Ccs pension rules
nilesh j rathi
(Querist) 05 October 2012
This query is : Resolved
sir,
a person joined the service in I.T. Dept.in the year 1975.
and was suppose to retire in 31 mar 2010.
on 14 mar2010 he was chargesheeted for having married again without legally giving divorce to first wife .thus contravening rule 21 ccs.
on 15 mar 2010 he was suspended.
discipilinary action initiated and he was
dismissed on 29 mar 2010.
only 2 days before his retirement date.
is he eligible to retiement benefits, pension etc, as he has honestly served the dept f0r about 34 years and 11.5 months fof his life.
his dismissal order does not whispher about withholding his benefits rule 8 and 9 pension ccs
please guide
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 06 October 2012
Rule 8&9 pertain to post retirement proceedings in this case the employee while in service has been dismissed.
Dismissal two days prior to retirement shows clear intention of depriving the entire pension and gratuity. Rule position is as under:-
2(o) 2[`Pension' includes gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity, but does not include dearness relief] ;
2(r) `Retirement Benefits' includes pension or service gratuity, and 4[retirement gratuity], where admissible ;
24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal
Dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service.
41. Compassionate allowance
(1) A Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall forfeit his pension and gratuity :
Provided that the authority competent to dismiss or remove him from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a allowance not exceeding two - thirds of pension or gratuity or both which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on
1[compensation pension].
(2) A compassionate allowance sanctioned under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall not be less than the amount of 2[Rupees three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem.
It is surprising how the proceedings can finish in 15 days. Did he confess the charge.
The only hope can lie in challnage of dismissal on procedural ground unless he has himself voluntarily admitted the charge.
Guest
(Expert) 06 October 2012
Dear Nilesh,
If you have asked the question merely for a simple information whether a dismissed person is entitled to retirement benefits and no other remedial measures, the simple answer is, dismissal from service debars an employee from all the retirement benefits.
But, if you inteded to seek some solution to your problem, for that purpose your information is totally insufficient. You have not revealed whether the charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules), whether the employee admitted his charge in reply to the Charge Sheet, or whether the dismissal was made by an order under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. You have also not revealed whether any appeal wa submitted to the appellate authority or not and, if submitted, what was the result.
However, from your information, it clearly reveals that in this case, gross injustice has been meted out to the person, whosoever was the charged officer, by disposing of the case very hastily without giving him any chance to defend himself and with the clear malafide intention to debar you from retirement benefits.
A charge Sheet issued on 10th March 2010 and issue of dismissal order 29th March 2010, seems to be a result of sheer hasty decision of the disciplinary authority either by himself, or under pressure or influence by some third person/authority. That clearly gives inkling that someone did not want the charged official to get any retirement benefit. The authorities seem to have omitted very essential formalities to be observed in a Charge Sheet case under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, if issued under that rule.
Further, since the retirement benefits are provided as of social welfare measure for the family of the retiree, the disciplinary authority by his act has denied such social welfare means to the real wife and his children, which is quite unjust.
The employee needs to take up his case in right perspective in the right forum to get justice against the seemingly illegal orders of the disciplinary authority.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 06 October 2012
It is a quick penalty order.
It is the queriest who has to clarify :-
(i) If this decision is based on admission of charge (without inquiry) as perceived by me.
(ii) If there is no admission the a hasty decision as perceived by Mr Dhingra.
In both the cases the way ahead will be different.
In any case the person appears to have wasted away precious 46 days under which appeal could have been filed under rule 27.
nilesh j rathi
(Querist) 06 October 2012
Respected sir thanks for your precious replies to the query
i desperately intended to seek some solution to old mans problem .
1 feb wife made an allegation against the senior of the aggrived person for not joining her name as nominee for retd benefits.
so in a preleminary enquiry, the agrreived gave his statement and devied having legaly divorced 1 wife ,but contended custom in their community, as the 1 wife had also married the aggd person by divorcing her 1 husband vide custom and not legally through court.
yes,0n 14 mar 2010 the charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules), the employee admitted his charge in reply to the Charge Sheet as he was not legally divorced but contended the prevailing custom. and in his writtem sumission 0n 28 mar personal hearing prayed for the to put his evidence, 29 mar holding that he had admitted having not legally divoced throgh court , and thereby not giving him opportunity to put forth the actual facts, his dismissal was made by an order under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
no strictures was passed regarding his rted benefits.
appeal was submitted to the appellate authority --but dismissed.
thus matter in tribunal at final stage
please guide.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 October 2012
If the matter is in tribunal then there is no point discussing here. If he gets a relief from court it will be a trend setter.
The facts reveal that he had plural marriage there was a chargesheet and he admitted the charge. Nothing further is required to pass a dismissal order. Further when there is a dismissal order then nothing further is needed to deny him the pension, gratuity and leave encashment. He can get GPF and Gp Insurance deposits.
Persoanl customary law is no defence in in charge of bigamy. Even muslim Govt ervants are not given relexation. Amongst all the misconduct this is treated as very serious. Thuis term of service is written in offer of appointment and undertaking is also sought on joining that he has no bigamous marriage.
He is depriving himself of beenfit of rule 41 of pension rules.
Guest
(Expert) 07 October 2012
The employee seemed to have dug his own grave by hasty admission. The custom of the community has no relevance against his responsibility to seek necessary approval of his recruiting authority as per the requirements of conduct rules prescribed for the Government servant.
Since the matter is still in tributnal, except the judgment of the tribunal, nothing can prevail now. However, there is still a safeguard if the advocate of the dismissed employee can present effectively in the tribunal. If charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCA (CCA) Rules, provisions of Rule 19 could not be invoked. That way the decisions of the disiplinary authority and the appellate authority were invalid and should be sought to be treated as null & void.
Moreover, even if the tribunal does not agree to treat the decisions of the disciplinary/ appellate authority, the tribunal may be requested to extend the benefit of compassionate allowance to the employee as a matter of social justice to the family of the employee, who had already rendered about 35 years' of service to the department.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 October 2012
Slightly disagreeing with Mr Dhingra. Nothing indicates that rule 19 is used. In fact he has (as stated) admitted the charge and rule 14 itself is sufficient to dismiss him. had there been rule 19 there would have been no chargehseet to respond. he has responded a chargesheet.
However, it it turns out that rule 19 has been used then it would be an order bad in the eye of law.
based on the given facts I fully with Mr Dhingra that the employee has dug his own grave. I also apprehend that if he gets a relief from Tribunal the Govt may in all likelihood challenged the same.
He is depriving himself of benefit of rule 41 of pension rules which is discretionary.
Guest
(Expert) 07 October 2012
Dear Sudhir,
About your disagreement with me with your remarks, "Nothing indicates that rule 19 is used", you may please like to re-read the last two lines of 3rd para of his latest post, which clearly states, "his dismissal was made by an order under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules."
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 07 October 2012
On one side he states that there was a chargehseet which implies the process under rule 14 was started. In case the dismisssal order is really issue dunder rule 19 then
either:-
(i) There was no chargehseet and there was only SCN under Rule 19 and he confessed the charge.
(ii) or there was a chrgesheet under rule 14 and the department on seeing the confession jumped to rule 19 ignoring the fact that no inquiry was needed after confession.
But the odds are still heavily against him inspite of these suspected procedural flaws (if any). The fact is that he has confessed and opportuinity of defence is meant for those who intend to defend the charge. Notwihtstanding that if he has (whether sustainable or not) indicated mitigating circumstances (i.e. customary law) he was entitled to prove the same in inquiry which has been held.
Nothing concrete can be understood unless the order iiself is seen. Further it is not clear on which ground the Appeal was made and on which ground the matter is raised in Tribunal.
nilesh j rathi
(Querist) 08 October 2012
Thank you
all the respected experts.
Guest
(Expert) 08 October 2012
Dear Sudhir,
My point of reference was about when you intended to differ with my opinion on the plea that in the query of the querist, "nothing indicates that rule 19 is used." So, I preferred to point that out to remove your misunderstanding.
About the case, it is not the question, whether the odds are still heavily against the charged official inspite of these suspected procedural flaws (if any), but question is about the legality of the order issued by the disciplinary authority. Clearly, the orders are void and would not stand legally. The main question, irrespective of whether the penalty of dismissal is justified, but the rules being of statutory nature the ignorance of rules on the part of the disciplinary authority cannot be ignored so far as legal aspects are concerned. The process adopted by the disciplinary authority was quite wrong under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The discplinary authority did not enjoy any discretion to issue orders under Rule 19 when the charge sheet was issued under rule 14, which is issued only when it is proposed to hold an inquiry. When charge sheet under rule 14 was issued, the penalty order had necessarily to be issued under the provisions of Rule 15, as clearly provided in Rule 14(5) even if all the charges are admitted by the charged official at the first instance in reply to the articles of charge without going through the process of departmental inquiry. That is why order issued under Rule 19 was quite illegal. The charged official can very well take advantage of that lacuna.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 08 October 2012
Given facts indicated that he was neither (i) convicted; nor (ii) involoved in antinational actirity; nor (iii) inquiry was impracticable. So Rule 19 was not in picture at all.
Rule 19 is not meant for such like cases.
It is apprent from given facts that his confession was not unconditional. He has pleaded mitigating circumstances (customary law). Although I believe and Mr Dhingra may also agree that it is a poor defence. But mere poor defence does not authorise the disciplinary authority to jump to rule 19. The princples of natural judtice demanded that since admission is qualified one, the procedure under rule 14/15 should have been followed.
But it is not clear what plea was raied in the Appeal and what plea has been raised in the Tribunal.
