Amendment to ccs(cca) rules

Dear Mr. P. Venu,

Thanks for sharing in the Forum.

Normally the disciplinary authroity charges itself off temporarily from the qinquiry after appointing IO.

Normally the delay takes place in arranging defence documents.  Sickness/election duty etc of charged officer/IO/PO/DA does not cause much delay.  Such procedure will compel the disciplinary authority to look inot the difficulty faced  by the IO and will be complelled to intgerevene.

Originally posted by : Kumar Doab
	Dear Mr. P. Venu, Thanks for sharing in the Forum.

Mr. Kumar Doab should have advised about the legal status of the inquiry Report, rather than thanking on behlf of the whole of the forum just to make one vague post to earn undue additional scores.

Mr. P Venu,

You have raised quite a valid point, rather a great flaw in the statutory rule.

Since the rule is of a statutory nature, the charged officer can get the inquiry report legally treated as null & void, as that may not fulfill the statutory requirement of rules, if the report is submitted after the threshhold time limit without taken due extension of time.

I agree with the opinion of Mr. Sudhir Kumar. In fact, extraordinary delay is caused by wastage of most of the time in acquisition and supply of the additional documents for defence of the C.O.

However, the reply of Mr. Sudhir kumar does not provide any solution to the query about the legal status of the inquiry report. 

I am also in agreement of the views of Mr. Dhingra.

Mr. Jigyasu,

Thanks for agreeing with my views.

Dear Shri P. Venu,

In fact, I also provided a long list of my suggestions, while views were called for by the DOPT. With specific reference to the additional documents requisitioned by the Charged Offcier, I suggested the DOPT that the provisions should be made in the rules to quote cogent reason by the custodian of the document, instead of the term :"not available" if any document is not supplied to the charged officer. But that could not find place in the amended rule for the reason best known to the DOPT. The irony is that even the most important document like copies of the paid vouchers are also not supplied merely on the plea of non-avbailability, while the DDO can squarelyl be held responsible for the misplacement of the paid voucher, which is prescribed to be preserved.for years together by the Government.