AND APPEAL) RULES, S. No. Rule. Title of the Rules. Page No. . on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 11;. Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, – Recovery of pecuniary loss . Part I, Central Civil Services, Group 'A', Download(11 KB) pdf. CCS (CCA) RULES, >>>>. CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES. ( CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, In exercise of the powers conferred by.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Genre:||Children & Youth|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article and. OFFICE MEMORANDUM. Subject: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, — instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet. /12/Estt.A-III, 06/12/, CCS (CCA) Rules, - Clarification regarding effect of warning, censure etc on promotion. PDF(English). 6, No.
When the conduct of a Government Servant is under investigation by the CBI or by the controlling Department but the investigation has not reached the stage of issue of charge sheet or prosecution sanction or filing of charge-sheet for criminal prosecution in a court, the application of such a Government servant may be forwarded together with brief comments on the nature of allegations and it should also be made clear that in the event of actual selection of the Government servant, he would not be released for taking up the appointment, if by that time charge sheet for imposition of penalty under CCS CCA Rules, or sanction for prosecution is issued or a charge sheet is filed in a court to prosecute the Government Servant, or he is placed under suspension.
In case any situation mentioned in para 3 is obtaining, the requisite permission should not be granted and UPSC should be immediately informed accordingly. In case a situation mentioned in para 4 is obtaining, action may be taken to inform UPSC of this fact as also the nature of allegations against the Government servant.
The matter was considered further at a meeting of the National Council held on the 27th January, and in partial modification of the earlier orders it has been decided that every effort should be made to file the charge-sheet in court or serve the charge-sheet on the Government servant, as the case may be within three months of the date of suspension, and in cases in which it may not be possible to do so, the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the next higher authority explaining the reasons for the delay.
Department of Personnel Memo. A dated the 4th February, ]. Government have already reduced the period of suspension during investigation, barring exceptional cases which are to be reported to the higher authority, from six months to three months. It has been decided that while the orders contained in the Office Memorandum of 4th February, would continue to be operative in regard to cases pending in courts in respect of the period of suspension pending investigation before the filing of a charge-sheet in the Court as also in respect of serving of the charge sheet on the Government servant in cases of departmental proceedings, in cases other than those pending in courts, the total period of suspension viz.
In exceptional cases where it is not possible to adhere to this time limit, the disciplinary authority should report the matter to the next higher authority, explaining the reasons for the delay. Department of Personnel OM No. A dated the 16th December, ]. In spite of the instructions referred to above, instances have come to notice in which Government servants continued to be under suspension for unduly long periods.
Such unduly long suspension while putting the employee concerned to undue hardship, involves payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government. It is, therefore impressed on all the authorities concerned that they should scrupulously observe the time limits laid down in the Office Memoranda referred to in the preceding paragraph and review the cases of suspension to see whether continued suspension in all cases is really necessary.
The authorities superior to the disciplinary authorities should also exercise a strict check on cases in which delay has occurred and give appropriate directions to the disciplinary authorities keeping in view the provisions contained in the aforesaid Office Memoranda. A dated the 14th September, ]. The attention of the Ministry of Finance etc.
A dated 14th September, , in which the existing instructions relating to suspension of Government employees have been consolidated. In spite of these instructions it has been brought to the notice of this Department that Government servants are some times kept under suspension for unduly long periods. It is, therefore, once again reiterated that the provisions of the aforesaid instructions in the matter of suspension of Government employees and the action to be taken thereafter should be followed strictly.
De novo proceedings are not sustainable in the eyes of law. It amounts to double jeopardy and violation of principle of natural justice. No fresh material whatsoever has come to light after the first 2 enquiries. All the charges leveled against the Applicant stand duly examined in earlier 2 Enquiries.
Enquiring the same charges time and again is nothing but a valuable time of the Department. Two Enquiries were conducted against the Applicant vide earlier charge-sheets. The proceedings therein have been rendered null and void in the above mentioned two charge-sheets itself by Respondents. Therefore it is not permissible under the Rules to spilt the allegations relating to one incident for the purpose of issuing multiple charge-sheets on the selfsame charges.
Once a minor penalty charge-sheet was served upon the Applicant on 2. There was no reason to drop the earlier proceedings, if at all there were no discrepancies,deviations and injustice being done to the Applicant, in the same.
Pendency of unnecessary proceedings is detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the Applicant.
There is an inordinate delay from the date of incidence till today. The proceedings are initiated after a gap of almost 4 years from the actual date of incidence. The respondents cannot keep the sword of unnecessary proceedings hanging on his head forever. The Applicant deserves peaceful atmosphere to give his best out put. Instead of providing the same the Respondents have hanged the damocles' sword on his head for the last 4 years.
On notice the respondents appeared and by a common reply dated It is stated that on In pursuance thereof a notice was issued to the applicant on Since the competent authority did not satisfy with the reply given, necessary information was sought from the office of Additional Divisional Railway Manager Personnel Solapur relating to allotment of quarter to the wife of the applicant.
In response to it, on However, instead of crediting the said amount, the applicant submitted a representation on Hence according to him drawal of HRA by him was not illegal. Since the applicant again indulged in successive correspondence without depositing the amount, he was served with a minor penalty charge-sheet on Hence the order regarding recovery of the amount passed by the Disciplinary Authority on The Appellate Authority has also rightly rejected his appeal vide order dated Further steps were taken as per the order passed by the Revisionary Authority and again by the Appellate Authority and fresh charge-sheets were served on the applicant for the same charge, after removing the technical defects pointed out in previous inquiry proceedings.
On filing of the third charge-sheet on The appeal against the said order was rightly rejected. The applicant preferred revision against the direction to withhold the amount already recovered from his salary. However it was not considered since the order was passed in a disciplinary proceedings involving a minor penalty charge-sheet and he was informed accordingly.
It is also stated that the applicant also indulged in lodging complaint against Shri R. The same was duly replied. Total amount of HRA received by the applicant during the period from Out of it Rs. A de-novo inquiry was directed twice since some technical infirmities were noticed in the proceedings and there is no bar for holding de-novo inquiry.
It is stated that the applicant is posted as Postal Assistant with effect from The order regarding allotment of Railway Accommodation to applicant's wife is filed on record as Exhibit R-1 and the list of family members residing with her in the said accommodation is also filed on record as Exhibit R-2, which documents are collected from Railway Authorities.
Thus the applicant was duty bound to give necessary intimation to the respondents about allotment of quarter to his wife by Railway Administration, which he failed and thus drawl of HRA was irregular.
Hence the order of recovery is perfectly right which calls for no interference. Thus no grounds are made out by the applicant for challenging the impugned orders. The citations relied upon by the applicant are not applicable to the present case and it cannot be gathered that there is no provision to direct de-novo inquiry. The applicant then filed rejoinder to the reply on It is stated that subjecting the applicant to de-novo proceeding twice on the same charge is not permissible and the Disciplinary Authority should have dropped the first inquiry.
The Appellate and Revisionary Authorities too should have exonerated the applicant. Hence all the three penalty orders are liable to be quashed. It is stated that since the appellate order has replaced the order of the Disciplinary Authority and when the above order is set aside for procedural defects, the punishment order also simultaneously stands quashed.
Hence the respondents were having no jurisdiction, power or authority to withhold the amount already recovered and the same should have been refunded to the applicant once de-novo inquiry was directed.
The respondents then filed short reply to the rejoinder on Priyanka Mehndiratta, learned Advocate for the applicant and the reply arguments of Shri V. Masurkar, learned Advocate for the respondents.
We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents relied upon by them in support of their rival contentions and also citations relied upon by the applicant at Annexures A to A The applicant has also alleged that he was punished thrice for the same offence of alleged violation of Rules and thus it results in subjecting him to double jeopardy.
It is obvious from record that the charge levelled against the applicant is failing to give intimation to the respondents regarding allotment of Railway Accommodation to his wife who is admittedly serving in Railways at Solapur itself and thereby irregularly received the amount of HRA. This fact could not have been detected since the applicant's wife is serving in different department, but for the anonymous complaint received by respondents against the applicant.
The allegations were verified and it is not disputed that the applicant's wife was allotted Railway Accommodation in the year , although the allotment order dated It is obvious from record that the applicant's contention is that although Railway Accommodation was allotted to his wife he was residing elsewhere and hence HRA has been rightly drawn by him. It is thus obvious from perusal of above provision that Rule relating to admissibility of HRA is very clear.
It is obvious that even if one spouse resides separate from the other spouse for any reason, to whom Government accommodation is allotted, still former spouse is not entitled to claim HRA. The only exception will be when both the spouses are judicially separated through a decree of divorce granted by a Competent Court.
This is so because thereafter only their relationship as husband and wife will cease to exist and in that event only the other spouse who resides in separate accommodation can claim HRA. In other words, so long as relationship of husband and wife subsists or continues to exist, the spouse who has not occupied Government accommodation allotted to other spouse or resides elsewhere will not be entitled to claim the HRA.
Perusal of the impugned order dated This being so, the recovery order cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or improper. Turning to the main objection raised by the applicant regarding order directing de-novo inquiry twice, it is obvious that Rule 11 of CCS CCA Rules prescribes minor and major penalties, whereas Rule 16 thereof prescribes procedure for imposition of minor penalties. Sub-Section 1 thereof speaks about giving information to the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputation 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.
Procedure prescribed for holding inquiry for major penalty charge-sheet can be adopted by the Disciplinary Authority even in minor penalty proceedings, if the said Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.
This can also be done if delinquent employee makes a specific prayer in his representation to hold inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed for major penalty charge-sheet under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules. In the present case, it is obvious that the Disciplinary Authority on all the three occasions did not feel or think it necessary to hold the inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS CCA Rules treating it as major penalty charge-sheet, nor applicant has made any such request.
There is nothing on record to show that the applicant was denied opportunity of submitting his representation to the statement of imputation or that the documents relied upon were not supplied to him.
So far as this aspect of the case is concerned perusal of the order dated Alignment of Services Rules with the Sexual Harassment of Disciplinary Proceedings ; 3 rt C. VIG - ipgcl-ppcl ; Q.
Every teacher shall, by precept and example, instill in the minds of the pupil, entrusted to his care, love for the motherland.
The Border Roads Organisation is a symbol of Nation Building and National Integration and has become an inescapable component in maintaining the security and integrity of the Nation. Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public C D O'S. Contracts Details. Progress of Work. Regulation of pay on imposition of a penalty under CCS The undersigned is directed to say that the following penalties prescribed in the Rule 11 of CCS CCA Rules, , have a bearing on the pay of the officer: iii a … Regulation of pay on imposition of a penalty under CCS