A Rare Case regarding Central Service Rules
hage nibo
(Querist) 14 April 2009
This query is : Resolved
ONE OF THE RAREST CASE OF A CLIENT
Treat this Serious & an Urgent Case please!!!
( 1 )
Mr. “A”, a civil govt. servant (clerk) was placed under suspension on 16/04/2002, pending disciplinary proceeding against him under the charges of unauthorized absence from the duties.
The inquiry was ordered and held into the charges of unauthorized absence under the provision of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), 1965 as per the procedures employed to impose major Penalty.
The said suspension Order was revoked on 27/10/2004 & Mr. “A” joined his duty.
The proceeding ultimately ended only with minor penalty of withholding one periodical increment without any cumulative effect, as defined in Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 read with FR-24.
The said order of revocation is incomplete and impugned in terms of Civil Service Fundamental Rule 54(B) (1).
Because, Fundamental Rule 54(B) (1) requires that when an employee is reinstated, his (a) pay & allowances to be paid for the suspension period and (b) Whether the said period of suspension should be treated as on duty, should clearly be mentioned in the revocation Order.
But, the Order is silent on as to pay and allowances to be paid to “A” after reinstatement as required by FR 54(B)(1)(a). Whereas, it treated the suspension period, w.e.f 16-04-2002 to 26-10-2004 not in duty for any purpose.
Mr. “A” was imposed only minor penalty as defined in Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) rules 1965 read with FR-24 i.e withholding one periodical increment without any cumulative effect.
Order/Administrative instruction of the Govt. of India runs as:
“Suspension should be held wholly unjustified when the proceedings end with minor penalty. - The Staff Side of the Committee of the National Council set up to review the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had suggested that in cases where a Government servant, against whom an inquiry has been held for the imposition of a major penalty, is finally awarded only a minor penalty, the suspension should considered unjustified & full Pay & Allowances paid for suspension period. Government have accepted this suggestion of the Staff Side. Accordingly, where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of FR 54-B and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under FR 54-B.
Thereafter Mr. “A” wrote an appeal/representation to reconsider the said Order to the same authority, but a threatening letter was replied on 20/7/2005 that the case may be reopened and reviewed from the beginning {with the case of forging medical certificates that Mr. “A” used in this case to regularize his absent period} if Mr. “A” keeps on arguing it.
And ( 2 )
. Mr. “A” again remained absent unauthorizedly from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006 (one full year) from his service without informing his controlling officer, as the officer was not in the station at that time.
Mr. ”A” again rejoined his duties on 01-09-2006, after remaining absent from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006.
. Mr. “A” applied for the Extra Ordinary Leave on medical ground for the absence period from 01-09-2005 to 31-08-2006, for regularization of his absent period.
But Mr.
niranjan
(Expert) 14 November 2009
Unauthorised absence from duty can bring break in service.Is it really Mr.A is sick or under the guise of MC he does something else? He can be sent to medical council for examination and if the cert.is found false, he will have to suffer.Extraordinary leave will also bring effect to qualified service for pension.
