Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 20-12-1985.
7. Circular Memo. No. 100/Ser.C/93-22, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 23-12-1995.
8. G.O.Ms. Mo. 2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 04-01-1999.
9. Memo. No. 44391/Ser.C/99, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 21-09-1999.
Order: - Instructions were issued, time and again, for prompt action in dealing with the cases of misappropriation of Government money.2. A study of few major misappropriation cases in different Departments has revealed serious short comings in the matter in which such cases are being dealt with. It is keenly felt necessary to plug the loopholes in the management of Government money and to take stern action against the employees / persons responsible for the misuse /misappropriation, by initiating disciplinary action, criminal action and to recover the amount. The existing instructions have been reviewed and the following further instructions are issued:
1. Memo. No. 2261/Ser.C/79-2, GA(Ser.C) Department , dated 23-10-79.
2. U.O. Note No. 646/Ser.C/80-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 21-07-1980.
3. U.O. Note. No. 463/Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 20-12-1985.
4. The policy of the Government is to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the officers who are convicted in a criminal case by Court of Law. In G.O. Ms. No. 2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department dated 04.01.1999, orders have been issued that in all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from services shall be imposed.
3. All the Departments of Secretariat, the Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the instructions. They are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance.
18. Maintenance of Lists of Officers of Doubtful integrity and Suspect Officers - Instructions - Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 232, G.A.(Spl-C) Department , dated 06-08-2003)Order: - Government places highest importance on providing clean and corruption free administration in the State. The Government have examined practices of the Government of India in maintaining an annual list of officers of Doubtful Integrity and obtaining Vigilance Clearance for promotions of Senior Officers from the Central Vigilance Commission, and decided to implement the practice of the Government of India. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before the High Level Committee on Anti-Corruption and the Committee in its meeting held on 26-10-2002 agreed that within a time span of three months the exercise for preparation of the following documents should be completed by all Departments in consultation with the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.2. After examining the recommendation of the High Level Committee on Anti Corruption, the Government hereby order that the above lists should be maintained by the Secretaries of the Departments of Secretariat. The procedure for maintaining lists is as follows:
List Of Public Servants Of Gazetted Status Of Doubtful Integrity:It will include names of those Gazetted officers only who, after enquiry or during the course of enquiry, have been found to be lacking in integrity. It will thus include the names of the officers falling under one of the following categories:3. These lists are intended to keep the Departments/Public Undertakings concerned informed about such officers of doubtful integrity to ensure that they are not posted to sensitive assignments and that this fact is given due consideration when deciding administrative matters affecting the services of these officers. These lists would also help the departments to know about the officers, whose work and conduct need both special attention and close supervision and scrutiny.
4. The Vigilance Organization of Departments will prepare a list of public servants of Gazetted status against whom any disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty are in progress or who have been punished in disciplinary proceedings on a charge involving lack of integrity. A copy of these lists will be sent by the department in respect of all departments under them to the ACB every year in the last week of February. As soon as adverse report against the officer of the nature mentioned above is received, the Vigilance Officer should bring it to the notice of the Secretary/ Head of the Department concerned immediately. A decision in regard to the inclusion of the name of such officer in the list should be taken as soon as possible. The ACB will suggest addition or deletion of names on the basis of information available with them and return the lists to Secretaries concerned, who would in turn furnish the list to the Heads of Department/Chief Executives of Public Enterprises. The purpose of maintenance of these lists is also to enable the Departments to take such administrative action as is necessary and feasible. The following courses of administrative action are open:
5. If these secret checks and enquiries reveal positive material, open enquires will be initiated by the ACB and further action taken in the light of the results of that enquiry and no adverse or punitive action is contemplated against any officer on these lists unless these checks, verifications or enquiries bring forth adequate material to reasonably conclude that he is lacking in integrity. These agreed lists will remain in force for one year from the date of preparation. At the end of this period, the list will be reviewed and the names of those officers against whom there is not sufficient evidence to proceed against will be deleted from the list.
List of points or places of corruption:6. All the Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments and the DG ACB are requested to follow above instructions scrupulously. These instructions will come into force with immediate effect.
19. Punishments imposed by the Disciplinary authorities should not be modified by the High Court or Tribunal - Supreme Court Judgement - Issue of Instructions - Regarding.
(Memo. No. 107309/Ser.C/2003, G.A. (Ser-C) Department , Dated: 03-09-2003)Order: - It has been brought to the notice of the Government that in a large number of cases in which the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has been setting aside or substantially reducing the penalties imposed in disciplinary cases even though it is the settled law that the Tribunal or the High Court should not interfere with the disciplinary authorities decisions unless in a specific case the punishment awarded shocks judicial conscience. Such cases will obviously be few and far between. The Supreme Court again in Director General, RPF vs. Ch.Sai Babu case in Supreme Today Journal 2003 (4) Supreme 313 pronounced judgement on 29-1-2002 setting aside the Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case and held that "Normally, the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/ establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works. Normally in cases where it is found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, high courts or Tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment".2. A copy of the judgement is forwarded to all the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and the Government Pleaders dealing with service matters in the A.P.A.T. and the High Court with a request to see that the Tribunal and the High Court decisions are strictly in conformity with the above ruling and take immediate steps to appeal against any such decisions and to strictly follow the above instructions. They shall also bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance.
2003.
| Director General R.P.F. & Ors. | Appeallants |
| Versus | |
| Ch. Sai Babu | Respondent |
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties
2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 15th June, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent was given charge sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 framing five charges relating to misconduct on his part. After enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges levelled against him were proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings as recorded by the enquiry officer passed an order of removal of the respondent from service. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order of his removal from service before the appellant and revisional authority. Thereafter he filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal from service on various grounds. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties did not found any good ground to disturb the finding of fact as to the charges which stood proved against the respondent. However, in relation to the quantum of Punishment, the learned Single Judge held thus:
"It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender, and due to dereliction of duties, punishment of stoppage of increment for three years was already ordered in the year 1984. But there is no improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. However, the present charges, though repetitive are not so serious in nature as to warrant extreme punishment of removal from service. I want to give one more chance to him to improve his conduct. Therefore, I direct stoppage of four increments which cumulative effect by modifying the impugned order to this effect and he is directed to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but he will not be eligible for any back wages except for subsistence allowance".3. The appellants called in question the validity and correctness of this order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appeallants urged that the learned Single Judge was not right and justified in modifying the order of punishment, having observed that the respondent was a habitual offender and due to dereliction of duties, the punishment of stoppage of increments for three years was already ordered in 1984 and that there was no improvement in the conduct of the respondent. He alternatively submitted even if the learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment imposed was grossly or shockingly disproportionate, punishment could not have been modified but the matter could be remitted to the disciplinary authority to re-examine the issue in regard to the imposition of penalty on the respondent. He further submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court did not go into the merits of the contentions and simply endorsed the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
5. Per contra, Shri.R.S.Hedge, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions supporting the impugned order. He contended that even the finding of fact also was not recorded after a proper enquiry. He also contended that the respondent was promoted even after the punishment was imposed on 13th November, 1988 before the framing of the present charges.
6. As is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge there has been no consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case including as to the nature of charges held proved against the respondent to say that penalty of removal from service imposed on the respondent was extreme. Merely because it was felt that the punishment imposed was extreme was not enough to disturb or modify the punishment imposed on the respondent was shockingly or grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges held proved against the respondent. It is not that in every case of imposing a punishment of removal or dismissal from service a High Court can modify such punishment merely saying that it is shockingly disproportionate. Normally, the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by High Court or tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate after examining all the relevant factors including nature of charges proved against the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier; the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained and the department/establishment in which the concerned delinquent person works.
7. In the present case we do not find that there has been a consideration of all the relevant facts and the learned Single Judge has not recorded reasons in order to modify the punishment imposed. The Division Bench of the High Court also did not examine the matter in proper perspective but simply concurred with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Normally, in cases where it is found that the courts or tribunals may remit the cases to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment. In this case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1989 and to shorten the litigation we think it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the writ appeal No. 952 of 1998 to the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsider the case only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent having regard to all relevant facts that the respondent was a member of Railway Protection Force and in the light of the observations made above. Since the proceedings are pending for quite some time. We request the High Court to dispose of writ appeal expeditiously. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is ordered in the above terms. No costs.
Appeal is allowed accordingly.20. Misappropriation cases - Consolidated Guidelines Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 25, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 3-2-2004)Ref. : - 1. Memo No.3000/Ser.C/76-4, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-6-19772. Memo No.2106/Ser.C/77-1, G.A. (Ser.C) Department dated 27-10-1977.
3. Memo No.2261/Ser.C/79-2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department dated 23-10-1979
4. U.0 Note No.646/Ser.0 80/, G.A. (Ser.C) Department dated 21-7-1980.
5. U.O.Note No.32/Ser/C/81-2, G.A (Ser.C) Department dated 9-2-1981.
6. G.O.Ms.No. General Administrator (Ser.C) Department dated 24-4-1984.
7. U.O.Note, No.463/Ser.C/85-4, G.A. (Ser.C) Department dated 20-12-1985.
8. Circular Memo.No.100/Ser./93-22, G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 23-12-1995.
9. G.O.Ms.No.2, G.A.(Ser.C) Department Dated 21-9-1999.
10. Memo No.44391/Ser.C.99/G.A.(Ser.C) Department Dated 21-9-1999.
11. U.O.Note No.1067/L&O-1/A12000-4, G.A. (L&O) Department Dated 30-12-2000.
12. Memo No.51375/Ser.C/2002-2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department Dated 28-1I-2002.
Order: - Apart from the instructions issued 'on the subject matter, a critical study of cases of misappropriation of Government funds undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance commission revealed that may of these cases are handled ineptly and with prolonged delay without (1) being reported to the head of the Department and to the Accountant General, (2) finalization of the total amount misappropriated through a thorough verification or audit of the accounts, (3) earnest efforts to realize the misappropriated amount (4) immediate suspension and effective prosecution initiation of timely disciplinary action against the accused officers, and the officers whose supervisory negligence lead to the misappropriation. Where action has been taken attempt is often made to show the embezzlement as temporary diversion of funds particularly where the amount has been remitted back upon detection or where the amount involved is small thereby reducing the gravity of the offence and facilitating the culprits being let off with minor penalty. Some departments / Head of offices have been found to address the Superintendent of Police wrongly without a formal criminal complaint being filed before the Station House Officer having jurisdiction, as soon as the case of misappropriation come to notice without internal audit to finalize the amount misappropriated and without identifying the persons responsible. Such complaints lie there for want of basic information and record necessary to finalize the quantum of misappropriation and to identify the accused officers. There are cases where those responsible for misappropriation were not even suspended and allowed to continue in the same post giving them an opportunity to destroy the records and evidence and to obstruct smooth conduct of investigation.2. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31-3-2002 refers to 605 misappropriation cases reported to it as pending at the end of the year involving a sum of Rs. 1062.69 lakhs as pending in different departments. According to the Vigilance commission this does not reflect the correct position of pendency of such cases due to serious omissions in reporting of misappropriation cases to the Accountant General as provided in the A.P. Financial Code. According to the Commission the number appear to be several times more. As a case in point, the Commission has brought to the notice of the Government that the number of misappropriation cases shown as pending in the Treasuries and Accounts Department in the above list of misappropriation cases was 12, whereas Commission came across 10 more cases of misappropriation in that Department which had not been reported. Information elicited form the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies shows that there were 2314 misappropriation cases in the various cooperative institutions in the State involving a sum of Rs. 49.86 crores of which criminal action was initiated in 945 cases. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj has reported that there were 940 cases of misappropriation involving a sum of Rs.15 crores in which criminal action was initiated in 517 cases where recovery effected was Rs. 1.59 crores. The above figures indicate the magnitude of the problem of misappropriation in Government institutions.
3. The Commission therefore, emphasized the need to lay down streamlined procedure to facilitate effective handling of misappropriation cases with particular attention to (1) prompt reporting (2) quick finalization of amounts misappropriated (3) immediate identification of the persons responsible for the crime (4) fool proof handling of records (5) speedy recovery of funds misappropriated (6) prompt criminal prosecution of the accused (7) pinpointing responsibility for failure of supervision (8) timely disciplinary action against the accused officers and those whose supervisory negligence lead to the misappropriation (9) streamlining procedures to prevent recurrence of similar cases in future and (10) finally laying down strict guidelines for statutory penalties to the officers found guilty of misappropriation in Government Department, Local bodies, Cooperatives, Autonomous Grant Receiving Institutions and Public Undertakings etc.
4. Articles 5,273,294,300 301 and 302 of the Andhra Pradesh, Financial Code lays down the responsibilities of Government Servants in dealing with Government money, the procedure to fix responsibility for any loss sustained by the Government, the procedure to be followed and the action to be initiated for recovery. In addition to the instructions laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Financial Code, the Government have from time to time, issued executive instructions regarding misappropriation cases. It is now felt necessary to plug the loopholes in the management of Government money and to give clear and comprehensive instructions on all aspects of misappropriation cases. Accordingly the following consolidated instructions are issued.
5. Standards of Financial responsibility: - Article 5 of the A.P. Financial Code casts an obligation on every Government servant to see that proper accounts are maintained for all Government, Financial transaction with which his concerned and to render accurately and promptly all such accounts and returns relating to them as may have been prescribed by Government, the Accountant General or the competent departmental authorities. He is required to check the accounts, as frequently as possible, to see that his subordinates do not commit fraud, misappropriation or any other irregularity. The Government holds him personally responsible for any loss that may be found to be due to any neglect of the duties laid upon by him by the relevant provisions made by the Government. The fact that a Government servant has been misled or deceived by a subordinate will in no way mitigate his personal responsibility.
6. Assessment of responsibility for loss of public funds: - Article 273 of A.P. Financial Code makes every Government servant personally responsible for any loss sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on his part and also for any loss through fraud or negligence on the part of any other Government Servant to the extent to which it may be shown that he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. The cardinal principle governing assessment of responsibility for such losses is that every Government Servant should exercise the same diligence and care in respect of the expenditure of his own money.
7. Reporting of loss of public money & sending factual report to Government: - When any facts indicating that defalcation or loss of public money, stamps, stores or other movable or immovable property has occurred or that a serious account irregularly has been committed come to the notice of any Government servant, he should in terms of Article 294 of the Financial Code inform the head of the office immediately. If it appears to the head of the office, prima facie that there has been any such occurrence which concerns his office or in which a Government Servant subordinate to him is involved, he should send a preliminary report immediately to the Accountant General and though the proper channel, to the head of the department. On receipt of the information, the head of the Department should report the matter to the Government without delay. These reports should be sent even when the loss has been made good irrespective of the amount involved.
8. Finalization of Quantum of loss and audit of accounts: - Article 300 of the Financial Code lays down the following general principles in enforcing personal responsibility of the Government servant for a loss sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on his part and also for loss through fraud or negligence on the part of any other Government servant to the extent to which it may be shown that the he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. The head of the office or other appropriate authority should investigate the matter fully without delay. When necessary, the administrative authority may ask the Accountant General to furnish all vouchers and other document in his possession that may be relevant to the investigation. If the investigation is so complex as to require the assistance of an expert audit officer, the administrative authority should report the facts to the Government and the audit officer, will each be personally responsible within their respective spheres, for completing the investigation expeditiously.
9. Recovery: - Whenever an administrative authority holds that a Government servant is responsible for a loss sustained by the Government , it should consider both whether the whole or any part of the loss should be recovered from him in money and whether any other form of disciplinary action should be taken. Whenever a loss is held to be due to fraud on the part of a Government Servant or servants, every endeavor should be made to recover the whole amount lost from the guilty persons. If the failure of a superior officer to exercise proper supervision and control has facilitated the fraud, he should be called strictly to account and suitably dealt with after carefully assessing his personal liability in the matter. The pension of a retiring Government Servant who is involved in any loss or irregularity which is under investigation should on no account be sanctioned until his responsibility in the matter has been finally determined. Whenever a competent authority orders that any amount should be recovered from the Government Servant, otherwise than by forfeiture of his security deposit, if any, on account of a loss sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on his part and he is about to retire from service the amount should be recovered, as far as possible, by deduction from the last pay or leave salary due to him. If any amount still remains to be recovered, the Government Servant should be asked to give his written consent to the recovery of the remaining amount from his pension. When a retired Government servant whose pension has already been sanctioned is held to have caused a loss to the Government by his fraud or negligence while in service and it appears that the amount could be recovered by bringing a suit against him, the matter should be reported to the Government for orders. Any fraud or negligence found to have been committed by him while in service, should not be made an excuse for absolving any other Government servants who are also responsible for the loss and are still in service.
10. A clear distinction should be drawn between cases of "delayed remittance" and misappropriation. The cardinal test to prove a case as a case of misappropriation rather than temporary misappropriation would be whether the amount has been put to use for the benefit of the person who has misappropriated it. It is the intention and purpose that should be the criteria and not whether the amount has been put to use for the benefit of the person who has misappropriated it. It is the intention and purpose that should be the criterion and not whether the amount has been ultimately made good voluntarily.
11. If there is a reasonable suspicion that a loss sustained by the Government is due to the commission of a criminal offence, the procedure prescribed in Article 301 and 302 should be followed.
12. An officer accused of misappropriation shall be suspended forthwith under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 pending investigation or trial of the offence till he is dismissed or removed from service upon conviction or conclusion of disciplinary proceedings as the case may be.
13. Initiation of Departmental inquiries and Criminal proceedings: - Article 301 lays down that department proceedings should be instituted at the earliest possible moment against all the Government servants involved in any loss sustained by the Government on account of fraud, embezzlement or any similar offence and conduct with strict adherence to the rules, up to the point at which prosecution or any one of them begINS. The Departments should ensure that charges are framed by the disciplinary authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and action is competed expeditiously observing the prescribed procedure to ensure that there are no procedural infirmities. The criminal proceedings and departmental action should be processed without loss of time with a view to avoiding manipulations and loss of evidence. Departmental officers should obtain Photostat copies of documents and handover the original to Police so that simultaneous action in regard to criminal proceedings and disciplinary action can be taken. Departmental action should be completed within 3 to 4 months. At this stage it may be specifically considered whether it is practicable to carry the departmental proceedings without waiting for the result of the prosecution, if it is so, they should be carried out as far as possible but not as a rule, to the stage of finding and sentence. If the accused is convicted, the departmental proceedings against him should be resumed and formally completed. If the accused is not convicted, the authority competent to take disciplinary action should examine whether the facts of the case disclose adequate ground for continuing departmental action against him. Simultaneous disciplinary and criminal proceedings can be initiated by the Department against the persons responsible for misappropriation and supervisory officers whose failure lead to the offences. Following the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Khushiram Vs. Union of India (1973) (2) SLR.PP564-565) it is not obligatory that the departmental proceedings should be stayed when the case is pending in a court of law, except when it is expedient to do so in the interest of fair play.
14. Procedure for filing of complaints with local police or the Crime Investigation Department.
Prosecution for embezzlement of public money or property is laid down in Article 302. Whenever the head of an office finds that there is a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed in respect of public money or property, he should as a general rule report the matter at once to the Police and the head of his Department that he has laid an information before the police. When the case is heard by the Court, the head of the office concerned should see that all the witnesses serving in his department and all documentary evidence in the control of his department are punctually produced. He should also appoint a Government servant of the Department to attend the proceedings in the court and assist the prosecuting staff. If prosecution for an offence of this kind results in the discharge or acquittal of any person, or in the imposition of any sentence which appears to be inadequate, the head of the office concerned should at once send a full statement of the facts of the case. If it is considered that further proceedings should be taken in revision or appeal, he should proceed accordingly.15. In order to reduce the number of cases of misappropriation sent for investigation by the Police and prosecution thereafter, a monetary limit of Rs.1000/ - is fixed below which the cases will be handled departmentally only. The Department should ensure that all material needed for investigation is made available to the Station House Officer of the Police Station having jurisdiction. In the event Crime Investigation Department investigation is considered essential in view of the quantum of money involved or the complexity of the misappropriation case action should be taken by the Secretariat Department concerned to refer the case to the criminal investigation department at Hyderabad in consultation with Home Department in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Director General, Crime Investigation Department. If in the course of any investigation into corruption, misappropriation is noticed by the Anti Corruption Bureau in such a case the Anti Corruption Bureau itself will initiate action for prosecution of that case.
16. The Departments of Secretariat should consult the Home Department before entrusting any case to the Crime Investigation Department for investigation. To establish the offence of misappropriation, cheating / forgery and use of forged documents utilization of take certificate etc., it is essential that:
17. It should be ensured therefore that a comprehensive complaint should be lodged with Crime Investigation Department containing details of the crime / persons responsible for the Commission of such offences that complaints should be lodged with original signature of the officers who are fully acquainted with the facts of the case and have been associated with the preliminary enquiry or departmental enquiry. Copies of relevant documents should also be enclosed along with the complaint. The departments preferring complaints should also ensure collection and safe custody of original document relating to the offence.
18. Handing over of records / sending necessary assistance to Investigating Agencies:
All Heads of Offices should hand over the records requisitioned by the local Police officers of the Bureau or the crime Investigation Department as the case may be and render all necessary assistance to Investigating Officers in either case. Senior Civil Servants who are defector complainants in Criminal cases or who are intimately acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the cases and whose evidence is relevant and material to prove the case in a court of law should tender their evidence when examined by the Investigating Officers of the Crime Investigation Department in a Court of Law. The investigation should not normally take more than one year after it is entrusted to the Crime Investigation Department / Anti Corruption Bureau however complicated the case may be.19. The Government have decided that special cells will be created in the investigating agencies for departments where the number of misappropriation cases are large and persons form these cells, and Investigating Agency would maintain close liaison with the departments so that they can tender necessary guidance to expedite cases.
20. 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 letup in prosecuting the cases effectively and that there is no failure on the part of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, etc., in conducting the prosecution properly. In case, where the trail 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 furnish their review to the General Administration (Services) Department. Even when there are no such cases, a NIL' report has to be furnished.
21. Attachment and confiscation of the properties of the accused: - Whenever it is believed that a scheduled offence is committed, the concerned Departmental Officers should collect the necessary data regarding movable / immovable property standing in the name of the person family members, relatives and friends and orders shall be issued for attachment of the properties under Sections 3 and 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1994 contemplates that if any person commits any offence punishable under Section 406, 408, 409, 411, 417 and 420 of the IPC 1860 or under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the P.0 Act, 1988, the Government may whether or not any court has taken cognizance of offence, authorize the making of an application to the District Judge concerned for attachment of the money or other property which the State Government believes the said person to have procured by means of the said offence or if such money or property cannot for any reason be attached of other property of the said person of value as nearly as may be equivalent to that of the aforesaid money or other property.
22. Invoking provision of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act: - The provisions of Revenue Recovery Act can be invoked for recovery of the misappropriated amounts or loss caused to the Government Recovery of misappropriated amount or loss caused to Government can be recovered as if it were an arrear of land Revenue in accordance with the procedure laid down in the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act. Where the officer responsible fails to remit the amount to the Government account. It is open to Government to file a civil suit for a recovery of such sum as a last resort.
23. Punishments to be awarded in proved cases of misappropriation: -There is a wide disparity in the scales of punishment meted out in misappropriation cases. The question of prescribing uniform scale of punishment in such cases has been considered by Government It has been decided that ordinarily cases of proved misappropriation would justify nothing less than dismissal from service and action should accordingly be taken. The minimum penalty to be imposed in all proven cases of misappropriation (in addition to the recovery of amount misappropriated) is dismissal form service. In case of a retired employees the penalty should be withholding of entire pension and gratuity permanently or withdrawal of pension as the case may be besides recovery of the misappropriation / loss amount. There may, however, be rare cases where in the circumstances, such as trivial amount, short duration, immediate payment on detection, all of which may raise a presumption that it was an error in accounting, which may justify a different punishment. A clear distinction should be drawn between the cases of "delayed remittance" and "misappropriation" 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 misappropriation.
24. An officer who is convicted by a Criminal Court for the offence of misappropriation or fraud should be dismissed from service without waiting for failing of an appeal or its outcome. Such action would be taken not withstanding suspension of sentence by an Appellate Court. It shall not be necessary to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service commission for taking action to dismiss the officer on the grounds of conviction in a Court of Law. In the case of an officer who in the meantime has retired, his pension and gratuity shall be withheld or where it has already been sanctioned, his pension should be withdrawn. The officer, who fails to enforce these instructions promptly, will be held responsible for any loss to the Government on account of avoidable payment of subsistence allowance or provisional pension as the case may be.
25. Consultation with Vigilance Commission: - In all cases of misappropriation, the Vigilance Commissioner has to be consulted in accordance with the procedural instructions of the Commission.
26. Review of Cases: - There should be periodical office inspections by the Heads of Department and such inspections should invariably cover financial aspects, accounts and cases of misappropriation of funds, if any. In the office of heads of Department, one officer may be nominated as Vigilance Officer to keep track of cases involving misappropriation of Government funds. The Chief Vigilance Officers of the Secretariat Departments under the Vigilance Officers of heads of Department, Public Enterprises, Autonomous Bodies and Cooperative Institutions etc., to keep track of the cases of misappropriation of funds by Government employees.
27. The Finance Department will nominate an officer specially to monitor the pendency and watch progress with reference to statistics that will be furnished to him by the other Departments. This officer would place the statistical data regarding outstanding misappropriation cases for a review by Chief Secretary to Government with Secretaries Departments periodically.
28. The secretary of each Department should review each month all cases of misappropriation in his Department and send a copy of the review containing full details to the officer nominated for the purpose in the Finance Department. The Chief Secretary will review these cases with all Secretaries to Government once in 6 month to find out whether there are any bottle necks in expediting cases of misappropriation.
29. All the Departments of Secretariat, all the head of Department and District collectors are directed to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance and enforce strict compliance of these instructions and any deviation in the matter will be viewed seriously.
21. Disciplinary cases referred to Commission for concurrence - Decision taken by Government without waiting for Commission's advice/in-deviation of Commission's advice - Certain instructions - Reg.
(Cir. Memo No. 93035/Ser-C/A1/20084, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 25-6-2009)Ref :- From the Secretary, A.P.P.S.C. Letter No. 672/RT-I/3/2006, dated 6-11-2008.Order: - The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission has stated that in some disciplinary cases punishment orders are being issued without regard to the Commission's opinion/advice. He has appended details in certain cases in which orders are issued without waiting for Commission's advice and are in-deviation of Commission's advice.2. It is mandatory to consult the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission as per Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Regulations, 1963. Where the Government proposed to impose a major penalty against a Government employee in any disciplinary case, the suggestion of the Commission shall be kept in view in taking decision to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the employee. If it is proposed to deviate the suggestion of the Commission, procedure prescribed in the Business Rules shall be followed. The very objective of consulting the Commission is, before arriving a decision in any disciplinary case either to punish the employee or otherwise, to ensure a careful examination of the issue that the innocent should not be punished. In this context, the Commission are of the view to keep in view the. suggestions of the Commission in the disciplinary cases and not to deviate from the suggestions.
3. All the Departments of Secretariat are therefore requested to take into consideration the suggestion of the Commission while taking a final decision to conclude the disciplinary proceedings.
10. Other penalties:
- In addition to the penalties specified in Rule 9 and notwithstanding anything therein, the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed, namely : -11. Disciplinary Authorities in respect of State Services:
1. Empowering the District Collectors for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the District Officials
[G.O.Ms.No. 77, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 27-2-19961Order: - 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 :
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 suspensionunder Rule 8 | |
| 1. Members of the State Judicial Service. | High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. | |
| 2. Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildars) (including MandalRevenue Officers, Civil Supplies), Assistant Civil SupplyOfficers (Civil Supplies), Assistant Excise Superintendents(including Chemical Examiner) and Deputy Commercial TaxOfficers. | Commissioners concerned.[The District Collectors areempowered to place to Mandal Revenue Officers (Tahsildar Cadre)under suspension for a period of three months and to obtain theapproval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, if the suspensionperiod has to be extended beyond the period of three months] [Added by G.O. Ms. No. 533, G.A.D., dated 6-12-1997, w.e.f. 1-11-1997]. | |
| 2A. [ Mandal Parishad Development Officers, DivisionalPanchayat Officers, Extension Officers (Panchayats), ExtensionOfficers (Rural Development), Executive Officers (GramPanchayats)] [Added by G.O. Ms. No. 382, G.A.D., dated 15-09-2001] | Collector and District Magistrate | |
| 3. Section Officer in the Departments of Secretariat andGovernor's Secretariat. | Chief Secretary to Government Principal Secretary to Government ,Second Secretary to Government , Special Secretary to Government or theSecretary to Governor, as the case my be. | |
| [3(A) Private Secretaries to Secretaries to Government in theDepartments of Secretariat and Governor's Secretariat.] [Inserted by G.O. Ms. No. 199, G.A.D., 16-5-1997] | Chief Secretary to Government, Principal Secretary to Government ,Second Secretary to Government , Secy. to Gov., Special Secy toGovernment. or the Secretary to Governor, as the case may be. | |
| 4. [(i) Assistant Executive Engineers (Irrigation)(ii)Deputy Executive Engineer (Irrigation)] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 353 G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 18-11-2003] | Executive Engineer (Irrigation)Superintendent Engineer,(Irrigation)] | |
| 5. Asst. Research Officers in the Engineering ResearchDepartment. | Chief Engineer incharge Engineering Research Department . | |
| 6. (i) Deputy Executive Engineers, Roads and BuildingsDepartment.(ii) Non Technical Personal Asst. to the ChiefEngineer (Roads & Buildings) | (i) Engineer in Chief (R&B).(ii) Chief Engineerconcerned to whom the Non-Technical Personal Assistant isattached. | |
| 7. [(i) Assistant Executive Engineers (Public Health)(ii)Deputy Executive Engineer (Public Health)] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 353 G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 18-11-2003] | Executive Engineer (Public Health)SuperintendentEngineer (Public Health) | |
| 8. Deputy Executive Engineer of Panchayat Raj EngineeringDepartment-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 Prisonsif the misconduct relates to professional duties of Jaildiscipline. | |
| 10. Statistical Officers and Medical Officers (Maternity andChild Health), Grade-II. | Director of Medical Education | |
| 11. Lay Secretary and Treasurers in Government MedicalInstitutions. | Director of Medical Education or Director of Indian Medicineand Homeopathy as the case may be. | |
| 12. Members in Class IV of the Andhra Pradesh AnimalHusbandry Service. | Director of Animal Husbandry. | |
| 13. [] [Omitted by G.O.Ms. No. 246, G.A.D., Dated 13-6-1997] | ||
| 14. Inspector or Inspectress of Factories, Inspector ofBoilers, District Inspector of Labour, Inspector of Evaluationand Implementation and Administrative Officers (SubsidisedHousing Scheme). | Commissioner of Labour. | |
| 15. Inspectors of Police, Reserve Inspectors, Armed Reserve,Reserve Inspectors of Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Inspectorsof Police, Shorthand Bureau, Inspectors of Police,Communications, Inspectors of Police, Transport Organisation,Inspectors of Women Police. | Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Commissioner of Police orOfficer of corresponding rank concerned. | |
| 16. Deputy Director working in the Department of Printing andin its various wings. | Director of Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase, Hyd. | |
| [16(a) Assistant Conservator of Forest working in the ForestDepartment.] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 428, G.A.D., dated 13-10-1999] | [Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 428, G.A.D., dated 13-10-1999](Added by G.O. Ms.No. 496, G.A.D., dated 29-11-1996) | |
| 17. [ (a) Other members of State Services holding initialGazetted post.(b) Other members of State Servicesholding second level Gazetted post.] [Substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 428, G.A.D., dated 13-10-1999] | Regional authority or where no regional authority exists, theHead of the Department.Heads of Departments concerned. |
14. Disciplinary Authorities and Authorities competent to suspend, in respect of Subordinate Services:
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:
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:
19. Authority to institute proceedings:
20. [ Procedure for imposing major penalties: - (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this Rule and Rule 21 or in the manner provided by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 or the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta Act, 1983, where such inquiry is held under the said Acts] [Standard Forms prescribed under this rule are given at the end of these rules].
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 / crossexamined by the presenting officer, to elicit truth in support ofthe Articles of Charge; when the Charged Officer does not preferto the examination of himself as a Defence Witness and when thereare 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 anyspecific provision for examination of charged officer by thePresenting Officer. | The Charged Officer cannot be examined or cross examined bythe Presenting Officer or the Inquiry Officer to elicit truth insupport of the articles of Charge when the charged officer doesnot prefer to examine himself or examine any witnesses. |
| (iii)Whether the Defence Assistant for one Charged Officer canexamine/cross examine the other charged officers in the samecase, when he prefers to do so. | Defence Assistant for one Charged Officer can examine theother Charged Officer only if the other Charged Officervolunteers to give evidence. But a charged Officer cannot becompelled to give evidence at the instance of the other ChargedOfficer. When one Charged Officer chooses to examine himself as awitness, the defence assistant of (or) the other Charged Officer,can cross examine, him, especially when such Charged Officer (whochoose to examine himself) were to speak anything incriminatingagainst 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-
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 :
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 aDefence Assistant (if not already nominated). | Within four weeks fromthe date of appointment of the Enquiry Officer. |
| (b) | Inspection of documents or submission of list of defencewitnesses/defence documents or examination of relevancy ofdocuments or witnesses, procuring the additional document andsubmission of certificates, confirming inspection of additionaldocuments by Accused Officer or Defence Assistant. | Three (3) months. |
| (c) | Issue of summons to witnesses, fixing the date of regularhearing and arrangement for participation of witnesses in theregular 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/DefenceAssistant 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 anyGovernment Servant to whom A.P. Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rulesapplies, the following points shall be kept in mind: | |
| (a) Whether specific charges areframed as required in Government Memo.No.290/Ser.C/94-2, G.A.D. Dated01-06-94. | Yes/No |
| (b) Whether the charges are framedin the format prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.92, G.A.(Ser.C) Department , Dated01-03-96. | Yes/No |
| (c) Whether explanation isreceived from the Delinquent Officer within the time stipulated | Yes/No |
| (d) Whether the Delinquent Officerasked for any further information/additional documents | Yes/No |
| (e) Whether it is decided toimpose a Minor penalty. | |
| (f) Whether it is decided toimpose a major penalty and to conduct detailed enquiry byappointing Enquiry Officer or through Commissioner ofEnquiries/entrust the Disciplinary case to the Tribunal forDisciplinary Proceedings for detailed inquiry. | |
| (ii) Whether the appointment of the Inquiring Authority is inaccordance 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-rule5(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 formatof 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 ofservice are involved, whether common disciplinary proceedings areinstituted as per Rule 24 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules andin Form VII of G.O. Ms. No. 82, General Administrator (Ser.C) Department , Dated01-03-1996. | Yes/No |
| (v) Whether the A.P. Vigilance Commission is consulted torefer any disciplinary case for enquiry to Tribunal forDisciplinary Proceedings. | Yes/No |
| (vi) Whether exparte enquiry was conducted, in terms of ordersissued 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 theenquiry. | Yes/No |
| (viii) Whether the Departmental Proceedings could be deliveredin 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 containsthe following : | |
| (i) An introductory para,indicating appointment of Inquiry Officer and the dates ofhearing. | |
| (ii) Charges that were framed. | |
| (iii) Brief statement of the caseof disciplinary authority in respect of the charges enquired to | |
| (iv) Brief statement of facts anddocuments admitted | |
| (v) Brief statement of theexplanation of the Government Servant. | |
| (vi) Assessment of evidence inrespect of each point | |
| (vii) Finding on each chargewhether the E.O. ensured that no recommendation was made aboutthe quantum of punishment. | |
| 3.Whether the Inquiry Officer sent the following alongwith the enquiry report :— | |
| (a) List of documents produced bythe Presenting Officer | |
| (b) List of documents produced bythe Government Servant | |
| (c) List of prosecution witnesses | |
| (d) List of defence witnesses | |
| (e) Deposition of witnesses in theorder in which they were examined | |
| (f) Written statement of defence. | |
| (g) Applications if any, filedduring the course of Inquiry, and orders passed thereon, as alsoorders passed on oral requests made during the inquiry. | |
| II. Processing the Enquiry Report | |
| (i) Whether the further action onthe enquiry report is as per Rule 21 of the CCA Rules. | Yes/No |
| (ii) Whether the DisciplinaryAuthority after going through the inquiry report agree with thefindings and if any error is noticed, whether the point at whichit is erred is recorded and did the Disciplinary Authority askthe same Enquiry Officer to conduct further enquiry and report asthere is no provision for denovo enquiry or to conduct freshenquiry. | Yes/No |
| (iii) Whether the DisciplinaryAuthority exercise his mind in arriving at the findings on thecharges and independently arrive at the nature and quantum ofpunishment. | Yes/No |
| (iv) Whether the Andhra PradeshVigilance Commission is consulted as per the scheme of VigilanceCommission. | Yes/No |
| (v) Whether the orders incirculation are obtained in case the A.P. VigilanceCommissioner's recommendations are not agreed to. | |
| (vi) Whether the APPSC needs to beconsulted and if so, whether it was consulted. | |
| (vii) Whether the final ordersissued agree with the recommendation of APPSC. | |
| (viii) If not whether orders incirculation obtained. | |
| III. Awarding Penalties | |
| (i) Whether the instructionsissued in U.O. Note. No. 28552/Ser.C/97-1, G.A.(Ser.C) Departmentdated 07-05-97, are kept in view while issuing orders. | Yes/No |
| (ii) Whether the instructionsissued in U.O.Note.No.1713/Ser.C/66-1 G.A.(Ser.C) Department Dated01-07-1966 have been followed or not regarding punishmentawarded. | |
| (iii) Whether the instructionsvide Memo. No. 1436/Ser.C/80-2 G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 07-02-1981having been followed while imposing penalty of stoppage of AnnualGrade increment with cumulative effect. | Yes/No |
| (iv) Whether the order of penaltyand other papers Communicated to the Delinquent Officer as perRule 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 : -
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 CasesPart-I - Service Particulars1. 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
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
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.
1. Indicate advice of VC in the first stage through
| Major Penalty Proceedings. | Minor Penalty Proceedings. |
| TDPCOIDept.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
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?
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:
16. Whether the inquiry officer sent the following along with the enquiry report.
17. (i) Whether the further action on the inquiry report is as per rule 21 of the CCA Rules?
18. (i) Whether the report of the inquiry officer communicated to the charged officer?
19. Awarding penalties
1. (a) Date of order placing the CO(s) on their defence before Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings:
2. Ref. No.
3. Findings of the T.D.P.
4. Whether tribunal proved the charges and in case of exoneration whether it is stated that the C.Os are fully exonerated (if no specific recommendation is made it should be construed that the C.O(s) are not fully exonerated as per Rule 6(2) (a) of APCS (DPT) Rules.
5. Whether findings of the TDP are agreed to if not
6. Whether Vigilance Commission is consulted as per instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.514, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 15-10-1994, if so the advice of V.C.
7. Whether enquiry report of the TDP is communicating to C.O. calling for his repn. If any (within one month).
8. Whether any repn. of the delinquent officer received if so his contentions.
9. Comments of the Government on the repn, of delinquent officer.
10. Provisional decision of the Government on penalty to be imposed.
11. Advice of the Commission on the quantum of penalty to be imposed
12. Whether Department issued orders as advised above (If the CO is retired after the case is entrusted to TDP a show cause notice may be issued as per note to Rule 9 (2) of R.P.Rs, 1980, before imposing penalty)
13. If not whether orders in circulation to CM are obtained for deviation.
14. Final orders issued by the Government, with ref. no. and date.
D. Disciplinary Action For Penalty In Pursuance Of Conviction In Court Under Rule 25(I) Of C.C.A. Rules.(Mere suspension of sentence no bar to levy of penalty under Rule 25(i) of CCA Rules)1. Name of the Court which convicted the accused officer(s) with C.C. No./date of judgement
2. Date of receipt of copy of judgement
3. Sentence
4. Nature of offence held proved viz., misappropriation, corruption, acceptance of illegal gratification, forgery, possession of disproportionate assets, causing wilfull loss to Government for pecuniary gain of private persons
5. Penalty proposed
(Penalty of dismissal from service in terms of orders issued in U.O. Note. No. 1700/SC.D/92-4, GA (Sc.D) Department , dated 9-3-1994, proviso to Rule 9 of C.C.A. Rules and G.O.Ms.No. 2, GA (Ser.C) Department , dated 4-1¬99 to be imposed originally in the above cases)6. If a lesser punishment is proposed, reasons therefor
7. Whether properties of accused officer was attached and forfeited under Crl. Law Amendment Ordinance, in the disproportionate/misappropriation etc., cases. Action taken thereon.
8. In case of acquittal whether competent authority has examined the judgement whether there are grounds for appeal
9. Whether appealed?
10. Whether proposed to initiate Department . action in case of acquittal on benefit of doubt/technical grounds
11. Provisional decision of the disciplinary authority
12. Whether APVC is consulted in the matter
13. Advice of V.0 in the case
14. Whether orders are proposed as advised by Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission
15. If not whether orders is circulation to CM have been obtained
16. Final orders of the Government in the disciplinary action consequent on conviction of accused officer(s) and penalty imposed on delinquent(s)
Note: - In case of penalty other than pension cut in pursuance of conviction Department need not consult the APPSC.17. Disciplinary cases against Government employees Departmental Inquiries Time Schedule to expedite the inquiries - Orders - Reiterated - Issued.
(Memo. No. 51883/Ser.C/2002-2 , G.A..(Ser-D) Department , dated 19-12-2002)Ref: - 1. Circular Memo. No. 35676/Ser.C/98, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 01-07-1998.2. Government Memo. No. 23537/Ser.C/99-5, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 28-07-1999.
3. U.O.Note No.1992/Ser.C/2000, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 27-04-2000.
4. From Dy.A.G.(P), 0/o. The A.G., A.P., Hyd., D.O. Lr.No.PM/I-1(12-A)2002- 2003/33, Dated 12-08-2002.
5. From Fin. (PSC) Department , U.O. Note No.28535/C/333/PSC/01, dated 21-10-2002.
Order: - In the reference first cited instructions were issued that in all simple cases the enquiry initiated shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the enquiry should be completed within five to six months. Further it has been requested therein that 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 to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister. The object is to ensure timely action in all disciplinary cases and also to adhere to the time limit prescribed.2. In the references 2nd and 3rd cited, a time schedule was prescribed to expedite the Departmental enquiries as detailed below:
| (a) Fixing date of hearing, inspection of listed documents,submission of list of defence documents and nomination of the adefence asst. (if not already nominated). | Within two weeks from the date of appointment of the EnquiryOfficer |
| (b) Inspection of documents or submission of list of defencewitnesses/defence of documents or examination of relevancy ofdocuments or witnesses, procuring the additional documents andsubmission certificates, confirming inspection of additionaldocuments by accused officer or defence assistant. | Two Weeks |
| (c) Issue of summons to witnesses, fixing the date of regularhearing and arrangements for participation of witnesses in theregular hearing. | Two Weeks |
| (d) Regular hearing on day to day basis. | Two Weeks |
| (e) Submission of written briefs by Presenting Officer andsubmission of written briefs by Accused Officer/Defence Asst. toInquiry Officer. | Two Weeks |
| (f) Submission of Inquiry Report by the Inquiry Officer. | Two Weeks |
18. Recast of Rule 20 - Instructions for easy and quick understanding of the procedure for imposing major penalties - Regarding.
(Memo. No. 8388/Ser., C/2004, G. A. (Ser. C) Department, dated 12-03-2004)Ref : - G.O. Ms. No. 383, General Administration (Ser. C) Department , dated 19-12-2003.Order: - Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which prescribes the procedure of imposing major penalties was recast in G. 0. Ms. No. 383, General administration (Ser. C) Department, dated 19-12-2003, after taking into account several practical problems, brought to the notice of Government and also the earlier amendments made to Rule 20. Some of the salient features of the new Rule 20 are as follows :2. Old Rule, New Rule and the changes made in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1991 is shown in the Annexure for easy and quick understanding of the procedure for imposing major penalties.
3. The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors are requested to follow the instructions and bring the same to the notice of all concerned.
Annexure(To Memo. No. 8388/Ser., C/2004, G. A. (Ser. C) Department, dated 12-03-2004)| Old Rule | New Rule | Change in Rule |
| 20.(1) No order imposing any of the penaltiesspecified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 shall be made exceptafter an enquiry held, as far as may be in the manner providedin this rule and Rule 21 or in the manner provided by thePublicServants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Central Act 37 of 1850) orthe Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary ProceedingsTribunal) Act, 1960 or the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta andUpa-Lokayukta Act, 1983, where such inquiry is held under thesaid Acts. | 20.(1) No order imposing any of the penaltiesspecified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 shall be made exceptafter an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner providedin this Rule and Rule 21 or in the manner provided by the AndhraPradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act,1960 or the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act,1983, where such inquiry is held under the said Acts. | In old rule, Public Servants(Inquiries) Act, 1850 is quoted.In new rule, A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control andAppeal) Rules, 1991 are quoted, as they are quite exhaustive. |
| (2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinionthat there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of anyimputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Governmentservant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this ruleor under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act,1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truththereof. | (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinionthat there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of anyimputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a GovernmentServant, it may itself inquiry into, or appoint under this Rule,as the case may be, authority to inquire into the truth thereof. | In old rule, Public Servants(Inquiries) Act, 1850 is quoted.In new rule, A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control andAppeal) Rules, 1991 are quoted, as they are quite exhaustive. |
| Explanation:— Where the disciplinary authorityitself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule (7) tosub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the inquiring authorityshall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority. | Explanation:— Where the Disciplinary Authorityitself holds the inquiry, any reference to the InquiringAuthority shall be construed as a reference to the DisciplinaryAuthority. | |
| (3) Where it is proposed to holdan inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and Rule21, the disciplinary authority or the cadre controllingauthority who is not designated as disciplinary authority andwho is subordinate to the appointing authority can draw up orcause to be drawn up-(i) thesubstance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour intodefinite and distinct articles of charge;(ii) astatement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour insupport of each article of charge, which shall contain :(a) astatement of all relevant acts including any admission orconfession made by the Government servant;(b) a list of documents by which,and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge areproposed to be sustained. | (3) Where it is proposed to holdan inquiry against a Government Servant under this Rule and Rule21, the Disciplinary Authority or the Cadre ControllingAuthority who is not designated as Disciplinary Authority andwho is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up orcause to be drawn up-(i) The substance of theimputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite anddistinct articles of charge.(ii) A statement of theimputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of eacharticle of charge, which shall contain(a) A statement of all relevantfacts including any; admission or confession made by theGovernment Servant.(b) Copies of documents by which and copies of statements ofwitnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to besustained. | In old rule, only list ofdocuments are furnished to the Government Servant.In new rule, copies of relevant extracts of the documents arefurnished to the Government Servant, along with articles ofcharges, so as to facilitate speedy conduct of disciplinaryproceedings. |
| Note:— Where the documents are voluminous,relevant extracts of the documents may be furnished to theGovernment Servant. | ||
| (4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to bedelivered by the Government servant a copy of the articles ofcharge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which eacharticle of charges is proposed to be sustained and shall requirethe Government servant to submit, within such time as may bespecified, a written statement of his defence and to statewhether he desires to be heard in person. | (4) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to bedelivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles ofcharge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour and copies of the statements of witnesses by whicheach article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shallrequire the Government Servant to appear before the DisciplinaryAuthority on such day and at such time NOT EXCEEDING TEN WORKINGDAYS and submit a written statement of his defence and to statewhether he desires to be heard in person. | In old rule, the time limit,within which, a charged officer has to submit his writtenstatement of defence, was left to the discretion of theDisciplinary Authority.In new rule, the Disciplinary Authority cannot give more thanthen working days to the charged officer to submit a writtenstatement in his defence. |
| (5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, thedisciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of thearticles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers itnecessary so to do, appoint under sub-rule (2), an inquiringauthority for the purpose, and where all the articles of chargehave been admitted by the Government servant in his writtenstatement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall recordits findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it maythink fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 21; | (5) (a) On the date fixed for appearance, the GovernmentServant shall submit the written statement of his defence. Heshall be questioned whether he pleads guilty to the charges ornot and if he pleads guilty to all or any of the articles ofcharges, the Disciplinary Authority shall record the plea andobtain the signature of the Government Servant thereon. | In old rule, the GovernmentServant shall appear in person before the Inquiring Authoritywithin fifteen working days to submit whether he pleads guiltyto the charges or not and also the written statement of defence,etc.In new rule, the time limit is reduced and the DisciplinaryAuthority gives not exceeding ten working days for submission ofwritten statement of defence. |
| (7) The Government Servant shall appear in person before theinquiring authority on such day and at such time within fifteenworking days from the date of receipt by him of the articles ofcharge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by a notice inwriting, specify in this behalf or within such further time, notexceeding fifteen days, as the inquiring authority may allow. | ||
| (9) If the Government Servant who has not admitted any of thearticles of charge in his written statement of defence or hasnot submitted any written statement of defence, appears beforethe inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether heis guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty toany of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shallrecord the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of theGovernment Servant thereon. | ||
| (10)The inquiring authority shall return a findings of guiltyin respect of these articles of charge to which the GovernmentServant pleads guilty. | ||
| (5) (b) If no written statementof defence is submitted by the Government servant, thedisciplinary authority may itself inquire into the articles ofcharge or may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint,under sub-rule (2) an inquiring authority for the purpose;(5) (c) Where the disciplinaryauthority itself inquires into any article of charge or appointsa inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge,it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legalpractitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer"to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles ofcharge.(7) The Government Servant shallappear in person before the inquiring authority on such day andat such time within fifteen working days from the date ofreceipt by him of the articles of charge and the statement ofthe imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, as the inquiringauthority may, by a notice in writing, specify in this behalf orwithin such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as theinquiring authority may allow.(9) If the Government Servant who has not admitted any of thearticles of charge in his written statement of defence or hasnot submitted any written statement of defence, appears beforethe inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether heis guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty toany of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shallrecord the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of theGovernment Servant thereon. | (5) (b) Where the Government Servant appears before theDisciplinary Authority and pleads not guilty to the charges orrefuses or omits to plead, the Disciplinary Authority shallrecord the plea and obtain signature of the Government Servantthereon may decide to hold the inquiry itself or if it considernecessary to do so appoint a serving or retired GovernmentServant as Inquiring Authority for holding the inquiry into thecharges and also appoint a Government Servant as PresentingOfficer to present the case in support of the articles of chargeand adjourn the case to a date not exceeding five days for thesaid purpose. | In old rule, the DisciplinaryAuthority appoints an Inquiring Authority.In new rule, the DisciplinaryAuthority appoints a serving or retired Government Servant asInquiring Authority.In old rule, the InquiringAuthority may give further time not exceeding fifteen days tothe Government Servant to appear in person before the InquiringAuthority to submit whether he pleads guilty to the charges ornot and also the written statement of defence, etc.In New Rule, the time limit is reduced and the InquiringAuthority can give to a Government Servant a further time notexceeding five days. |
| (5) (b) If no written statement of defence is submitted bythe Government servant, the disciplinary authority may itselfinquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers itnecessary to do so, appoint, under sub-rule (2) an inquiringauthority for the purpose; | (5)(c) On the date so fixed, theDisciplinary Authority shall by an order appoint the InquiringAuthority and shall also appoint a Government Servant asPresenting Officer to present the case in support of thearticles of charge.Provided that the Disciplinary Authority may if it considersnecessary having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, appoint a Legal Practitioner or a legally trainedGovernment Servant as Presenting Officer. | In Old Rule, the DisciplinaryAuthority appoints a Government Servant or a Legal Practitionerto be known as Presenting Officer to present on its behalf thecase in support of the articles of charge.In New Rule, Disciplinary Authority can appoint a GovernmentServant or a Legal Practitioner or a legally trained GovernmentServant as Presenting Officer. |
| (5) (c) Where the disciplinary authority itself inquires intoany article of charge or appoints a inquiring authority forholding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order,appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to beknown as the "Presenting Officer" to present on itsbehalf the case in support of the articles of charge. | ||
| (8)(a) The Government Servant may take the assistance of anyother Government Servant to present the case on his behalf, butmy not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless thePresenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is alegal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, havingregard to the circumstances of the case so permits. | ||
| Provided further that the Government Servant may take theassistance of any other Government Servant posted at any otherstation, if the inquiring authority having regard to thecircumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded inwriting, so permits. | ||
| Note (1):— The Government Servant shallnot take the assistance of any other Government Servant who haspending two disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to giveassistance. | ||
| Note (2):— The Government Servant shallnot take the assistance of any other Government Servant who isdealing in his official capacity with the case of inquiryrelating to the Government Servant charged. | ||
| (8)(a) The Government Servant may take the assistanceof any other Government Servant to present the case on hisbehalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purposeunless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinaryauthority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinaryauthority, having regard to the circumstances of the case sopermits : | (5)(d) The Disciplinary Authority shall serve copies of theorders appointing the Inquiring Authority and the PresentingOfficer on the Government Servant and inform him that he maytake the assistance of any other Government Servant to presentthe case on his behalf, but he may not engage a LegalPractitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officerappointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a Legal Practitioneror a legally trained Government Servant. | In Old Rule, no Government Servant dealing in his officialcapacity with the case of inquiry relating to the personcharged, shall be permitted by the Inquiry Officer to appear onbehalf of the person charged before the Inquiry Officer. |
| Provided that no member of service dealing in his officialcapacity with the case of inquiry relating to the person chargedshall be permitted by the inquiry officer or by any officer towhom an appeal may be preferred to appear on behalf of theperson charged before the enquiry officer; | Provided that no Government Servant dealing in his officialcapacity with the case of inquiry relating to the person chargedor any Officer to whom an appeal may be preferred shall bepermitted by the Inquiring Authority to appear on behalf of theperson charged before the Inquiry Authority. | In New Rule, neither the Government Servant, who in hisofficial capacity dealing with the case of inquiry relating tothe person charged, nor an Officer, to whom an appeal may bepreferred, shall be permitted by the Inquiry Officer to appearon behalf of the person charged before the Inquiry Officer. |
| Provided further that the Government Servant may take theassistance of any other Government Servant posted at any otherstation, if the inquiring authority having regard to thecircumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded inwriting, so permits. | Provided further that the Government Servant may take theassistance of any other Government Servant posted at any otherstation, if the Inquiring Authority having regard to thecircumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded inwriting so permits. | |
| Note (1):- The Government Servant shall nottake the assistance of any other Government Servant who haspending two disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to giveassistance. | Note (1):- The Government Servant shall nottake the assistance of any other Government Servant who haspending two disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to giveassistance. | |
| Note (2):- The Government Servant shall nottake the assistance of any other Government Servant who isdealing in his official capacity with the case of inquiryrelating to the Government Servant charged. | Note (2):- The Government Servant shall nottake the assistance of any other Government Servant who isdealing in his official capacity with the case of inquiryrelating to the Government Servant charged. | |
| (b) The Government Servant may also take the assistance of aretired Government Servant to present the case on his behalf,subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Governmentfrom time to time by general or special order in this behalf. | The Government Servant may also take the assistance of aRetired Government Servant to present the case on his behalf,subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Governmentfrom time to time by general or special order in his behalf. | |
| (11) The inquiring authority shall, if the government Servantfails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits toplead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence bywhich he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shalladjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days,after recording an order that the Government Servant may, forthe purpose of preparing his defence : | (5)(e) The Disciplinary Authority shall inform the GovernmentServant to submit within five days a list of documents, which herequires to be discovered or produced by Government Servant forthe purpose of his defence indicating the relevance of thedocuments so required. | In Old Rule, the InquiringAuthority can give a time not exceeding ten days to theGovernment Servant, to furnish a list of documents, which herequires to be discovered or produced, for the purpose ofpreparing his defence.In New Rule, the time limit is reduced and the DisciplinaryAuthority shall inform the Government Servant to submit withinfive days a list documents. |
| (i) inspect within five days ofthe order or within such further time not exceeding five days asthe inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified inthe list referred to sub-rule (3), | ||
| (ii) submit a list of witnessesto be examined on his behalf, | ||
| Note:- If the Government Servant appliesorally or in writing for the supply of copies of the Statementof witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3),the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies asearly as possible and in any case not later than three daysbefore the commencement of the examination of the witnesses onbehalf of the disciplinary authority. | ||
| (iii) give a notice within tendays of the order or within such further time not exceeding tendays as the inquiring authority may allow for the discovery orproduction of any documents which are in the possession ofGovernment but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule(3). | ||
| Note:- The Government servant shall indicatethe relevance of the documents required by him to be discoveredor produced by the Government. | ||
| (12) The inquiring authorityshall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or productionof documents, forward the same or copies thereof to theauthority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept,with a requisition for the production of the documents by suchdate as may be specified in such requisition :Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons to berecorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such of thedocuments as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case. | (5)(f) The Disciplinary Authority may for reasons to berecorded in writing refuse to requisition such of the documentsas are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case. | In Old Rule, the InquiringAuthority may refuse to requisition such of the documents notrelevant to the case.In New Rule, instead of the inquiring Authority, it is nowconfined to the Disciplinary Authority to refuse to requisitionsuch of the documents not relevant to thecase. |
| (12)The inquiring authority shall, on receipt of the noticefor the discovery or production of documents, forward the sameor copies thereof to the authority in whose custody orpossession the documents are kept, with a requisition for theproduction of the documents by such date as may be specified insuch requisition : | (5)(g) The Disciplinary Authority shall on receipt of thenotice for the discovery or production of documents, forward thesame or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody orpossession the documents are kept with a requisition for theproduction of the documents by such date as may be specified insuch requisition. | In old rule, the InquiringAuthority can requisition for the production of the documents.In new rule, only the Disciplinary Authority on receipt ofthe notice can requisition for the production of the documents. |
| Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons to berecorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such of thedocuments as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case. | ||
| (13) On receipt of the requisition preferred to in sub-rule(12) every authority having the custody or possession of therequisitioned documents, shall produce the same before theinquiring authority, and the requisitioning of the documents canbe done either on the instance of the member of service or bythe inquiring authoritysuo motu: | (5)(h) On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub rule(5)(g), every authority having the custody or possession of therequisitioned documents shall produce the same before theDisciplinary Authority. | In old rule, the custodian orany authority produces the requisitioned documents before theInquiring Authority.In new rule, the custodian or any authority produces therequisitioned documents only before the Disciplinary Authority. |
| Provided that if the authority having the custody orpossession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied forreasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production ofall or any of such documents would be against the publicinterest or security of the State, shall submit the fact to theHead of Department, or to the Secretary of the Departmentconcerned for a decision in the matter. Such decision shall beinformed to the inquiring authority, and the inquiring authorityshall on being so informed, communicate the information to theGovernment servant and withdraw the requisition made by it forthe production or discovery of such documents. | Provided that if the authority having the custody orpossession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied forreasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production ofall or any such documents would be against the public interestor security of the State, shall submit the fact to the Head ofDepartment or to the Secretary of the Department concerned for adecision in the matter. Such decision shall be informed to theDisciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority shall onbeing so informed, communicate the information to the GovernmentServant and withdraw the requisition made by it for theproduction or discovery of such documents. | In old rule, a custodian or anyauthority can inform the Inquiring Authority that the productionof all or any of the requisitioned documents would be againstthe public interest of securityIn new rule, a custodian or any authority can submit that theproduction of all or any such requisitioned documents would beagainst the public interest or security of the State, to theHead of the Department or to the Secretary of the Departmentconcerned for a dedsion in the matter. The DisciplinaryAuthority, in turn communicates the information to theGovernment Servant to withdraw the requisition for production ordiscovery of the documents. |
| (20) If the Government (6) servant to whom a copy of thearticles of charge has been delivered, does not submit thewritten statement of defence on or before the date specified forthe purpose or does not appear in person before the inquiringauthority otherwise fails or refuses to comply with theprovisions of this rule, the inquiring authority may hold theinquiryex-parte. | 6. Where the Government Servant to whom a copy of the articleof charge has been delivered does not submit the writtenstatement of defence on or before the date specified for thepurpose or does not appear in person before the DisciplinaryAuthority, the Disciplinary Authority may decide to hold theinquiryex-parteor if it considers necessary so to do,appoint an Inquiry Authority for die purpose. | In old rule, if the GovernmentServant does not submit or dies not appear or refuses to complywith these rules, the Inquiring Authority may hold the inquiryex-parte.In new rule, the Disciplinary Authority may decide to holdthe inquiry ex-parte or if it considers necessary so to do,appoint an Inquiring Authority for the purpose. |
| (6) The disciplinary authority(7) shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward tothe inquiring authority-(i) a copyof the articles of charge and the statement of the imputationsof misconduct or misbehaviour;(ii) a copyof the written statement of defence, if any submitted by theGovernment Servant;(iii) acopy of the statements of witnesses, if any, referred to insub-rule (3).(iv)evidence proving the delivery of the documents referred to insub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and(v) A copy of the orderappointing the "Presenting Officer". | 7. (a) The DisciplinaryAuthority shall, where it is not the Inquiring Authority,forward to the Inquiring Authority.(i) a copyof the articles of charge and the statement of the imputationsof misconduct or misbehaviour;(ii) a copyof the written statement of defence, if any submitted by theGovernment Servant;(iii)Copies of the Statements of Witnesses, referred to in sub-rule(3);(iv) Copiesof documents referred to in sub-rule (3);(v)Evidence proving the delivery of copies of the documentsreferred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and(vi)A copy of the orderappointing the "Presenting Officer". | In old rule, the DisciplinaryAuthority, where it is not the Inquiry Authority, was notforwarding to the Inquiring Authority copies of documentsreferred to in sub-rule (3).In new rule, the Disciplinary Authority shall, where it isnot the Inquiry Authority, forward to the Inquiring Authoritycopies of documents referred to in sub-rule (3). |
| (6) The disciplinary authorityshall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to theinquiring authority-(i) a copyof the articles of charge and the statement of the imputationsof misconduct or misbehaviour;(ii) a copyof the written statement of defence, if any submitted by theGovernment Servant;(iii) acopy of the statements of witnesses, if any, referred to insub-rule (3).(iv)evidence proving the delivery of the documents referred to insub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and(v) a copy of the orderappointing the "Presenting Officer". | (7)(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall also forward to theInquiring Authority documents received under sub-rule (5)(h) asand when they are received. | In old rule the DisciplinaryAuthority shall, where it is not the Inquiring Authority, wasnot forwarding to the Inquiring Authority, copies of furtherdocuments requisitioned.In new rule, the Disciplinary Authority shall, where it isnot the inquiry authority, forward to the Inquiring Authority,not only copies of documents referred to in sub-rule (3), butalso further documents received under sub-rule (5)(h), as andwhen they are received. |
| (7) The Government Servant shallappear in person before the inquiring authority on such day andat such time within fifteen working days from the date ofreceipt by him of the articles of charge and the statement ofthe imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, as the inquiringauthority may, by a notice in writing, specify in this behalf orwithin such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as theinquiring authority may allow.(7) The Government Servant shall appear in person before theinquiring authority on such day and at such time within fifteenworking days from the date of receipt by him of the articles ofcharge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by a notice inwriting, specify in this behalf or within such further time, notexceeding fifteen days, as the inquiring authority may allow. | (8) After receiving the documents mentioned under sub-rule(7) (a), the Inquiring Authority shall issue a notice in writingto the Presenting Officer and also to the Government Servant toappear before him on such day and at such time and placespecified by him which shall not exceed ten days. | In old rule, the InquiringAuthority may require the Presenting Officer to produce theevidence, by which he proposes to prove the articles of chargesand may adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirtydays.In new rule, the time limit is reduced and the InquiringAuthority may adjourn the case to a date not exceeding ten days. |
| (9) (a) The Presenting Officer and Government and GovernmentServant shall appear before the Inquiring Authority on the datefixed under sub-rule (8). | In old rule, the Government Servant shall appear in personbefore the Inquiring Authority within not exceeding thirty days. | |
| In new rule, the time limit is reduced; and, not only theGovernment Servant but also the Presenting Officer shall appearbefore the Inquiring Authority, in not exceeding ten days. | ||
| (11) The inquiring authorityshall, if the government Servant fails to appear within thespecified time or refuses or omits to plead, require thePresenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposesto prove the articles of charge, and shall adjourn the case to alater date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an orderthat the Government Servant may, for the purpose of preparinghis defence :(i) inspectwithin five days of the order or within such further time notexceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow, thedocuments specified in the list referred to sub-rule (3).(ii) submita list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf,Note :- If the GovernmentServant applies orally or in writing for the supply of copies ofthe Statement of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to insub-rule (3), the inquiring authority shall furnish him withsuch copies as early as possible and in any case not later thanthree days before the commencement of the examination of thewitnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority.(iii) givea notice within ten days of the order or within such furthertime not exceeding ten days as the inquiring authority may allowfor the discovery or production of any documents which are inthe possession of Government but not mentioned in the listreferred to in sub-rule (3).Note:- The Government servant shall indicatethe relevance of the documents required by him to be discoveredor produced by the Government. | (9) (b) If the Government Servant informs the InquiringAuthority that he wishes to inspect the documents mentionedsub-rule (3) for the purpose of preparing his defence, theInquiring Authority shall order that he may inspect thedocuments within five days and the Presenting Officer shallarrange for the inspection accordingly. | In old rule, the InquiringAuthority may allow the Government Servant to inspect within notexceeding ten days to inspect the documents for the purpose ofpreparing his defence.In new rule, the time limit is reduced and the InquiringAuthority shall order that the Government Servant may inspectthe documents within five days; and, the Presenting Officershall arrange for the inspection accordingly. |
| (11) The inquiring authority shall, if the government Servantfails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits toplead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence bywhich he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shalladjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days,after recording an order that the Government Servant may, forthe purpose of preparing his defence : | (9)(c) The Inquiring Authority shall call upon the GovernmentServant whether he admits the genuineness of any of thedocuments copies of which have been furnished to him and if headmits the genuineness of any document it may be taken asevidence without any proof by the concerned witness. | In old rule, there was noprovision for the Government Servant whether he admits thegenuineness or not of any of the documents, copies of which havebeen furnished to him.In new rule, the Government Servant can say whether he admitsthe genuineness of any of the documents, copies of which havebeen furnished to him; and, if he admits, the genuineness of anydocument, it may be taken as evidence without any proof by theconcerned witness. |
| (i) inspect within five days ofthe order or within such further time not exceeding five days asthe inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified inthe list referred to sub-rule (3), | ||
| (ii) submit a list of witnessesto be examined on his behalf, | ||
| Note:- If the Government Servant appliesorally or in writing for the supply of copies of the Statementof witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3),the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies asearly as possible and in any case not later than three daysbefore the commencement of the examination of the witnesses onbehalf of the disciplinary authority. | ||
| (iii) give a notice within tendays of the order or within such further time not exceeding tendays as the inquiring authority may allow for the discovery orproduction of any documents which are in the possession ofGovernment but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule(3). | ||
| Note:- The Government servant shall indicate therelevance of the documents required by him to be discovered orproduced by the Government. | ||
| (11) The inquiring authority shall, if the government Servantfails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits toplead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence bywhich he proposes to prove the articles of charge, and shalladjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days,after recording an order that the Government Servant may, forthe purpose of preparing his defence : | (9)(d) The Inquiring Authority shall adjourn the case forinquiry to a date not exceeding ten days for production ofevidence and require the Presenting Officer to produce theevidence by which he proposes to prove the article of charges. | In old rule, the InquiringAuthority may require the Presenting Officer to produce theevidence, by which he proposes to prove the articles of chargesand may adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirtydays.In new rule, the time limit is reduced and the InquiringAuthority may adjourn the case to a date not exceeding ten days. |
| (i) inspect within five days ofthe order or within such further time not exceeding five days asthe inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified inthe list referred to sub-rule (3), | ||
| (ii) submit a list of witnessesto be examined on his behalf, | ||
| Note:- If the Government Servant appliesorally or in writing for the supply of copies of the Statementof witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule (3),the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies asearly as possible and in any case not later than three daysbefore the commencement of the examination of the witnesses onbehalf of the disciplinary authority. | ||
| (iii) give a notice within tendays of the order or within such further time not exceeding tendays as the inquiring authority may allow for the discovery orproduction of any documents which are in the possession ofGovernment but not mentioned in the list referred to in sub-rule(3). | ||
| Note:- The Government servant shall indicatethe relevance of the documents required by him to be discoveredor produced by the Government. | ||
| (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral anddocumentary evidence by which the articles of charge areproposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of thedisciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or onbehalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by oron behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officershall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points onwhich they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter,without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiringauthority may also put such questions to the witnesses as itthinks fit. | (10) (a) On the dates fixed for recording the evidence, theoral and documentary evidence by which the articles of chargesare proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf ofthe Disciplinary Authority. | In old rule, the date was fixedfor the inquiry and the oral and documentary evidence shall beproduced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority.In new rule, it is clearly specified that the dates are fixedfor inquiry for the purpose of recording the evidence, and theoral and documentary evidence shall be produced by or on behalfof the Disciplinary Authority. |
| (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral anddocumentary evidence by which the articles of charge areproposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of thedisciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or onbehalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by oron behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officershall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points onwhich they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter,without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiringauthority may also put such questions to the witnesses as itthinks fit. | (10) (b) The evidence shall be recorded as far as possible onday-to-day basis till the evidence on behalf of the DisciplinaryAuthority is completed. | In old rule, the oral anddocumentary evidence shall be produced by or on behalf of theDisciplinary Authority.In new rule, the evidence, the oral and documentary evidence,shall not only be produced, but also recorded, therebycognizance is taken of the evidence, so that it becomes a partof the record, on day to day basis, till the evidence by or onbehalf of the Disciplinary Authority is completed. |
| (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral anddocumentary evidence by which the articles of charge areproposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of thedisciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or onbehalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by oron behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officershall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points onwhich they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter,without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiringauthority may also put such questions to the witnesses as itthinks fit. | (10) (c) The witnesses shall be examined by the PresentingOfficer and they may be cross examined by or on behalf of theGovernment Servant. | In old rule, the witnesses shallbe examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer.In new rule, the witnesses shall be examined by thePresenting Officer only. |
| (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral anddocumentary evidence by which the articles of charge areproposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of thedisciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or onbehalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by oron behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officershall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points onwhich they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter,without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiringauthority may also put such questions to the witnesses as itthinks fit. | (10) (d) The Presenting Officer shall be entitled tore-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have beencross examined, but not on any new matter without the permissionof the Inquiring Authority. | In old rule, the PresentingOfficer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses, etc.,without the leave of the Inquiring Authority.In new rule, the Presenting Officer shall be entitled tore-examine the witnesses, etc., without the permission of theInquiring Authority. |
| (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral anddocumentary evidence by which the articles of charge areproposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of thedisciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or onbehalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by oron behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officershall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points onwhich they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter,without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiringauthority may also put such questions to the witnesses as itthinks fit. | 10 (e) The Inquiring Authority may also put such question tothe witnesses as it thinks fit. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| (15) If it shall appear necessary before the closure of thecase on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiringauthority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officerto produce evidence not included in the list given to theGovernment Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recalland re-examine any witness and in such case the GovernmentServant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy ofthe list of further evidence proposed to be produced and anadjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before theproduction of such new evidence, exclusive of the day ofadjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. Theinquiring authority shall give the Government servant anopportunity of inspecting such documents before they are takenon the record. The inquiring authority may also allow theGovernment Servant to produce new evidence, if it so of theopinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in theinterest of justice. | (11) (a) If it appears necessary before the closure of thecase on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the InquiringAuthority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officerto produce evidence not included in the list given to theGovernment Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recalland re-examine any witness. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| Note :- New evidence shall not be permitted orcalled for and witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gapin the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when thereis an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has beenproduced originally. | ||
| (15) If it shall appear necessary before the closure of thecase on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiringauthority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officerto produce evidence not included in the list given to theGovernment Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recalland re-examine any witness and in such case the GovernmentServant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy ofthe list of further evidence proposed to be produced and anadjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before theproduction of such new evidence, exclusive of the day ofadjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. Theinquiring authority shall give the Government servant anopportunity of inspecting such documents before they are takenon the record. The inquiring authority may also allow theGovernment Servant to produce new evidence, if it so of theopinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in theinterest of justice. | (11)(b) In such case, the Government Servant shall beentitled to have a copy of the list of further evidence proposedto be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three cleardays before the production of such new evidence, exclusive ofthe day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry isadjourned. | In old rule, the GovernmentServant, is entitled to have a copy of the list of furtherevidence, proposed to be produced, if he demands.In the New Rule, the Government Servant, without any asking,shall be entitled to have a copy of the list of furtherevidence, proposed to be produced. |
| Note :- New evidence shall not be permitted orcalled for and witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gapin the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when thereis an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has beenproduced originally. | ||
| (15) If it shall appear necessary before the closure of thecase on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the inquiringauthority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officerto produce evidence not included in the list given to theGovernment Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recalland re-examine any witness and in such case the GovernmentServant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy ofthe list of further evidence proposed to be produced and anadjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before theproduction of such new evidence, exclusive of the day ofadjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. Theinquiring authority shall give the Government servant anopportunity of inspecting such documents before they are takenon the record. The inquiring authority may also allow theGovernment Servant to produce new evidence, if it so of theopinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in theinterest of justice. | (11)(c) The Inquiring Authority shall give the GovernmentServant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before theyare taken on the record. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule.suchdocuments before they are taken on the record. |
| Note:- New evidence shall not be permitted orcalled for and witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gapin the evidence. Such evidence may be called for only when thereis an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has beenproduced originally. | Note:- New evidence shall not be permitted orcalled for and witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gapin the evidence. Such evidence my be called for only when thereis an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has beenproduced originally. | |
| (16) 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 madeorally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall berequired to sign the record. In either case, a copy of thestatement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer,if any, appointed. | (12) (a) When the case for the Disciplinary Authority isclosed, the Government Servant shall be required to state hisdefence orally or in writing as he may prefer and to submit alist of witnesses to be examined on his behalf for which purposethe case may be adjourned to a date not exceeding five days. | In old rule, when the case forthe Disciplinary Authority is closed, there was no provision forthe Government Servant to submit a list of witnesses to beexamined on his behalf, for which purpose the case may beadjourned.In new rule, when the case for the Disciplinary Authority isclosed, the Government Servant can still submit a list ofwitnesses to be examined on his behalf, for which purpose thecase may be adjourned to a date not exceeding five days. |
| (16) 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 madeorally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall berequired to sign the record. In either case, a copy of thestatement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer,if any, appointed. | (12) (b) If the defence is made orally, it shall be recordedand the Government Servant shall be required to sign the record.In either case, a copy of the statement of defence and the listof defence witness may be provided. | In old rule, a copy of thestatement of the defence is given to the Presenting Officer andnot to the Government Servant.In new rule, a copy of the statement of the defence and thelist of defence witnesses is provided to the Government Servant. |
| (16) 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 madeorally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall berequired to sign the record. In either case, a copy of thestatement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer,if any, appointed. | (12) (c) The case shall be adjourned to a date not exceedingten days for production of defence evidence. | In old rule, there was noprovision for the adjournment for production of defenceevidence.In new rule, the case can be adjourned to a date notexceeding ten days for production of defence evidence. |
| (17) The evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shallthen be produced. The Government Servant may examine himself inhis own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by theGovernment Servant shall then be examined and shall be liable tocross-examination, re examination and examination by theinquiring authority according to the provisions applicable tothe witnesses for the disciplinary authority. | (13) The evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shallthen be produced. The Government Servant may examine himself inhis own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by theGovernment Servant shall then be examined and shall be liable tocross examination, re examination and examination by theInquiring Authority according to the provisions applicable tothe witnesses for the Disciplinary Authority. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| (18)The inquiring authority may, after the Government Servantcloses his case, and shall, if the Government Servant has notexamined himself, generally question him on the circumstancesappearing against him in the evidence for purpose of enablingthe Government Servant to explain any circumstances appearing inthe evidence against him. | (I4) The Inquiring Authority There is no change between mayafter the the old rule and the new rule. Government Servantcloses his case and shall, if the Government Servant has notexamined himself, generally question him on the circumstancesappearing against him in the evidence for purpose of enablingthe Government Servant to explain any circumstances appearing inthe evidence against him. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| (19)The inquiring authority may, after the completion of theproduction of evidence, hear the presenting officer, if anyappointed, and the Government Servant, or permit them to filewritten briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire. | (15) The Inquiring Authority There is no change between may,after the completion the old rule and the new rule. of theproduction of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if anyappointed, and the Government Servant, or permit them to filewritten briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| (21) (a) Where a disciplinary authority competent to imposeany of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9and in Rule 10 but not competent to impose any of the penaltiesspecified in [clauses (vi) to (x)] of Rule 9, has itselfinquired into or caused to be inquired into the articles of anycharge and that authority, having regard to its own findings orhaving regard to its decision on any of the findings of anyinquiring authority appointed by it, is of the opinion that thepenalties specified in [clauses (vi) to (x)] of Rule 9 should beimposed on the Government servant, that authority shall forwardthe records of the inquiry to such disciplinary authority as iscompetent to impose the last mentioned penalties. | (16) (a) Where a Disciplinary Authority competent to imposeany of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9and in Rule 10, but not competent to impose any of the penaltiesspecified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9, has itself inquiredinto or caused to be inquired into the articles of any chargeand that Authority, having regard to its own findings or havingregard to its decision on any of the findings of any InquiringAuthority appointed by it is of the opinion that the penaltiesspecified in clauses (vi) to (x), of Rule 9 should be imposed onthe Government Servant, that Authority shall forward the recordsof the inquiry to such Disciplinary Authority as is competent toimpose the last mentioned penalties. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| (21)(b) The disciplinary authority to which the records areso forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, if itis of the opinion that further examination of any of thewitnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall thewitnesses and examine, cross-examine and re-examine thewitnesses and may impose on the Government servant such penaltyas it may deem fit in accordance with these rules. | (16)(b) The Disciplinary Authority to which the records areso forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may if itis of the opinion that further examination of any of thewitnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall thewitnesses and examine, cross-examine and re-examine thewitnesses and may impose on the Government Servant such penaltyas it may deem fit in accordance with these Rules. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| (22) Whenever an inquiring authority, after having heard andrecorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiryceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded byanother inquiring authority which has and which exercises, suchjurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act onthe evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recordedby its predecessor, and partly recorded by itself : | (17) Whenever an Inquiring Authority after having heard andrecorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiryceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded byanother Inquiring Authority which has and which exercises, suchjurisdiction, the Inquiring Authority so succeeding may act onthe evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recordedby its predecessor, and partly recorded by itself : | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of theopinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whoseevidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interestof justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examineany such witnesses hereinbefore provided. | Provided that if the such ceding Inquiring Authority is ofthe opinion that further examination of any of the witnesseswhose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in theinterest of justice, it may recall examine, cross-examine andre-examine any such witnesses as herein before provided. | |
| (23) (i) After the conclusion ofthe inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain-(a) thearticles of charge and the statement of the imputations ofmisconduct or misbehaviour,(b) thedefence of the Government Servant in respect of each article ofcharge;(c) anassessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge;(d) thefindings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor.(e) [ x x x ] [Omitted by G.O.Ms.No. 454, General Administrator (Ser.C), dated 7-11-2002]. | (18)(i) After the conclusion ofthe inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain:(a) thearticles of charge and the statement of the imputation ofmisconduct or misbehaviour;(b) thedefence of the Government Servant in respect of each article ofcharge;(c) anassessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge;(d) the findings on each articleof charge and the reasons therefor. | There is no change between the old rule and the new rule. |
| Explanation:— If in the opinion of theinquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish anyarticle of charge different from the original articles of thecharge, it may record its findings on such article of charge : | Explanation:— If in the opinion of theInquiring Authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establishany article of charge different from the original articles ofthe charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge: | |
| Provided that the findings onsuch article of charge shall not be recorded unless theGovernment servant has either admitted the facts on which sucharticle of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunityof defending himself against such article of charge. | Provided that the findings onsuch article of charge shall not be recorded unless theGovernment Servant has either admitted the facts on which sucharticle of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunityof defending himself against such article of charge. | |
| (ii) The inquiring authority,where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forwardto the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shallinclude- | (ii) The Inquiring Authority,where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forwardto the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which;shall include: | |
| (a) the report prepared by itunder clause (i); | (a) the report prepared by itunder clause (i); | |
| (b) the written statement ofdefence, if any, submitted by the Government Servant; | (b) the written statement ofdefence, if any, submitted by the Government Servant; | |
| (c) the oral and documentaryevidence produced in the course of the inquiry; | (c) the oral and documentaryevidence produced in the course of the inquiry; | |
| (d) written briefs, if any, filedby the Presenting Officer or the Government Servant or bothduring the course of the inquiry; and | (d) written briefs, if any, filedby the Presenting Officer or the Government Servant or bothduring the course of the inquiry; and | |
| (e) the orders, if any, made bythe disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regardto the inquiry. | (e) the orders, if any, made bythe Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regardto the inquiry. | |
| Explanation:— It is not necessary to havean inquiry in the manner provided for in this rule or to hear inperson in the case of reduction of rank in seniority list (A andB lists) of Constables fit for promotion as Head Constables inthe Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service or Andhra PradeshSpecial Police Service. | Explanation:— It is not necessary to havean inquiry in the manner provided for in this Rule or to hear inperson in the case of reduction of rank in seniority list (A andB lists) of Constables fit for promotion as Head Constables inthe Andhra Pradesh Police Subordinate Service or Andhra PradeshSpecial Armed Police Service. |
19. Payment of honorarium to the retired Government Servants appointed as Inquiry Officer - Orders - Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 229, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 12-08-2004)Order: - It was brought to notice of the Government that as per Office Memorandum No. 134/4/99/AVD I, dated 29-06-2001 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, contains the rates of honorarium payable to retired Government officer. There is a need to rationalize the procedure for identification and selection of retired officers of proven integrity. The Heads of Departments may have to be authorized to handle this function and the disciplinary authorities at the Regional Level and at the District level, should be made to pick up such of the officers who have empanelled by the Heads of Departments concerned.2. Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 has been amended in G.O.Ms. No. 383 G.A.(Ser.C) Department , dated 19-12-2003 and a provision has been made for the appointment of retired Government servants as Inquiry Officer.
3. The payment of honorarium to the retired Government servants appointed as an Inquiry officers has been examined in detail and proposed for providing lump sum remuneration of Rs. 5,000/- for every Inquiry report with an additional amount of Rs. 1,000/- for every additional charged officer where more than one charged officer is involved.
4. After careful consideration, it has been decided for appointment of retired Government officers as Inquiry Officer at the level of Deputy Collectors etc. to enquire into cases mainly of serious in nature in respect of Gazetted and non-gazetted officers, duly providing lump sum remuneration of Rs.5,000/- for every Inquiry report with an additional amount of Rs. 1000/- for every additional charged officer where more than one charged officer is involved.
5. The grant of honorarium and lumpsum remuneration to retired Government Servants appointed as Inquiry Officers as Officers as mentioned in para (4) above will be subject to the following conditions : -
16. Disciplinary Cases - Violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules - Initiation of disciplinary action as per Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules - Orders - Issued.
(G.O. Ms. No. 680, G.A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 1-11-2008)Order: - All Government Employees are governed by the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Any violation of the said rules amounts to misconduct and for such misconduct disciplinary action shall be initiated as per the procedure laid down in Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.2. According to Rule 3 (1) of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, 'every Government employee shall be devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety'.
3. It is noticed that while initiating the disciplinary action against any erring employee the above rule position is not strictly adhered to. The charges against any erring employee shall be framed by the Competent Authority duly indicating the specific misconduct. Such articles of charge should not be vague and general in nature i.e., the words like slack supervision, irregular way of processing the issues etc., The Courts of Law are taking a view that there is no clear application of mind by the Competent Authority while initiating the disciplinary action against erring employee. The Division Bench of the A.P.High Court in K. David Wilson Vs. Secretary to Government, Law Department, (2001 (5) ALT 65) held that "the charged official ought to be informed of the charges leveled against him as also the grounds upon which they are based. Charge of misconduct should not be vague. The charge-sheet must be specific and must set out all the necessary particulars and details irrespective of the fact whether the delinquent knows it or not, he must be told about the charges and it was not his duty to connect the charge sheet with his alleged understanding or knowledge of the charge. However, it is true that the charge need not be framed with the precision of a charge in criminal proceedings. But, at the same time, it must not be vague or so general as to make it impossible of being traversed. Therefore, the test is whether the charge conveys to the delinquent employee, the exact nature of the alleged misconduct in a way that would enable him to meet the charge effectively. It is well established that if a vague charge is given to a delinquent, it is a fatal defect, which vitiates the entire proceedings. It is also relevant to notice that the vagueness in the charge is not excused on the plea that the employee concerned should be deemed to have known the facts correctly. It should not be left to the delinquent official to find out or imagine what the charges against him are and it is for the employer to frame specific charges with full particulars."
4. Thus, there is need to keep in mind the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, to check the misconduct of the Government employees to ensure that the system of administration functions smoothly.
5. Government direct that wherever connivance, negligence, dereliction of duty of the Government employee is noticed, the Competent Authority shall take prompt action for such misconduct in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.
6. It is the earnest endeavour of the Government to ensure clean and efficient administration at all levels.
7. All Departments of Secretariat, all Heads of Departments and all District Collectors are requested to take prompt necessary action as per the above order.
21. [ Action on the inquiry report: [Substituted by G.O. Ms. 22, G.A.D., dated 30-01-2004]
22. [ Procedure for imposing minor penalties] [Standard prescribed forms given at the end of these rules]: - (1) Subject to the provisions of [sub-rule (4)] [Substituted by G.O.Ms. 22, G.A.D., dated 30-01-2004] of Rule 21, an order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9 and in Rule 10 shall be made except after :
(a)informing the Government Servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;(b)holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules [(3) to (18)] [Substituted by G.O.Ms. 552, G.A.D., dated 5-10-2006] of Rule 20, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;(c)taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;(d)recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and(e)consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary.2. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 8527/1991, dated 4-6-1991, while relying on the above judgement, of the Supreme Court, has set-aside the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No. 73, HM & FW Department , dated 11-1-1990 on the ground that Rule 9(1)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding an inquiry and following the prescribed procedure and considered that the said order issued by the Government is without jurisdiction or authority of Law.
3. The A. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, have been issued through G.O.Ms.No. 487, dated 14-9-1992. The said rules came into force with effect from 1-10-1992. Rule 22 of the said Rules deals with the procedure for imposition of Minor penalties. Among others, according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 22, notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b), sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed, after considering representation, if any made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 20, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.
In other words, for imposing the penalty of withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, the elaborate procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the said Rules, for imposition of a major penalty, have to be followed. The penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, therefore amounts to a major penalty under the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, and the procedure for imposition of major penalty prescribed in these rules will have to be followed.4. All the Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are requested to keep in view the above rule position while dealing with cases where it is proposed to impose the punishment of stoppage of increments, keeping in view the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991.
23. Communication of orders:
- Orders made by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the Government servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge, or, where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of the findings of the disciplinary authority together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority (unless they have already been supplied to him) and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Commission and, where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance.24. [ Common proceedings: - (1) Where two or more Government Servants of the same service or different services are concerned in any case the Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings :
Provided that if the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government servants are different, such authorities not being the Government, an order for holding such inquiry in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the other authorities competent to impose the said penalty on the others.1. Joint Enquiry - Instructions - Issued
[U.O. Note No. 732/Ser. C/90-2, G.A.D., dated 18-12-1990]Order: - It has been brought to the notice of the Government that when employees of different departments were involved in disciplinary cases for certain lapses which were common to all of them it is possible that one of the departments may inflict a punishment on the delinquent officers, while the other Departments may let off the officers involved with a warning by taking a lenient view.2. In this context, the feasibility or otherwise to prescribe a yardstick/guidelines in awarding penalties uniformly on all the persons involved in a joint enquiry, has been examined.
3. According to clause (a) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 where two or more members of the same service or different services are concerned in any case, the Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such members may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such members are different, such authorities not being the Government order for holding such enquiry in common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the other authorities competent to impose the said penalty on others.
4. In view of the above rule, it is for the highest authority that orders joint enquiry to see that the penalty imposed is proportionate to the seriousness of the charges held proved, keeping in view their degree of culpability/seriousness of lapses held proved while imposing the penalty in such cases.
5. When two or more persons are involved in one case, the magnitude of involvement of all the delinquent officers may not be the same and the degree of culpability may also vary from person to person. As such it may not be possible to impose the same penalty uniformly on all the charged officers, irrespective of the degree of their involvement. If the same penalty is imposed on all such delinquent Officers involved on in a case, ignoring their degree of culpability and magnitude of involvement, such action is liable to be questioned. As such, it is considered that it may not be legally valid to prescribe any guidelines or yard sticks for imposing penalty in such cases. In view of the above, the competent authority who orders such a joint enquiry should ensure that the members of service involved in disciplinary cases are imposed the penalties keeping in view their degree of culpability/seriousness of lapses/charges held proved.
6. In view of the above position and also sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1963 the Disciplinary Authority should take a comprehensive view by taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the extent of involvement of such of the delinquent officers while inflicting the punishment.
2. Joint Enquiries in Disciplinary cases
[Memo.No. 510/Ser.-C/93-2, General Administrator (Ser.-C) Department , dated 18-11-1993]Ref: - 1. U.O.Note No. 732/Ser.C/90-2, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 18-12-1990.2. G.O.Ms.No. 487, G.A. (Ser.C) Department , dated 14-9-1992.
Order: - In the U.O. Note 1st cited, instructions were issued under Clause (a) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 for holding inquiry in a common proceedings, when two or more persons are involved in one case and when employees of different Departments are involved in disciplinary cases for certain lapses which were common to all of them. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963 are repealed by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which came into force with effect from 1-10-1992 necessitating the reissue of the said instructions under the new CCA Rules.2. According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, where two or more Government servants of the same service or different service concerned are involved in any case, the Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government Servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding. Provided that if the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government Servants are different, such authorities not being the Government, an order for holding such inquiry in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the other authorities competent to impose the said penalty on the others.
3. In view of the above rule, the following instructions are issued :
4. When two or more persons are involved in one case, the magnitude of involvement of all the delinquent officers may not be the same and the degree of culpability may also vary from person to person. As such it may not be possible to impose the same penalty uniformly on all the charged officers, irrespective of the degree of their involvement. As such it may not be legally valid to prescribe any guidelines or yardsticks for imposing penalty in such cases. Therefore, the competent authority who orders such a joint inquiry should ensure that the members of service involved in disciplinary cases are imposed the penalties keeping in view their degree of culpability/seriousness of lapse/charges held proved.
5. All the Departments of Secretariat and all Heads of Departments are requested to keep the above in view and also bring the same to the notice of all concerned for the guidance, while dealing with such cases.
3. Common proceedings - Further instructions issued.
[Memo. No. 59391/Ser.C/2000-2, G.A.D. (Ser. C), dated 11-01-2001]Ref :- 1. Government Memo. No. 510/Ser. C/93-2.G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 18-11-1993.2. G.O. Ms. No. 82, G.A. (Ser. C) Department , dated 01-03-1996.
3. From the Vigilance Commissioner, A.P. Vigilance Commission,
Lr. No. 524NC. A2/2000-1, dated: 06-12-2000.Order: - According to sub-rule (1) of Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 where two or more Government Servants of the same service or different services are involved in any case, disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings.2. In the reference first cited, guidelines were issued regarding imposition of penalties.
3. It is noticed that the above rule and the instructions are not being properly complied with and the Departments concerned are ordering the inquiries separately for each category of Officer, even though the irregularities are committed jointly in a particular case or event. Further different disciplinary proceedings without the consent of the other authorities, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and therefore uniformity is lost. This has resulted in discrimination.
4. The Government reiterates that when two or more Officers are involved in a disciplinary case, it shall be invariably necessary to order common disciplinary proceedings as per Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 irrespective of whether they belong to the same service or different services or Departments if their services are covered under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1991. The Departments should first consider the entrustment of such disciplinary cases to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings or the Commissioner of Inquiries, having regard to the Class and Category of Officer or nature of the issue involved. On the findings of inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority designated as per Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 shall take a decision on the penalty to be imposed or otherwise to conclude disciplinary proceedings.
5. The Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and all District Collectors are requested to follow the above rule and instructions scrupulously.
4. Inquires - Conduct of common enquiry into the charges against more than one charged Officer in common Proceedings - Instructions - Regarding.
(Memo. No. 91715/Ser.C/2003, G.A. (Ser-C) Department , dated 25-08-2003)Ref :- U.O.Note No.439/COLR/2002-1, G.A. (COLR) Department ., dated 05-07-2003.Order: - It has been brought to the notice of the Government that several deficiencies were noticed during the course of conduct of inquiries into the charges against more than one officer in a common proceedings. Though the Rule 24 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, provide for ordering a common inquiry into charges against more than one charged officer of the same or of different services, the disciplinary authorities are not mentioning the above rule position or even the expression Common Inquiry/Common Proceedings in the order of appointment of Inquiry Authority while ordering inquiry. The proper course of action to be taken under each contingency is indicated as shown below:| Contingency | Action To Be Taken | |
| (i) | Among all the Charged Officers there may not be a Uniform lineof defence and each one will try to implicate other ChargedOfficer to save his own skin. | In a such a case the other Charged Officers if they so desiremay be allowed to have a copy of the written defence statement(s)or Written brief (s) submitted by the other Charged Officer forthe purpose of rebutting such of the incriminating statement madeby the Charged Officer. |
| (ii) | During the course of cross-examination of prosecution witness,one charged officer may elicit certain information,which is goingagainst the interest of the other Charged Officer. | A fair chance will have to be given to the other ChargedOfficer to cross-examine the witness on that matter. |
| (iii) | During the course of inquiry defence witnesses cited by oneCharged Officer may state something incriminatory against anyother Charged Officer. | In such a case the other Charged Officers will have the rightto cross-examine the Defence witness cited by the first ChargedOfficer. |
| (iv) | When one Charged Officer while examining himself as his ownwitness deposes something incriminating against any other/allother Charged Officer. | In such a case the other charged Officer/their defenceAssistants will have a chance to cross-examine that ChargedOfficer who is examining himself as his own witness. |
| (v) | When one of the Charged Officer is cited as defence witness bythe other Charged Officer, whether he shall be allowed to examinethe Charged Officer as his witness ? | In such a case the Charged Officer who is cited as defencewitness by the other charged officer, it is voluntary chargedofficer, it is voluntary for him to give evidence, but he cannotbe compelled to give evidence against his wishes. |
| (vi) | When in a common proceeding, on the directions of a Court ofLaw if the inquiry against anyone or few of the Charged Officersis separated and asked to complete it before the other ChargedOfficer, particularly when the other Charged Officer go stayorder on the proceedings. | In such a case action on the inquiry report in respect ofthose Charged Officers may be taken along with other ChargedOfficers. Other-wise, there is a possibility that the ChargedOfficers in whose case inquiry is not completed may seek a reliefunder the guise of outcome the inquiry report in respect of firstCharged Officer. |