Judgments on cvc advice
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 01 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
Mine is a vigilance case wherein a Scale IV officer, a Scale I officer and two clerical staff were said to have got involved. The case was referred to CVC and the details are as under:
1. The PSU bank sought the first stage advice on account of officers only and the CVC had advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings against those officers only.
2. Though this is a composite case, the PSU Bank appointed different DAs, for every cadre, for conducting the disciplinary proceedings by not adhering the guidelines provided in para 10.2 of Special Chapter on Vigilance Management in Public Sector Banks.
3. At the time seeking second stage advice the PSU Bank included the names of the clerical staff also and the punishment proposed to be awarded by the DA is "reduction of basic pay by 3/5 stages with cumulative effect".
4.Though the first stage advice was not sought on account the clerical staff and though the case was not treated as a composite case as per the extant guidelines of the commission, the CVC rendered its second stage advice to impose the penalty of 'Dismissal'for all the four members.
5. The submissions made by the bank for reconsideration and to impose the penaly as proposed by the DA earlier was declined by the commission.
6.The PSU Bank passed original orders of Dismissal to Scale I officer and two clerical staff only whereas on account of the Scale IV, the CMD submitted another reconsideration request and the CVC had also considered to impose the penalty of "reduction of pay by three stages".
7. The dismissed members submitted appeal and the appellate authority also confirmed the punishment already proposed by the DA for seeking second stage advice viz.reduction of basic pay by 5 stages with cumulative effect.
8. The PSU submitted the punishment proposed by the appellate authority and the commission declined the proposal and advised imposition of a stiff major penalty to those three members.
Thus a Scale IV officer was given a lesser punishment and the members who were worked under his instructions/control were awarded with major penalty of "Dismissal".
The entire things were performed by the bank at the back of the members and no documents pertaining to reference made to the commission were supplied to concerned members.I collected those documents from the PSU, CBI and CVC under RTI Act 2005.
I request the experts to kindly provide me the latest judgments available with regard to those anomalies mentioned above and light the life of suffered members of the PSU.
Guest
(Expert) 01 December 2011
My pointwise opinion is as follows:
1) It is OK, CVC can recommend for major penalty charge sheet;
2) Unless there is common chargesheet, DA's can be the respective competent authorities for different categories of staff, as per delegations made by the organisation. The referred Para 10.2 is merely of an advisory nature but does not specify to compulsorily appoint only one DA for all the cases;
3) If first stage advice was not sought from the CVC for any category of staff, the 2nd stage advice was not required to be sought from CVC.
4) Action of CVC to render 2nd stage advice in the absence of its 1st stage advice was not in order. Again, the CVC being merely an advisory body cannot recommend any specific penalty to be awarded to the charged official. Imposition of any penalty is within the competence of the DA.
5) The DA was fully competent to ignore the advice of the CVC with due reason recorded in writing in support of his decision. It is not mandatory to adhere to the advice of the CVC.
6)The CMD, as an appellate authority or the reviewing authority, was also competent to ignore the advice of the CVC with the reasons recorded in writing.
7) Depends solely on the wisdom of the appellate authority, as based on the facts presented to him in the appeal. All depended upon the effectiveness and new facts of the case, which would not have been considered earlier by the DA.
8) First of all it was wrong on the part of the appellate authority to seek any further 2nd stage advice from the CVC at the appeal stage. Secondly, irrespective of whether the Commission accepted or declined the proposal of the appellate authority, the appellate authority was fully empowered to decline the recommendation of the CVC, that being of advisory nature. The question arises, when the punishment was already stiff, what type of more stiffness was desired by the CVC?
9) It is not necessary that the punishment to the supervisory/ controlling authority should also be equal or more than his subordinates. All depends upon the severity of the irregularity committed on individuals's part.
10) Both 1st stage advice as well as the 2nd stage advice was quite necessary to be provided to the charged officials before taking any decision in their case. Transparency in disciplinary proceedings is a must.
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 01 December 2011
Agree with ld. Dhingra JI
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 01 December 2011
Dhingra JI,
Please let me know the latest judgment details, if any, relevant to point nos.4, 5, 8 of your reply and applicability of point no.10 prior to CVC letter No.99/VGL/66 dated the 28th September 2000 in this regard.
I seek experts comments on the following:
Though the enquiry proceedings were concluded during the year 1996 in respect of all the four members, the findings of the Inquiring authority were delivered to the Scale IV officer and scale I officer on 4.11.96 and 14.5.96 respectgively, whereas in respect of clerical staff the findings of the enquiry officer dated 1.11.96 were delivered on 4.1.99 alongwith the show cause notice for dismissal. i.e., after passing the original order to scale IV office on 31.8.98.
Whether the action of the PSU is in order?
Guest
(Expert) 02 December 2011
Dear Anonymous,
I have given clues on the basis of the Vigilance manual and other CVC instructions issued from time to time. I wish, you could also have made some efforts based on the clues provided by me. Even the letter referred to by you contains the CVC guidelines on the issue and also contains reference to the relevant case law of State Bank of India Vs. D.C.Aggarwal and another [Date of Judgement: 13.10.1992] and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in writ Petition No. 6558/93. You could also have tried to seek relevant information from the CVC itself under RTI, which they are obliged to provide.
Anyway, copy of case law pertaining to the State Bank of India Vs. D.C.Aggarwal and another is attached herewith for your reference.
