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.

Ccs Cca Rules 1965 In English Pdf

Language:English, Indonesian, Japanese
Genre:Fiction & Literature
Published (Last):05.10.2015
ePub File Size:24.81 MB
PDF File Size:12.63 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Sign up for free]
Uploaded by: MARYBETH

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.

In other Departmental Inquiries: Guidelines to the Inquiring Authority. General Financial Rules, as applicable to the employees of Govt.

ccs (cca) rules 1965

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. We have carefully gone through the said decision. It shows that the applicant therein was charged with the allegations of concealing the fact of realization of Rs. It further shows that the Inquiry Officer exonerated the applicant.

However, the said decision did not find favour with the Disciplinary Authority and hence another Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct fresh inquiry.

The second Inquiry Officer again came to the conclusion that the charge is not made out by stating that there is no conclusive proof to establish the charge of acceptance of money by the applicant.

It however proceeded further to say that in view of the previous inquiry and statement given by the witnesses evading reply of Shri Datta, the conduct of the applicant may not be above board.

Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority again did not approve the finding and another Inquiry Officer was appointed who on holding inquiry concluded that the charge against the applicant stands proved. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence.

But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority.

The Disciplinary Authority has enough power to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant. Before the Judicial Commissioner the point was put slightly differently and it was urged that the proceedings shows that the Disciplinary Authority had made up its mind to dismiss the appellant.

You might also like: MONICA MCCARTY EPUB

The Judicial Commissioner held that on the facts it could not be said that the Disciplinary Authority was prejudiced against the appellant. But it seems to us that on the material on record a suspicion does arise that the Collector was determined to get some Inquiry Officer to report against the appellant.

In the result we hold that no proper inquiry has been conducted in the case and, therefore, there has been a breach of Article 2 of the Constitution. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order, dated June 4, , quashed, and it is declared that the appellant should be treated as still continuing in service. He should be paid his pay and allowances for the period he has been out of office. The appellant will have his costs here and in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.

Fees shall be payable by the appellant to his advocate and be allowed on taxation. It is thus obvious that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although twice the Inquiry Officer recorded a finding exonerating the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority was bent upon to see that anyhow applicant is found guilty of the charge and punishment of dismissal is imposed upon him.

There is nothing to show that any disagreement note was recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and after hearing the applicant a decision was taken to dismiss him from service, by holding that the charge stands proved against him. The facts of the present case are different, inasmuch as both the Inquiry Officers found the applicant guilty of charge. However the Revisionary Authority on first instance and Appellate Authority on second instance were not satisfied in view of the technical infirmities pointed out and hence in order to do complete justice to department as well as applicant, fresh inquiry was directed.

We are of the view that in such circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the order directing de-novo inquiry is in any way illegal or improper.

During the course of arguments, the learned Advocate for the applicant further placed reliance on the interim order dated Ministry of Central Railway and two others.

In that case a major penalty charge-sheet on Inquiry was conducted and the applicant submitted that he was made to understand that he has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer in or around June, However, some persons with vested interest managed issuance of another charge-sheet for minor penalty on It was contended that the respondents have no authority in law to file fresh charge-sheet on the same set of facts and allegations.

It was also contended that the respondents were obliged to take the first inquiry to its logical end by taking appropriate action on the inquiry report submitted in respect of the first charge-sheet dated This Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, by the interim order the respondents were directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the second charge-sheet.

It appears that the said OA is still pending for decision on merit. Hence on the basis of interim order passed in the O. It is thus obvious that fresh inquiry on same charge is not normally permissible, if in the previous inquiry the Government servant is exonerated of the charge. In the present case the facts are quite different inasmuch as the applicant was in fact held guilty of charge on two occasions and thus was not exonerated and then the Revisionary Authority did not approve the said decision and since discrepancies were noticed, to be fair to both the sides directed de-noto inquiry by filing fresh charge-sheet by removing discrepancies.

In such circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the order directing de-novo inquiry amounts to double jeopardy, inasmuch as although the applicant was found guilty of the charge it was set aside since de-novo inquiry was directed giving full opportunity to applicant to defend him.

We, therefore, do not find any force in the contentions of the learned Advocate for the applicant that he was subjected to double jeopardy resulting in violation of his fundamental right enshrined in Article 20 2 of the Constitution of India. Lastly the learned Advocate for the applicant further relied on decision dated Muley Vs. Commissioner, KVS and others. In that case inquiry was held against the applicant for various charges.

Frequently bought together

The Inquiry Officer in his report held the charges proved, but also it was noticed that there was no intention on the part of the employee to benefit herself and rather it was a case of negligence due to burden of work. Considering the peculiar facts of case it was held that order to hold second inquiry was wrong, ultimately acting on the first inquiry report.

It was held in the circumstances given by the Inquiry Officer at best it is a case of negligence which is not a misconduct and for which no pension cut can be imposed.

It was further held that, it can safely be stated that the authority have acted contrary to the statutorily prescribed procedure.

The violation is substantive in character and thus the parameters as laid down in S. Sharma supra are met with. As such the decision to order a de-novo inquiry being bad in law, the same vitiates the entire inquiry. Consequently the penalty imposed also gets vitiated. It was further held that there may be negligence in performance of duty but the same would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable loss or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high.

On the contrary the applicant has deliberately suppressed the fact of allotment of Government accommodation to his wife solely with a view to get the benefit of HRA. This being so de-novo inquiry cannot be said to be illegal, improper or incorrect. So far as direction to hold de-novo inquiry is concerned, we have also come across a decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.

Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965

Subramanyam Vs. Commandant Madras, Eng. Group and Centre and others, 1 SLR It was a case under Karnataka Civil Service Rules In that case the order of dismissal was set aside in appeal and case was remitted for de-novo inquiry. It was held that the order of dismissal did not survive and dismissal cannot be presumed without an inquiry de-novo.

In that case also some procedural lapses in finalization of oral inquiry were noticed and hence the case was remitted for de-novo proceeding from the stage of oral inquiry.

It has been contended for the second respondent by Shri U. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel, that from the above orders, it would be clear that the original enquiry which resulted in the order of dismissal of the petitioner had not been set aside by the appellate authority and, therefore, the 2nd respondent was justified in endorsing the same and ordering a denovo enquiry without withdrawing the order of dismissal earlier made pursuant to enquiry which had been held by the appellate authority to suffer from procedural lapse.

Program Details

It is difficult to accede to this contention. The appellate order, though brief, if properly understood, in substance, means no more than that the entire proceedings resulting in the dismissal was a procedural lapse. The matter has been remitted for the denovo proceedings to the first respondent. If understood as such, it is clear that the 2nd respondent was in error in coming to the conclusion that the original dismissal order would still survive after the order in appeal was made as extracted above.

Dismissal cannot be presumed without enquiry de novo. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits flowing from the order in appeal and must be held to be deemed to be in service subject however to fresh enquiry in accordance with Rules.


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. Ministry of Finance etc. So far as payment of subsistence allowance is concerned, Ministry of Finance etc.

A dated the 18th February, ].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. A , dated the 21stFebruary, ] Promotion of employees on whom any penalty has been imposed [Cabinet Sectt.

Criticism of Government. 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.

However, in view of the fact that there are other evidences on record which go against the petitioner, I hereby order that the case be started de-novo from the stage of issue of fresh charge sheet which should incorporate clearly the documents etc on which charges levelled would be proposed to be proved.

It was held in the circumstances given by the Inquiry Officer at best it is a case of negligence which is not a misconduct and for which no pension cut can be imposed.

LATRINA from Fayetteville
Look through my other posts. I'm keen on zumba. I do enjoy terribly.