PART 2

GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE
No.GAD 26 SSR 72 Mysore Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 23rd June 1972.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Departmental Enquiries - failure to follow the prescribed procedure.
Ref:-1. O.M. No. GAD (OM) 3 CAR 57, dated 14.12.1957.
2. Circular No. GAD 35 SSR 58 dated 8.1.1959.
3. O.M. No. GAD (S-1) 33 SSR 61, dated 27.6.1962.
Inspite of the detailed procedural instructions for holding departmental enquiries under the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and the further instructions issued in the Circular and Official Memorandum mentioned above, Government have observed in several cases that the Disciplinary Authorities are not strictly following the provisions of the C.C.A.rules before imposing any of the major penalties. The common defects, noticed in a majority of such cases have already been indicated in the Circular dated 8.1.1959 and if the Deisciplinary Authorities are found to commit the same irregularities it has to be presumed that they have not thoroughly acquainted themselves with the provisions of the classification, control and appeal rules and the instructions issued from time to time.
2. Whenever any such defects are noticed and the enquiries are found to be irregular, Article 311 of the Constitution is blamed for coming in the way of enforcing discipine amongst Government servants. Article 311 merely provides that before dismissal, remvoal or reduction in rank of a Government servant an inquiry should be held in which the Government servant should be informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and if after such inquiry it is decided to impose any such penalty he should also be given a reasonable opportunity of making a represntation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry. The provisions of the 12 sub-rules in rule 11 of the C.C.A. Rules are intended to ensure compiance with the provisions of Article 311 mentioned above and these provisions of the C.C.A. Rules are quite clear and unambiguous. If the Disciplinary Authorities were to read those provisions of the rules and follow them there should be no occasion for any procedural lapses in holding departmental enquiries and consequent setting aside of the orders.
3. All the Disciplinary Authorities under the C.C.A. Rules are therefore, once again directed to study the provisions of the C.C.A. rules and various instructions issued very carefully before holding any enquiry. In all cases where Government find that the departmental enquiry was defective due to the Disciplinary Authority not properly following the procedure mentioned above and as a consequence the final orders had to be set aside, Government will be constrained to take action under the C.C.A. rules against the Disciplinary Authority itself for negligence of duties and will not hesitate to recover from such authority the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by such negligence.
4. Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring these orders to the notice of all Officers under their control.
R.J.Rebello,
Chief Secretary to Governemnt.
GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE
Mysore Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
No.GAD 29 SSR 72 Bangalore, Dated 4th August 1972.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- State Vigilance Commission - Nature of cases in which investigations and inqiries are to be entrusted to it.
The powers of the State Vigilance Commmission are co-extensive with executive powers of the State in regard to the conduct of Government servants but the cases in which inqiries can be entrusted to the Commission are only those that are enumerated in clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 14A of the C.C.A. Rules and where imposition of a minor penalty is considered not adequate.
2. Though the Vigilance Commission is empowered to investigate into any instance of suspected misconduct on the part of any Government servant either suo motu or an allegation and Government or any other authority can request the Commission to investigate into an alleged impropriety of any Government Servant's conduct, the Heads of Departments are primarily responsible for maintenace of integrity of Government employees of their departments. It is neither practicable nor desirable to entrust to the Commission investigation and/or inquiry in each and every case of alleged misconduct on the part of a Government servant. In order to secure best advantage of a specialised agency like the Vigilance Commission, with limited staff at its disposal, it is necessary that only cases in which the head of the Department has prima facie reason to believe that the Government servants concerned might be held guilty of corruption misconduct, lack of integrity, malpractice or misdemanour and final conclusions cannot be reached, on the basis of evidence of its departmental officers in one place and/or records in the possession of the department itself, the Vigilance Commission could be requested to investigate into the affairs. While doing so, it is necessary for an authority, after considering the material before it, to intimate to the Vigilance Commission the alleged incidents, together with the nature of misconduct on the part of Government Servants involved in such incidents.
3. All Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are, therefore, requested to avoid reference to the Vigilance Commission in respect of vague allegations, which do not prima facie lead to a reasonable presumption, that the Government Servants concerned have Committed misconduct. Only cases, in which a preliminary inquiry cannot be conducted by the Departmental officers themselves due to complication nature of the case or on account of other reasons like the evidence being not available form departmental records etc., at one place and from one department, should be referred to the Vigilance Commission for investigation. Cases in which collection of material and evidence is simple and is not, for any reasons, beyond the control of the departmental officers, should be dealt with departmentally.
sd/-
Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE
Mysore Government Secretariat,
General Administration Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
No.GAD 1 SSR 73 Bangalore, Dated 9th February 1973.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Government servants involved in the Departmental enquiries - taking assistance of other Government Servant.
According to sub-rule (5) of rule 11 of the Mysore Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules 1957, as it stood prior to August 1965, a Government servant against whom departmental proceedings were being held could take the assistance of another Government to servant only with the approval of the disciplinary authority. Based on this provision, instructions were issued in O.M. No. GAD 21 OSR 60 dated 28.7.1960 that in such cases a Government servant could take the assistance of another Government servant only with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority.
The afore said sub-rule was amended by Government Notfication No. GAD 15 SSR 65, dated 26.8.65 and the provision requiring approval of the Disciplinary Authority in such cases was deleted. Consequently, it is not necessary for Government servant who desires to take the assistance of other Government servant in such cases to obtain the approval of the Disciplinary Authority. The written consent of the Government servant whose assistance is sought to be taken should however, be produced before the Disciplinary Authority who should formally inform the Head of the Department, in which the assisting Government Servant is working, of the fact.
The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring the position explained above to the notice of all the officers under their control.
H.P.Dharanendranath,
Under Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.GAD 18 SSR 73 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 2nd November 1973.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Withholding of increment(s) with cumulative effect - procedure to be followed in imposing the penalty of -
The penalty of withholding increment(s) mentioned in clause (iv) of rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, is required to be imposed after following the procedure laid down under rule 12. The Mysore (now Karnataka) High Court in Writ Petition No. 241 of 1969 (C.Veerachowdaiah Vs. State of Mysore and No. 1966 of 1968 (G.A.Appaiah Vs. State of Mysore) has held that the penalty of with-holding increments with cumulative effect or affect in the future increments amounts to reduction to a lower stage and is, therefore a major penalty. In
view of this decision of the High Court and pending decision on the appeal to the Supreme Court, all the Appointing Authorities and other Disciplinary Authorities competent to impose the above penalty under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, should follow the procedure prescribed under rule 11 while imposing this penalty.
2. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the appointing authorities/disciplinary authorities working under their control.
N.P.Joshi,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department
(Service Rules).
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Sub:- Departmental Enquiry proceedings - sanctions remuneration to the presenting officers appointed in the -
ORDER NO. GAD 4 SSR 74, BANGALORE, DATED 3RD APRIL 1974
In a departmental proceeding instituted against a Government servant, the Disciplinary Authority can appoint, under rule 11(5) (c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957, any other Government servant or a legal practitioner to be named as 'Presenting Officer' to present the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority in support of the articles of the charges framed against the Government servant involved in the inquiry. Where a Government servant is nominated accordingly as presenting officer in an inquiry case, he has to attend to the work of presenting the case in addition to his normal duties in the department. There is no provision at present for payment of any remuneration to the presenting officers for the extra work they have to discharge in such cases.
2. The question of sanctioning suitable remuneration to the presenting officer has therefore been examined and after careful consideration of the matter, Government are pleased to order that remuneration at the rate of 10% of the minimum of the scale of pay of the Government servant nominated as presenting officer be sanctioned to him per day of hearing subject to a minimum of Rs. 10/- and maximum of Rs. 25/- per day.
3. These orders will not be appicable to the officers and staff of the Vigilance Commission.
4. The Heads of Departments and Secretaries to Government are requested to bring these orders to the notice of the several disciplinary authorities/appointing authorities under their control.
5. This order is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide their U.O. Note No. FD 315/S-1/74, dated 22.3.1974.
By order and in the name of the
Governor of Karnataka,
sd/-
Syed Karimulla Khadri,
Under Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.GAD 12 SSR 74 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 2nd May 1974.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Withholding of increment(s) with cumulative effect - procedure to be followed in imposing the penalty of -
Ref:- i) Offical Memorandum No. GAD 18 SSR 73, dated 2.11.1973
ii) Government Notification No. GAD 28 SSR 69 dated 12.12.1973.
Instructions were issued in Official Memorandum No. GAD 18 SSR 73, dated 2.11.1973 read at (i) above to all the Appointing Authorities and other Disciplinary Authorities to follow the procedure under rule 11 of the Classification Control and Appeal Rules while imposing the penalty of with holding increment(s) with cumulative effect on Government servants as in certain Writ Petitions it was held by the High Court that withholding of increment(s) had the effect of reducing a Government servant to a lower stage in a time scale of pay and it was then a major penalty.
Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has now been amended in Government Notification No. GAD 28 SSR 69, dated 12.12.1973 and the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale constitues a minor penalty. Therefore, while imposing the above penalty or the penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect, the procedure under rule 12 only has to be followed and it is not necessary to follow the procedure under rule 11 of the C.C.A. Rules. The Official Memorandum No. GAD 18 SSR 73, dated 2.11.1973 may therefore be treated as with drawn with effect from 24.1.1974 on which date the amendments were published in the Gazette.
sd/-
Syed Karimullah Khadri,
Under Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.GAD 47 PVC 74 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 1st July 1974.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Requisitions for Records, reports etc., required for purpose of investigations and inquiries by the Officers of the Vigilance Commission.
In Circular No. GAD 18 FAD 57, dated 26th March 1957, all Heads of Departments, Divisional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners were instructed to comply promptly all requistions from the Director of Anti-Corruption for any record report or information required for purposes of investigation.
On further consideration of the matter, it was clarified to all Heads of Departments under Circular No. GAD 46 OAC 64, dated 16th June 1964 that all requisitions for record, reports etc., received from the Director of Anti-Corruption or any Gazetted Officers under him may be accepted and honoured by all presiding officers in charge of the Government officers and institutions.
In connection with the investigation taken up by the Vigilance Commission into the work of excavating Narayanapur left Bank Canal of Upper Krishna project, certain records were required by the Technical Audit Cell. For want of connected records, it is reported that the investigation is held up causing delay in the investigation. The Chief Engineer, Technical Audit Cell has requested that Circular instructions may be issued to all Government Departments.
Reiterating the instructions issued earlier, it is once again directed that any requisitions from a Gazetted Officer of the Vigilance Commission for records from any official of the Government Department should be complied with promptly under acknowledgement.
G.V.K.Rao,
Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.GAD 42 PVC 74 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 15th July 1974.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Submission of reports of - the Vigilance Commission - pendency in the Secretariat.
It has come to the notice of Government that many cases where reports have been received from the Vigilance Commission are pending in the several Departments of the Secretariat for a long time. The Chief Minister has observed that all these cases should be disposed of promptly.
Although the Vigilance Commision has completed the inquiries and sent its recommendation to Government, it is observed that there has been delay in taking action on these recommendations and in passing final orders. Such instances have also come to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is, therefore, required of the Administrative Departments review periodically the stage of pendnecy of these reports so as to ensure that orders of Government are passed thereon without delay. For this purpose Secretaries to Government are requested to furnish reports to General Administration Department (Political) every month indicating the latest position regarding the pendency of these reports and the action taken in the proforma appended to this Circular.
sd/-
M.Shankaranarayanan,
Joint Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department.
STATEMENT SHOWING THE ENQUIRY CASES OF THE VIGILANCE COMMISSION PENDING FOR FINAL ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT.
Sl.
No.
File No.
Name of AGOs etc
Date of receipt of Vigilance Commr's Report.
Vigilance Commissions recommendation.
Stage of pendency
Remarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.GAD 57 PVC 74 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 16th Sept. 1974.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Issue of instructions to Heads of Department etc., regarding assistance of officials of other Departments to the Vigilance Commission.
During the course of investigations into cases either by the Technical Audit Cell or by the Bureau of Investigations of the Vigilance Commmission, it might become necessary to have the assistance of officials of other Departments for witnessing any investigation, for giving any information they might have pertaining to the case being investigated or for furnishing any opinion on an issue referred to them during the investigation, either by correspondence or at the spot. If such requests made by the officers of the Commission are not complied with immediately the investigation will not only be delayed but also rendered incomplete.
The following instructions are, therefore, issued for the guidance of all conerened for facilitating investigations by the Technical Audit Cell or Bureau of Investigations of the State Vigilance Commmission. All Heads of Departments and Secretaries to Government are requested to ensure that whenever any officer of the Vigilance Commission requests for any assistance, they should render this immediately without having to obtain orders of higher authorities and keep such information given discussions etc, as confidentail. Heads of Departments and Secretaries to Government are also requested to issue necessary instructions to their subordinate officers to extend full co-operation to the Technical Audit Cell or other investigating staff of the Vigilance Commission whenever such assistance of co-operation is sought. Any instance of non-cooperation of any official will be viewed seriously by Government.
sd/-
N.A.Muthanna,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department,
(Political).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.GAD 63 SSR 74 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 3rd December 1974.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
In cases which are investigated by the State Vigilance Commission under rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 Government, after examining the investigation report and the records, can entrust the detailed inquires to the Vigilance Commission or it can direct the appropriate Disciplinary Authorities to take action in accordance with rule 12 aganist the Government servant involved in those cases. It has been brought to the notice of Government by the State Vigilance Commission that there has been delay on the part of various disciplinary authorities in initiating action against Government servants under rule 12 and in finalising the cases.
It is observed that such delays have occurred especially in cases where the number of Government servants involved is more than one and where different Disciplinary Authorities are required to take action against them under rule 12 of the classification Control and Appeal Rules.
The question has been examined. If, in a case investigated by the Vigilance Commission under Rule 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 more than one Government servants are involved all the Government servants may be proceeded against in a common proceeding and for this purpose, a joint inquiry will have to be ordered by Government in accordance with rule 13 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. While ordering a joint inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority in relation to the Government servant highest in rank may be nominated as the Disciplinary Authority and it may be specified in the order that such disciplinary authority will be competent to impose any of the minor penalties on all the Government servants after following the procedure under rule 12 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules.
All the Secretaries to Government are requested to take action accordingly in such cases.
sd/-
N.P.Joshi,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department,
(Service Rules).
Procedure for drawing remuneration by the Presenting Officer appointed in the Departmental Inquiry proceedings.
Read:- 1. G.O. GAD 4 SSR 74, dated 3rd April 1974.
2. Letter No. GM. Genl. 75, dated 16th December 1974 from the Accountant General in Karnataka, Bangalore.
ORDER NO. GAD 6 SSR 75, dated 31st MARCH, 1975
Government are pleased to order that the Disciplinary Authority which appoints a Presenting Officer in an inquiry or the Inquiry Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority whichever authority actually conducts the inquiry, should issue a certificate to
the presenting officer in the appended form in respect of attendance/participation in the inquiry by the Presenting Officer.
The amount of remuneration shall after conclusion of inquiry, be drawn by the Drawing Officer in relation to the presenting officer or by the P.O. himself if he happens to be a Drawing Officer on the strength of the certificate issued by the Disciplinary Authority or Inquiring Authority, as the case may be and no sanction of any authority will be necessary.
Instructions regarding Disciplinary Proceedings against Government servant under Rule 12 of the K.S.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1957.
CIRUCLAR No. GAD 14 SSR 75, DATED THE 21ST MAY, 1975.
It has come to the notice of the Government that in some cases where Government have directed the Disciplinary Authority to take action under rule 12 of the Classification Control and Appeal Rules that authority, has in turn, appointed one of its subordinate officers as specially empowered authority to proceed with the disciplinary action against the Government servants concerned.
If the gravity of the charge is such as not to warrant imposition of any of the major penalties and imposition of a minor penalty would meet the ends of justice on being convinced of the proof of the charge in question, action has to be taken under rule 12 of those rules. In such cases, it would ordinarily be enough if (a) the Government servant is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and the allegations on which this action is based and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make, and (b) representation, if any, made by him is taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority for recording a finding on each of the imputations of misconduct before any penalty is imposed on him. All this could be done by the Disciplinary authority itself and normally there would be no need for delegating these powers to any other authority to take disciplinary action against the Government Servant.
There may, however, be cases, as indicated in rule 12(a) (b) where in though the charges are not grave enough to warrant imposition of major penalties, they are nevertheless of a complicated nature and proof of charges against the Government servant cannot be concluded, unless a detailed inquiry is held and the Government servant is given adequate opportunity to prove his innocence. In such cases, the disciplinary authority has to follow the procedure laid down in rule 11.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
G.V.K.Rao, Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha,
D.O. No. GAD 23 IPN 75 Bangalore, Dated June 17, 1975.
My Dear
Sub:- Cases of Vigilance Commission pending with Government - Review of.
In the meeting of Secretaries on 21.4.1975 the pendancy of Vigilance Commission reports in the Secretariat was reviewed. It was decided that Secretaries would review this pendancy from time to time so that these cases are disposed of promptly.
I had a few cases (pending for over one year in some of the Secretariat Departments) reviewed to ascertain the reasons for delay in passing final orders. The results of the
review reveal that the manner of examiniation of the reports of the Vigilance Commission in the Secretariat Department leaves much to be desired.
Firstly, it appears that those who deal with these cases lack basic knowledge of the provisions of the C.C.A., Rules and the Correct procedure to be followed. This has resulted in abnormal delays in finalising the cases. In one case, for instance, a direction was given to consult the Public Service Commission even before Government took a decision on the findings of the Vigilance Commission and a Show cause notice was issued to the AGO and the matter was delayed till the P.S.C. pointed out the non-observance of the presceibed procedure. In another case, a decision was taken to send the report of the Vigilance Commission to the head of the Department for taking necessary action since the AGO was a non-gazetted Government servant, although, under the rules, Government was the disciplinary authority. This incorrect decision lead to avoidable delay in processing the case.
Secondly, there is a tendancy to view these reports of the Vigilance Commission on as reports from field departments and to examine and scrutinise them accordingly. Such an examination is unnecessary and orders almost on the rediculous, because these are chiefly inquiry reports which are sent to Government as the disciplinary authority for deciding on the recommendations made.
In my view it would be appropriate to examine or scrutinise these reports at any level lower than that of a Deputy Secretary. Even at these levels, what is required is to record Government's findings, as the disciplinary authority on each of the charges and then to communicate them to the AGOs through the show cause notice, intimating them the penalty proposed. Since these inquiries have been conducted very comprehensively and the findings are normally well supported. It may not be open to Government to differ with them except in rare cases where gross mis-carriage of justice, perversity, improper or unsound, reasoning etc. is manifest. It would, therefore be advisiable to accept the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission in most cases and record findings to that effect. I may also mention that whenever a view is taken which is inconsistant with the recommendations of the State Vigilance Commission in regard to disciplinary action against a Government servant, the matter has to go to the Cabinet for orders and this has also to be commented upon in the annual report of the Vigilance Commission which is submitted to the Legislature.
What is crucial in the processing or Vigilance cases is the manner in which these reports should be handled at Government level. A note indicating the procedure to be followed in handling these cases is appended.
I shall be glad if you could impress upon all concerned officers and staff in your department the need to followe the correct procedure in examining these reports and in passing orders thereon.
Please acknowledge this letter.
Yours Sincerely.
sd/-
G.V.K.Rao,
Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.FD 213 SRS 71 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 20th October 1975.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Rule 59 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules - Clarification regarding.
In Government Order No. FD 92 SRS 60, dated 1.12.1960 orders have been issued directing the competent authority imposing on a Government servant the penlaty of reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale, to indicate in every order imposing such a penalty.
i) the date from which the order should take effect and the period (in terms of years and months), for which the penalty shall be operative;
ii) the stage in the time-scale (in terms of rupees) to which the Government servant is reduced; and
iii) the extent (in terms of years and months), if any to which the period referred to at (i) above should operate to postpone future increments. It is also clarified therein that reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale is not permissible under the rules for an unspecified period or on permanent basis and when a Government servant is reduced to a particular stage his pay will remain constant at that stage for the entire period of reduction.
In many cases it is seen that the orders passed by the competent authorities reducing the Government servant to a lower stage in a time-scale do not actually specify the exact stage in terms of rupees on account of which doubts have been expressed as to whether increments that fall due during the period of reduction to the lower stage in a time-scale are to be sanctioned as and when they fall due during that period. It is also argued that in the absence of specific mention in the order of penalty, of with-holding increments during the period of penalty the increments that fall due during that period cannot be with-held as the penalties of reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale and withholding of increment are two different punishments.
On consultation, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, intimated that during the entire period of penalty the Government servant has to draw the pay at the stage to which he has been reduced without earning any increments. In view of this and of the clarification issued in second para of clause (a) in O.M. No. FD 92 SRS 60, dated 1.12.1960 cited above, that when a Government servant is reduced to a particular stage his pay will remain constant at that stage for the entire period of reduction, it is further clarified that no increments should be granted during the enitre period of penalty of reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale and he should draw pay at the stage of which he has so been reduced during that entire period of penalty.
With a view to achieve this object it is further directed that the competent authority should ensure that every order imposing on a Government servant the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale invariably specifies that stage in terms of rupees to which the Government servant is reduced, as in the following form.
"The ……………….. has decided that Shri ………………. should be reduced to the pay of Rs …………… for a period of …………………… with effect from …………………"
sd/-
M.A.Srinivasan,
Under Secretary to Government,
Finance Department (Services-I).
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SECRETARIAT
Notification No. GAD 24 SSR 75
Bangalore, Dated the 11th December 1975
G.S.R. 371.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, the Government of Karnataka hereby empowers the Deputy Commissioner of a district, for the purpose of the said sub-rule, in respect of Government Servants belonging to Class III and Class IV Service of all State Civil Services except the Karnataka Judicial Service, working in the district under the immediate administrative control of any officer who does not have Jurisdiction beyond the limits of the district.
By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka,
M. Sankaranarayanan,
Additional Secretary to Government,
General Administration Department.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
CONFIDENTIAL Karnataka Government Secretariat,
No.GAD 2 SSR 76 Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 15th March 1976.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Appeal Petitions / Review Petitions to the Governor - Disposal of - Procedure to be followed in respect of.
Under rules 18, 19 and 26 of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 appeals/review petitions in the types of cases specified therein can be preferred to the Governor who has to pass orders on them on the advice of the Council of Ministers. What constitutes advice of the Council of Ministers in such cases has been made clear in the U.O. (Confidential) Note No. GAD 14 SSR 71, dated 16.4.1971, the relevant extract of which is as follows:-
"powers exercisable by the Governor under the C.C.A. Rules are required to be exercised by the Governor himself. But in the exercise of such powers the Governor has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Government Rules of Business made under article 166(3) of the Constitution regulates when an advice may be regarded as the advice of the Council of Ministers. It is not necessary in every case that the whole Council of Ministers should consider the matter to advice the Governor. When according to the Rules of Business a particular item of business is allocated
to an individual Minister, the action by him in regard to it is action of the Council of Minsters and advice, if any, tendered by such individual Minister is advice of the Council of Ministers. This is the Constitutional position-vide A.I.R. 1963 S.C.395-Bachinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab."
2. It is observed in some cases that the Secretariat Departments are not following the above mentioned correct procedure in the matter of obtaining and submitting the advice of the Council of Ministers to the Governor. Such cases should therefore, be submitted to the Governor with a summary note, only after obtaining the orders of the concerned Minister. If, however according to the Second or Third Schedule to the Karnataka Government Rules of Business a case is required to be placed before the Cabinet or the Chief Minister, the case shall be submitted to the Governor only after obtaining the orders of the Cabinet or the Chief Minister, as the case may be.
3. The Secretaries to Government are requested to ensure that this procedure is scruplusously followed in all such cases.
sd/-
M.Sankaranarayan,
Add. Secretary to Government,
Generay Administration Department
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 70 SSR 76. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 29th January 1977.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Amendments of rule 11-A, 25 and 26 of the - clarifies the position under the -
In keeping with the provisions of 311 of the Consitution of India before its amendment by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, rules 11-A, 25 and 26 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 required that before any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of rule 8 of the said rules were imposed on a Government servant, he shall be given an opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty. This was generally called "the second show cause notice."
Consequent on the amendment of article 311 of the Constitution, rules 11-A, 25 and 26 have been amended in the Government Notification No. DPAR 70 SSR 76, dated 15th January 1977 (published in the Karnataka Gazette dated, 20th January 1977) and the requirements to issue the "second show cause notice" have been omitted. It is now not necessary to issue "the second show cause notice" in such cases.
Where such 'second show cause notice' has already been issued to a Government servant before the date of coming into force of the aforesaid amendments, a reply thereto may be awaited and the representation, if any, submitted by such Government servant taken into consideration before any final orders passed.
The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Department are requested to bring the above position to the notice of all the Disciplinary Authorities / Appointing Authorities under their control.
sd/-
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Cabinet Affairs & DPAR.,
(Service Rules)
No. DPAR 18 SSR 77, dated 23rd May 1977
Sub:- Disciplinary proceedings against Government servants.
According to the Rules of Business, certain cases concerned disciplinary proceedings against Government servants are required to be submitted to the Cabinet. In order to enable the Cabinet to take an appropriate decision in such cases, the following service particulars of the Government servants involved should be furnished in the Cabinet note or in a statement appended to it.
1. Name of the Government servant.
2. Date of birth
3. Date of superannuation
4. Date of entry into service
5. Length of service
6. The post held at present or at the time of his suspension, pay scale and pay
7. If he is a promotee to the present post, the date of his promotion, its pay scale and his pay on the date of promotion
8. If he is/was under suspension, the date of suspension and reinstatement if any.
The Secertaries to Government are requested to ensure that these instructions are followed in all such cases.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
CONFIDENTIAL Karnataka Government Secretariat,
No.DPAR 11 SSR 77. Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated the 5th July 1977.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Suspension of Government servants involved in misappropriation cases etc.- Revocation of Instruction regarding the..
It has come to the notice of the Government that a number of Government servants who are alleged to be involved in cases of misapropriation embezzlement of Government money or corruption have been placed / continued under suspension for a number of years for the reason that disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges / proceedings are pending against them. The question whether suspension of such Government servants can be
revoked and they could be reinstated in service at any time before termination of the disciplinary or criminal proceedings pending against them, has been examined.
2. The circumstances in which Government servants may be placed under suspension have been indicated in Confidential O.M. No. GAD 21 SSR 65 dated 26th February 1965 as guidelines. The circumstances in which Government servants are mandatorily required to be placed under suspension are indicated in rule 10(2) of the C.C.A. Rules and rules 101 and 102 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. Under sub-rule (5) of rule 10 of the C.C.A. Rules, an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule is absolute.
3. In cases where criminal proceedings against Government servants for misappropriation, corruption or embezzlement of Government money are pending in courts or disciplinary proceedings in respect of these matters are pending for a number of years and are likely to drag on, there is no objection to consider the circumstances of each case and decide whether the order of suspension may be revoked and the Government servant given a posting to a place where it will not involve handling of any Government money or where there is no scope for corruption. While taking a decision, it should also be examined whether there is any likelihood of the Government Servant tampering with any evidence or influencing any witnesses if he is reinstated. The seriousness of the charge against the Government servant in the criminal or disciplinary case should also be taken into account.
4. All appointing authorities and officers authorised to place Government servants under suspension may review the cases of suspension of Government servants accordingly. These instructions however, do not apply to cases where Government servants have been placed under suspension on charges other than misappropriation, embezzlement of Government money or corruption.
sd/-
N.P.Joshi,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
DPAR (Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 28 SSR 77. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 28th July 1977.
CIRCULAR
The Proviso to rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, reads as follows:-
"Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the order of the disciplinary authority no penalty other than those specified in clauses (vi) to (viii) shall be imposed for an establishment charges of corruption".
For the purpose of the proviso the expression "corruption" is defined in Explanation-1.
Clarifications have been sought whether "Mis-appropriation" by a Government servant amounts to corruption. It is hereby clarified that such misappropriation amounts to a criminal mis-conduct within the meaning of clauses (c) and (d) of the sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Central Act 2 of 1947) and is therefore, covered by the definition of corruption in explanation 1 below rule 8 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, An extract of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act is enclosed for reference.
The Secretaries to Government, Heads of Departments and other Appointing and Disciplinary Authorities are requested to take note of the above position while dealing with such cases.
sd/-
N.P.Joshi,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Cabinet Affairs & Dept. of
Personnel & Administrative Reforms,
(Service Rules).
Extract of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. II of 1947).
5. Criminal Misconduct in discharge of official duty:-
1. A public servant is said to commit the offence or criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty.
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fradulently misappropriate or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pencuniary advantage,
(e) if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfiactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.
(3) Vigilance Commission - Reference of - Complaints, Allegations against the Gazetted Officer to the by Heads of Departments - Clarification regarding.
Cir. No. DCA 16 ARB 77, dated 24th November 1977.
Clarification has been sought on whether Heads of Departments can refer complaints or Allegations aganist Gazetted officers to the Vigilance Commission for investigation.
The Question has been examined. Normally, complaints or allegations to be referred to the Vigilance Commission should be such as would necessitate imposition of a major punishment if, on investigation they are proved to be true. As Government are the appointing authority in respect of all Gazetted Officers, such punishments can be imposed on them only by Government. It has accordingly been decided that Heads of Departments should send necessary proposals to Government in the Administrative Department concerned whenever they consider that any compliant or allegation against a Gazetted Officer should be investigated into by the Vigilance Commission.
No. DPAR 24 SSR 78, dated 14th July 1978
Sub:- Imposition of penalty of withholding of increments and reduction to lower stages in time scale of pay or to a lower post etc.- Instructions reg.
Withholding of increments is one of the penalties specified under clause (iii) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957. While imposing this penalty on a Government servant the competent Disciplinary Authority has to specify in its order the period for which the increment is withheld or postponed and whether such postponement would have the effect of postponing further increments as indicated in Rule 51 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules.
2. It is noticed that in some cases the disciplinary authorities have imposed this penalty without any such directions as referred to above and without even verifying what their pay and pay scales were at the time of imposing the penalty and whether any increments were due to accrue to them after the date of the order imposing the penalty. Other factors such as whether the Government servants were in the rune for promotion before the next increments became due or whether they were due to retire shortly were also not verified before passing the orders.
3. Omission to verify these relevant factors has lead to passing of instructions orders in some cases. Orders of the competent Disciplinary Authorities in such cases had to be reviewed in appeal or review.
4. All this could have been avoided if the concerned authorities had taken into consideration various factors referred to above before issuing orders imposing penalties. It is therefore hereby impressed on all the Appointing Authorities / Disciplinary Authorities that before passing orders imposing the penalty of withholding increments or the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale or the lower post / service, they should invariably verify:-
(a) the pay of the delinquent Government servant,
(b) the pay scale of the post held by him
(c) whether the Government servant would earn any increments after imposition of the penalty
(d) whether he is in the run for promotion, before any increment accrues to him in existing scale after imposing of the said penalty, and
(e) whether he is due to retire before the proposed penalty is fully implemented.
and then pass appropriate orders having due regard to the provisions of clauses (iii), (iva) and (v) of rule 8 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules as the case may be, rule 59 of Karnataka Civil services Rules and instructions issued by Finance Department in its O.M. No. FD 92 SRS 60, dated 1st December 1960 and O.M. No. FD 213 SRS 71, dated 20th October 1975 so that the order can be implemented fully and effectively.
5. Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the Appointing Authorities and other Disciplinary Authorities under their control for guidance.
No. DPAR 24 SSR 77, dated 16th August 1978
Sub:- Suspension of Government officials
Instance have come to the notice of Government of suspension of Government officials being ordered for specific periods and recommendations for continuing the suspension being received by Government after the expiry of the period of previous suspension. In a recent case, the High Court has held that if orders continuing the suspension are not issued on or before the expiry of the period of suspension, then such orders are in effective as the suspension lapses on the expiry of the period of suspension. For example, if an order was issued on 1st October 1976 suspending an official for a period of 6 months and if orders continuing the suspension are not issued on or before 1st April 1977, but are issued subsequently with a time gap, then the second order is ineffective and not enforceable and the official is deemed to be on duty from 1st April 1977.
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 empowers an appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered by Government to place a Government servant under suspension. Sub-rule (5)(a) says that such order of suspension shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. A combined reading of Sub-rules (1) and sub-rule (5) (a) of rule 10 leaves no doubt about the fact that an order of suspension passed under sub-rule (1) of rule 10 may be for an indefinite period terminable only with the termination of the enquiry, unless the authority which passes the order of suspension or the authority competent to do so modified revokes the same acting under the clause (c) of sub-rule (5) of Rule 10. It is therefore clear that order or suspension passed under sub-rule (1) of rule 10, not specifying any period remains in force till it is modified or revoked. In cases where the period of suspension is specified, then orders continuing the suspension must be issued on or before the expiry of the period of suspension.
Sub-rule (6) of rule 10 is that if final orders in an enquiry are not passed within a period of 6 months from the date of suspension in the case of Government servant suspended by authority other than Government, the case has to be reported to Government for such order as Government may deem fit. An order of suspension for an indefinite period made under rule 10(a) automatically does not lapse after the period of 6 months.
All the officers are requested to follow these instructions strictly.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.FD 17 SRS 78. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 28th Sept. 1978.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Instruction under rule 59 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules - Further clarifications regarding.
In O.M. No. FD 92 SRS 60 dated 1.12.1960, instructions were issued directing interlia that in cases where a Government servant is reduced to a particular stage, his pay will remain constant at that stage for the entire period of reduction. The tenability of these directions in the context of the powers conferred on the competent authorities under the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules has been examined by Government. Under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, a competent authority can impose on a Government servant the penalty of reduction of pay to lower stage or that of withholding increments in the time scale or both. It follows that such punishments have to be imposed only as a result of a departmental enquiry held against a Government Servant. The directions contained in the Official Memorandum dated 1.12.1960 referred to above would mean that although the competent authority had imposed a penalty of only reduction of pay to a lower stage in a time-scale, the Government servant concerned will not draw annual increments during the period of reduction. Since this constitutes a penalty, it has to be ordered only by the competent authority on the conclusion of a departmental enquiry. It is, therefore, hereby directed that the following sentence in clause (a) of the above mentioned instructions shall be deemed to have been withdrawn:-
"Also when a Government servant is reduced to a particular stage, his pay will remain constant at that stage for the entire period of reduction".
It is also directed that the pay and allowances of a Government servant on whom the above penalty has been imposed should be regulated having regard to the directions issued by the competent authority under Rule 8 (iv-a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1957.
sd/-
G.N.Honavar,
Under Secretary to Government,
Finance Department (Expenditure-IV)
Note on the procedure to be followed at the Secretariat level in handling cases coming under Rule 14-A of the K.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
PART I. Action on the report of Investigation.
1. On receipt of the report of investigation with the opinion of the Vigilance Commissioner or of any officer of the Vigilance Commission authorised by the Vigilance Commissioner in writing under Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission Rules, 1965, a decision has to be taken by Government in the Administrative Secretariat on the nature of disciplinary proceedings to be commended whether, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the cases and recommendation, if any, of the Vigilance Commissioner and the alleged mis-conduct, whether if proved, it would call for imposition of a minor penalty or a major penalty.
(a) (i) If it is a decided that imposition of a minor penalty would be sufficient and the number of Government servants involved is only one, the appropriate Disciplinary Authority in relation to the Government servant involved in the case may be directed to take action against him under rule 12 of the Rules.
(ii) If it is decided that imposition of a minor penalty is sufficient, but the number of Government servants involved is more than one, Government in the concerned Administrative Secretariat should order a joint enquiry in accordance with rule 13. While ordering the joint enquiry the Disciplinary Authority in relation to the Government Servant highest in rank should be nominated as the Disciplinary Authority, specifying therein that such Disciplinary Authority would be competent to impose any of the minor penalties on all the Government servants involved in the case after following the procedure under Rule 12 (vide O.M. No. GAD 63 SSR 74) dated 3.12.1974.
(b) If, on the other hand, a conclusion is reached that imposition of a major penalty is warranted, the Vigilance Commission may be directed to hold a detailed enquiry under rule 11 of the Rules.
Note:- If the decision proposed to be taken either under clauses (a) or (b) of this para is inconsistant with the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner orders of the Cabinet should be obtained.
PART II. Action on the report of Inquiry.
2. On receipt of the report of inquiry, from the Vigilance Commissioner, if a case referred to in clause (b) of para 1 it has to be processed under rule 11-A. It should be determined whether any further enquiry on any point or on any matter is necessary. If so, the case may be remitted for further enquiry into that point or matter. Otherwise, the following steps should be taken.
(a) Findings of the Government should be recorded on the articles of charge inquired into by the Inquiring Authority. If Government disagree with any of the findings of the Inquiry Authority, its findings should be recorded accordingly with brief reasons for the disagreement.
(b) If Government, having regard to the findings of all or any of the articles of charges, is of the opinion that any of the minor penalties specified in clause (ii) to (iv) of rule 8 should be imposed on the Government servant, it should straightaway issue an order imposing such penalty. Consulation with the P.S. Commission before imposing a minor penalty by Government is not necessary. Orders passed by the Government should be communicated to the Government servant who should be supplied with a copy of the report of enquiry, a copy of the findings of Government on each of the articles of charge; and a copy of the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner.
(c) If on the other hand it is decided to impose having regard to the findings of all or any of the articles of charges, any of the penalties mentioned in clause (v) to (viii) of rule 8, then-
(i) A notice may be issued stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty. Copies of the report of inquiry the findings on each of the articles of charges the brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring Authority and the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner, should also be furnished to the Government servant alongwith the notice.
Note:- If the findings of Government under sub-paras (a), (b) or (c) of this para are inconsistent with the recommendation of the Vigilance Commissioner, orders of the Cabinet should be obtained.
(ii) On receipt of the reperesentation, if any, from the Government servant, the record of enquiry together with the notice issued to theGovernment servant and the representation of the Government servant with reference to the notice should be sent to the Karnataka Public Service Commission for advice.
(iii) On receipt of the advice of the Commission orders should be passed by Government determining the penalty if any to be imposed on the Government servant and any other order as order as deemed fit. If the final orders proposed to be passed are at vary once with the advice of the Public Service Commission, orders of the Cabinet should be obtained.
3. Orders passed by the Government should be communicated to the Government servant as required by rule 12-A.
Note:- The procedure of issuing Second Show cause notice is not required to be followed in cases of inquiries after 15-1-77 in view of amendment of rule 11-A of C.C.A. Rules.
sd/-
Section Officer, DPAR (SR-C)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 22 SSR 78. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 29th December 1979.
CIRCULAR
Clarifications are being sought in several cases as to when an order suspending a Government Servant from duty takes effect and when an order revoking the order of suspension comes into force, and on other related matters. It is therefore considered necessary to clarify the position for the guidance of all concerned. Accordingly the following clarifications are issued.
2. (a) If the Government servant who has been suspended by the competent authority is on duty, the order takes effect from the date it is communicated to him and he is releived of his duty. It is, therefore, necessary that the authority who
passes the order of suspension should also specify the officer who should take charge of the office held by the Government servant who is placed under suspension. If the authorities which passes the order of suspension is different from the authority which is competent to make arrangement for relief of the suspended Government servant by posting a substitute, then the former should communicate to the Government servant the order of his suspension through the latter who should simultaneously communicate to the suspension Government servant both the order of suspension and the order making arragement for his releif.
(b) If on the other hand the Government servant who has been suspended is not on duty at the time when the order of suspension is passed, then the order takes effect from the date of its despatch by registered post, if sent by post, or from the date of its communication to the Government servant if communicated in person.
(c) An order revoking the suspension order comes into force from the date of its receipt by the Government servant under suspension. The revocation order should, therefore, specify the place of his posting also so that he might go and assume charge of the office immediately. If the order revoking suspension does not indicate the place of his posting he would not be in a position to assume charge of any office though the suspension has been revoked. This leads to avodiable complications, infructuous expenditure and unnecessary correspondance, in that the period from the date of receipt of this order by the Government servant and the date he assumes charges of the office has to be treated as compulsory waiting period for this purpose the matter has to be referred to the Staff Screening Committee and payment of salary for the period has to be made without taking any work from the Government servant.
3. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bear in mind the position explained above while passing orders in matters relating to suspension of Government servants. They are also requested to bring this to the notice of all the appointing authorities and other officers under their administrative control who are competent to place Government servants under suspension and make orders in matters connected thereto.
sd/-
Teresa Bhattcharya,
Joint Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Personnel Division).
Circular No. DPAR 18 SSR 79, dated 2nd March 1979
Sub:- Departmental Enquiries - cases to be referred to Chief Secretary - procedure, regarding.
Cased relating to Departmental Inquries are being referred to the Chief Secretary by the Administrative Departments of the Secretariat before issuing final orders, Invariably, such cases contain complicated facts which may required analysis in detail with reference to the provisions of K.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Circular instructions issued in the matter, decided case laws and precedents. Such cases have to be examined
by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Service Rules) before they are submitted to the Chief Secretary.
2. The Administrative Departments should themselves examine such cases first at their level, with reference to the rules, etc., and put up notes indicating the facts of case and specifying their own views thereon and then refer the file to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. The reference note should clearly indicate the specific points on which interpretation of rules of orders is sought as this would facilitate quick examination of the cases by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and formulation and communication of its views thereon without delay.
3. Such a procedure, should also be followed in case relating to other service matters such as recruitments, promotions, seniority etc. of Government servants, referred to the Chief Secretary or the DPAR (Service Rules).
4. The Secretaries to Government may please bring these instructions to the notices of all the concerned officers and officials in their Departments.
Circular No. DPAR 30 SSR 79, dated 17th April 1979
Sub:- Un-authorised absence of Government servants, Instructions regarding Quick Disposal of enquiry cases.
It was come to the notice of Government that in several cases in which Government servants have remained absent unauthorisedly, either no action has been taken against them or in some cases where action has been initiated, it is done after a lapse of considerable time. Unless timely, steps are taken in such cases effective disciplinary action cannot be taken against the erring officials and the posts held by these absentees remain vacant causing considerable dislocation of work as it would not be possible to post substitutes in their places.
A Government servant does not cease to be a member of the services to which he is appointed or sever connections with the post held by him by reason of his un-authorised absence unless action is taken aganist him by the appointing authority / competent disciplinary authority under KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 and he is removed or dismissed from service after conducting an inquiry in accordance with rules 11 and 11A of these rules.
Normally it should not take much time to hold an inquiry and finalise action in accoradance with rule 11 and rule 11A of the KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. If the Government servant refused to receive notices / orders of the competent authority, the procedure laid down under rule 28-A of the KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules could be followed conveniently and if necessary, and ex-parte inquiry held aganist him and final orders passed removing or dismissing him from service if the charge of un-authorised absence is established.
The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to take necessary action in the matter and bring these instructions to the pointed notice of appointing authorities / disciplinary authorities under their control, and see that delays in instituting / finalising inquiries in such cases are avoided. Any delay in taking action in such cases would be viewed seriously and the concerned officer who has failed to take action or delayed taking action will be held personally responsible and disciplinary action would have to be initiated against him for the lapse.
Circular No. DPAR 46 SSR 79, dated 28th June 1979
Sub:- Appointment of Presenting Officers in Disciplinary cases under the CCA Rules
Under rule 11(5) (c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 the disciplinary authority could nominate a Government servant as a Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority in a departmental inquiry instituted aganist any other Government servant. The Government servant to be nominated as the Presenting Officer would normally be the one who is working under the control/jurisdiction of the concerned Disciplinary Authority. If for any reasons, the Disciplinary Authority proposes to appoint a Government servant who is not under its control / jurisidiction but under the control of any other Authority, the former Authority has, necessarily, to consult the latter Authority and seek its concurrence before appointing such a Government servant as the Presenting Officer.
All the Disciplinary Authorities in various Departments and Offices should keep in view, the above position and ensure that as far as possible, only the Government servants under their jurisdiction are appointed as Presenting Officers in cases relating to disciplinary proceedings and if any other Government servant is to be nominated as Presenting Officer, the concerned Disciplinary Authority under whose control the Government servant is working should invariably be consulted.
All the Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all the Disciplinary / Appointing Authorities under their control.
Circular No. DPAR 2 SIN 79, dated 4th July 1979
Sub:- Communications to be addressed to the Vigilance Commission - Instruction - reg.
Ref:- Circular No. DPAR 191 PVC 78, dated 21st November 1978.
Instructions were issued in the Circular read above that all communications to the Vigilance Commission should be addressed to the Director of State Vigilance Commission excepting in the case of D.O. letters meant for the personal attention of the Vigilance Commissioner which could be addressed to him.
2. In spite of these instructions, it has been brought to the notice of Government, that even ordinary letters are being addressed directly to the Vigilance Commissioners. It has how been decided that all communications meant for the Vigilance Commission must be addressed to the Director Vigilance in the Vigilance Commission and no communication should be addressed to the Vigilance Commmissioners.
3. All the Secretaries to Government and the Heads of Departments are requested to ensure that in future Communications meant for the Vigilance Commission are addressed to the Director of Vigilance only.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 71 PVC 78. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 17th July, 1979.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Reinstatement of Government servants placed under suspension at the request of the State Vigilance commission.
Whenever a complaint of corruption etc., is made against a Government servant and the Vigilance Commission held a preliminary enquiry and reports to Government that a prima facie case is made out against him and requests that he should be placed under suspension, that person is placed under suspension immediately.
2. The question whether such Government servant might be reinstated subsequently with or without the prior concurrence of the Vigilance Commission, has been examined.
3. It is now decided that, whenever it is proposed to reinstate in service a Government servant, who has been placed under suspension, at the instance of the Vigilance Commission, irrespective of the period for he has been placed under suspension, prior concurrence of the Commission might be obtained. In other words, the supension should not be revoked, automatically just because the Government servant has been under suspension for a period exceeding six months and some delay on the part of the Commission is anticipated in finalising the enquiry and in sending a report to Government.
4. The Commission has assured Government that any request for reinstatement will normally be disposed of within the shortest time possible.
5. These instructions supersede all others issued so far in this regard.
sd/-
N.Narasimha rau,
Chief Secretary to Government
Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 - Amendment of rule 11 'A' - Further clarification in respect of issue of Second Show Cause Notice.
Circular No. DPAR 56 SSR 78, dated 16th August 1979
Ref:- Circular No. DPAR 70, SSR 76, dated 29th January, 1977.
Consequent upon the amendment of Rule 11-A and some other rules of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 made under Government Notification No. DPAR 70 SSR 76, dated 15th January 1977, instructions were issued in the Circular referred to above that before imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of Rule 8 of the Classification, Control and Appeal rules, it was not necessary to issue second show cause notice. It has also been specified that when the second show cause notice had already been issued to a Government servant before the date of coming into force of the aforesaid amendment, a reply thereto might be awaited and the representation if any submitted by such Government servant should be taken into consideration before any final orders were issued.
The matter has been re-examined in consultation with the law Department. Though Legally it may not be necessary, it is considered advisable, that in repsect of proccedings started prior to 42nd amendment of the Constitution or prior to the amendment of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, which are still pending with the disciplinary authorities to issue the second show cause notice as who contemplated prior to the amendment. This is necessary with a view to avoiding a possible contention being raised before the Court that the requirement of Second Show Cause notice has not been followed
on the plea that the proceedings that were pending as on the date of 42nd amendment of the Constitution should be considered and finalised in accordance with the Law as it existed prior to the amendment.
All Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested kindly to keep in view the above instructions while dealing the disciplinary cases of the kind mentioned above and also to bring them to the notice of several appointing and disciplinary authorities under their control.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 80 SSR 79. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 14th March 1980.
CIRCULAR
Under Note 1 below rule 98(B) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules prior to its deletion, sanction of Government was necessary for extension of the periods of suspension of Government servants beyond the initial 6 months period. By the amendment issued in Government Notification No. FD 78 SRS 77 dated 12.7.1978 the aforesaid note was deleted. Consequently sanction of Government for the continued suspension of Government servants beyond 6 months is not necessary even though such cases are required to be reported to Government in terms of rule 10(5) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 for such orders as the Government may deem fit. The Government servants who are placed under suspension without indicating in the order suspending them any specific period(s) of suspension will continue under suspension till it is revoked by the authority which suspended them, or any higher authority or Government but sanction of Government is no more required for continuing them under suspension beyond the initial period of 6 months.
Doubts have also been raised as to whether sanction of Government is necessary for payment of subsistence allowances for period beyond 6 months to the Government servants who continue under suspension.
It is hereby clarified that such sanction of Government is also not necessary. The authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension is itself competent to regulate the quantum of subsistence allowance payable to Government servants under suspension, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 98(A) of Karnataka Civil Service Rules.
sd/-
B.B.Bajentri,
Under Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Services Rules-I).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 17 SSR 80. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 28th April 1980.
CIRCULAR
The number of cases relating to departmental enquiries aganist Government servants being handled at the Government level in the Secretariat has been on the increase. Government are, no doubt, the appointing authority in relation to Class I and Class II posts and they alone are competent under the existing provisions of the rules to impose major penalities; but that does not imply that complaint or allegation aganist Class II officers should come to Government. One of the reasons for the increase in work in the Secretariat is that even in cases where the Heads of Departments are themselves competent under the rules to take certain action, references are being made to Government. It is, therefore, considered necessary to bring to the notice of the Heads of Departments and others the relevant provisions contained in the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 according to which power is vested in them to initiate departmental enquiries even against Government servants in Class II service and others although Government are the appointing authority in their respect.
2. Under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Ruel 9 of the rules referred to above the Heads of Departments are vested with the power of imposing on Class II officers certain minor penaltites specified therein. Under the other clauses of this rule the Inspector General of Police, the Divisional Commissioners, the Joint Development Commissioners and other specified therein are competent to impose the specified minor penalties under different clauses of the rule. Eventhough they have the power to impose only certain minor penalities it is permissible for them to institute under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10A disciplinary proceedings aganist Class II officers for the purpose of imposing any of the major penalty specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of rule 8. They could accordingly initiate disciplinary proceedings against class II officers also. If after the Heads of Departments or any other authority who is competent to impose any of the minor penalties, institutes accordingly an enquiry under rule 11 and after the completion of the enquiry, comes to the conclusion that, having regard to the gravity of the mis-conduct established against a Class II officers, imposition of any of the major penalities is justified and warranted he can forward the records of enquiry to Government. This is specifically provided for in sub-rule (21) of rule 11 of the rules. Thus it could be seen that it is not always necessary that every complaint or an allegation against a Class II officer should be referred to Government for initiating disciplinary proccedings; the Heads of Department could initiate proceedings not only under rule 12 but also under rule 11 of the Rules.
3. The Heads of Departments and other authorities who are competent to impose any of the minor penalties on Class II officers or other gazetted officers may kindly note for guidance the position explained in the foregoing paragraphs and avoid unnecessary references to Government even in cases where they are competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and send a report to Government only at the stage of imposing a major penalty, where such a punishment is called for.
sd/-
N.Narasimha rau,
Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 61 SSR 80. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 1st October 1980.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Service of Order, Notices etc. under Rule 28A of the K.C.S. (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957.
Ref:- Circular No. DPAR 30 SSR 79, dated 17.4.1979
Instructions have been issued in the Circular referred to above regarding the manner in which the cases of Government Servants who have remained or who remain absent unauthorisedly from duty are to be dealt with. In the matter of service of notices / orders it has been indicated that the procedure specified in rule 28A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 be followed:-
2. The modes of service contemplated in this rule are:-
(a) service in person on the Government Servants concerned; or
(b) service by registered post; or
(c) service by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the Disciplinary Authority or of the Enquiring Authority and upon some conspicious part of the house, if any, in which he is known to have last resided; or
(d) by publication in two daily news papers having wide circulation in the State.
3. In this connection, the disciplinary authorities / Inquiring authorities are advised to resort to the procedure mentioned under item (d) in para 2 above only where service in accordance with the mode mentioned under items (a) to (c) in the said para is not possible.
4. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bear in mind the procedure mentioned above while serving notice under Rule 28A of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. They are also requested to bring this to the notice of all the appointing authorities under their administrative control.
sd/-
M.K.Jothisenthan,
Additional Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 17 SSR 79. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated the 17th October 1980.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Suspension of Government Servants - further instructions regarding.
Ref:- Circular No. DPAR 24 SSR 77, dated 16.8.1978.
In the Circular referred to above, it is clarified, among other things, that a suspension order issued for a specified period lapses on the expiry of the period, that orders
continuing suspension issued after the expiry of the period with a time gape is ineffective and not enforceable and that the Government Servant is deemed to be on duty on the date of expiry of the suspension period.
2. The above clarification holds good if the suspended official to whom the order of suspension specifying the period of suspension is communicated reports to duty on the expiry of the period of suspension. Then there is no option but to consider him as on duty. If he does not report to duty eventhough it is known to him that the order of suspension has expired, his absence after the expiry of the period of suspension is unauthorised absence and should be dealt with under rule 106-A read with rule 108 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules.
3. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to follow these instructions strictly. They are also requested to bring this position to the notice of all the appointing authorities and other authorities under their administrative control who are competent to place Government Servants under suspesion and pass orders for revocation of suspension of Government Servants.
sd/-
A.H.Someshwar,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 5 SSR 79. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 8th July 1981.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Departmental Inquiry - Appointing Deputy Commissioners of Inquiries or Assistant Commissioners of Inquiries of the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission as the Inquiry Officers.
The Public Accounts Committee while considering the Appropriation and Finance Accounts and Audit Reports relating to one of the Secretariat Departments suggested appointment of whole time Inquiry Officers in Government Departments to deal with disciplinary cases exclusively to ensure speedy disposal of cases since regular officers could not bestow much attention on these cases. Similar suggestion to appoint Inquiry Officers in each Division / District to deal with disciplinary cases pertaining to various departments in the Division / District was also made by some of the Divisional Commissioners.
2. This suggestion was examined by Government in consulation with the State Vigilance Commission. The Commission after considering the matter opined that there was no need for creation of posts of Inquiry Officers in Government Departments at State
Level or Divisional / District Level for Inquiring into allegations of serious nature aganist Government servants and suggested that such cases would very well be referred to the Vigilance Commission for Inquiry.
3. There are certain advantages in entrusting the complicated cases relating to departmental action against Government Servants to the Commission. The Commission has Inquiry Officers with Judicial outlook and experience and is, therefore, better equipped to handle and finalise Inquiry cases not only expeditiously but also in accordance with law. It has also other staff who are conversant with the rules of natural justice and other laws relating to quasi-judicial functions.
4. Government have, therefore, decided to accept the suggestion of the Commission. In respect of cases investigated by it, the Commission acquires jurisdiction to hold Inquiries if such cases are referred to the Commission by Government for holding Inquiry in terms of rule 11 of Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957. In respect of the other cases, it has been decided that officers of the Commission should be appointed as Inquiry Officers who should submit their reports to the Disciplinary Authorities concerend. As a first step, it has been decided that this procedure should be adopted in respect of cases pending or to be initiated at the level of Government (i.e. Secretariat Departments) and at the level of Heads of Departments.
5. Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are, therefore, requested to make a list of Inquiry cases pending with them indicating therein the names and designations of the Accused Government Officers and send the list to the Secretary, Karnataka State Vigilance Commission, with a request to suggest the names of the Commissioners or Deputy Commisssioners of the Commission who could be appointed as the Inquiry Officers. Soon after the Commision suggests the names of the Officers to be so appointed, necessary orders appointing them as Inquiry Officers should be issued immediately. Articles of charges issued to the Accused Government Officers and written statement of defence submitted by them should be sent to the Inquiry Officers and, in cases where presenting officers are appointed, their names should also be communicated. Similar procedure should be adopted in respect of Inquiries to be initiated hereafter.
6. The list of pending cases as referred to above should please be forwarded to the Secretary, Karnataka State Vigilance Commission, before the end of July and a copy thereof should be endorsed to the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Service Rules).
sd/-
A.H.Someshwar,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 5 SSR 79. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 17th August 1981.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Departmental Inquiry - Appointing Deputy Commissioners of Inquiries or Assistant Commissioners of Inquiries of the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission as the Inquiry Officers.
Ref:- O.M. No. DPAR 5 SSR 79, dated 8.7.1981.
In the O.M. dated 8.7.1981 it was ordered that in disciplinary inquiry cases pending or to be initiated at the level of Government (i.e. Secretariat Departments) and at the level of Heads of Department, the officers of the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission should be appointed as Inquiry Officers and that they should submit their reports to the disciplinary authorities concerend.
2. Disciplinary inquiry cases could be instituted under Rule 11 and Rule 12 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. A question has arisen whether in respect of cases instituted under Rule 12 also the officers of the Vigilance Commission should be appointed as Inquiry Officers.
3. Cases coming under Rule 12 are generally of simple nature and except in cases coming within the purview of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 12, no inquiry is involved and, therefore, the question of referring such cases to the Vigilance Commission for appointing Inquiry Officers does not arise. Even in cases coming under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 where an inquiry has to be held in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (23) of rule 11, the inquiry would be for award of minor penalty and it is considered not necessary to entrust such inquirieis of simple nature to the officers of the Vigilance Commission.
4. Government have, therefore, decided in partial modification of the instructions issued in O.M. No. DPAR 5 SSR 79, dated 8.7.1981, that inquiry cases instituted under Rule 12 of the K.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1957, need not be referred to the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission and only the cases instituted under Rule 11 may be referred to the Commission in the manner prescribed in the O.M. dated 8.7.1981.
5. Inquiries are being made by several departments whether pending cases should be referred to the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission in accordance with the instructions contained in the O.M. dated 8.7.1981. It is clarified that pending cases instituted under Rule 11 may be referred to the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission only if the recording of evidence has not commenced. Pending cases where one or more witnesses have been examined either partly or fully need not referred to the Vigilance Commission and the existing Inquiry Officers may be asked to continue the inquiry.
sd/-
A.H.Someshwar,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 96 KLU 81. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 29th October 1981.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Investigation/Inquiry Reports by the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission - Prompt disposal of- instructions - rega.
Ref:- D.O. No. GAD 23 IPN 75, dated 17.6.1975 from the Chief Secretary to Government (Copy enclosed)
In the D.O. letter referred to above caused for delay in handling the reports of investigation / inquires held by the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission into the allegations against Government servants were analysed and brought to the notice of all the concerned. Guidelines were also issued indicating the procedure to be followed in handling such cases and the need for avoiding delays in dealing with these reports was emphasized.
If proper procedure is followed and reports are handled in the prescribed manner, there should not be any reason for delay. In spite of clear instructions issued in the matter, the State Vigilance Commissioner has recently pointed out delays in impelmenting the recommendations of the Commission and has suggested avoidance of such delays as a measure of eradication of corruption.
Government, hereby reiterate the earlier instructions and once again emphasize the need for avoiding delay in dealing with the reports of the Karnataka State Vigilance Commmision. All secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bear in mind the instructions contained in the D.O. letter dated 17-6-1975 of the Chief Secretary referred to above and follow the procedure indicated in the note appended thereto in dealing with the reports of invesigation and report of inquiry from the Vigilance Commission and ensure that prompt action is taken in these cases. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are also requested to bring to the notice of all the concerned officers under their control who handle such cases, the procedure indicated in the said note.
sd/-
R.A.Naik,
Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 466 SAS 81. Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 3rd November 1981.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Issue of instructions regarding rendering of assistance by Government Servants to the Vigilance Commission in departmental inquiries.
In the circulars No. GAD 57 PVC 74, dated the 16th September, 1974 and the 27th December, 1974 instructions have been issued to all Heads of Departments and Secretaries to Government to ensure that whenever any officer of the Vigilance Commission makes a request for any assistance during the course of investigation the same should be rendered immediately without having to obtain orders of the higher authorities and keep such information given or discussions made as confidential. The Heads of Departments were also requested to issue instructions to their subordinate officers in this behalf. It was made
clear that any instance of non-co-operation by any official would be viewed seriously by the Government.
2. Despite these instructions the Vigilance Commission has brought to the notice of the Government that investigations taken up by the Vigilance Commission against Government Servants are held up for considerable time on account of lack of co-operation by the officials concerned with the investigating officers. It has also been brought to the notice of the Government that non-cooperation persists despite requests made demiofficially to the higher authorities in that behalf.
3. Government have taken serious note of this position and it is hereby against directed that every Government Servant required to furnish any information within his/her knowledge in official capacity to any investigating officer of the Vigilance Commission should make available the same within the shortest possible time. The Heads of Departments are requested to ensure that this is done. In any case where a Government Servant is found to show non-cooperation in this matter and in cases where instances of non-cooperation have been brought to the notice of the Heads of the Departments by the Vigilance Commission or the investigating authorities, appropriate departmental action should be taken against the Government Servant concerned.
sd/-
R.A.Naik,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
CONFIDENTIAL Karnataka Government Secretariat,
No. DPAR 59 SDE 81. Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated the 17th December 1981.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Suspension of Government servants - Review of cases of prolonged suspension.
In Confidentail O.M. No. DPAR 11 SSR 77, dated the 5the July 1977, all appointing authorities and officers authorised to place Government servants under suspension were required to review cases of suspension of Government servants on charges of misappropriation, embezzlement of Government money or corruption and where the court cases or disciplinary proceedings instituted aganist them were likely to drag on for a long time. According to these instructions the concerned authorities were required to consider the circustances of each case and decide whether the order of suspension might be revoked and the Government servant given a posting to a place where handling of Government money was not involved or where there was no scope for corrpution. While taking a decision on this issue the concerned authorities were also required to examine whether there was any likelihood of the Government servants tampering with any evidence or influencing any witness if he was so reinstated. The seriousness of the charge aganist the Government servant in the criminal or disciplinary case was also required to be taken into account.
2. While reiterating the instructions issued in O.M. dated the 5th July 1977 referred to above, the appointing authorities and officers authorised to place Government servants under suspension are requested to take immediate action to review all such cases of
suspension and consider reinstatement of the Government servants concerned in the event of the investigation/inquiry being likely to be prolonged and reinstate them.
3. These instructions would not apply to cases where suspension was ordered at the
instance of the Vigilance Commission and also to cases where Government servants were
placed under suspension on charges other than misappropriation, embezzlement of
Government money or corruption.
sd/-
A.H.Someshwar,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.LAW 166 LAG 81 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 18th December 1981.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
It has been observed that in good number of cases in which the State of Karnataka is a party, decisions of the Courts go aganist it. This has not only embarassed the State but has also contributed considerably to the delay in implementing the several welfare measures, besides forcing the state to incur avoidable huge expenditure, which the State can ill afford in the present critical financial position. An immediate necessity has therefore arisen to undertake a through study of the cases in which the decisions of the Courts have gone aganist the State with a view to finding out the exact causes as to why Courts had to give decisions adverse to the State.
2. Broadly speaking the reasons for the decisions adverse to the State could be attributed to one or more of the following reasons:-
(1) failure on the part of the departments concerned to place the full facts and the records relevant to the case before the Court;
(2) failure to present the State's case effectively i.e. failure to file suitable statement with all relevant facts and law and to point out the relevant ruling, if any, of the Courts in support of the State's case;
(3) the defective drafting of the law rules, orders etc; and
(4) not following of rules and procedure prescribed by law.
3. However, in order to pin point where excatly the defect lay in each case and to take remedial steps in order to see that such a defect does not reoccur it has been decided that a review of the records relating to the cases in which decisions have been given by the courts aganist the state should be undertaken in a meeting of the following officers:-
1. Additional Chief Secretary;
2. Advocate-General or his representative;
3. Secretary to Government of the concerned department; and
4. Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs.
4. To begin with, it has been decided that such a review should be confined to the orders made aganist the State by the High Court in Writ Petitions or Writ Appeals. The process of such a review could be extended to the decisions of the other Courts also in furture.
5. After the close of a month and in the first week of the succeeding month the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs would collect copies of the orders of the Courts in which decisions are given aganist the State during the previous month and convene a meeting in the chambers of the Additional Chief Secretary on a date and time in the second week of the succeeding month to be notified. The meeting will be attended to by the Advocate-General or his representative, the Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and the Secretary to Government of the department concerned for the purpose of the review.
6. The first meeting to review the orders of the High Court received in the month of December 1981 would accordingly be held in the month of January 1982.
7. In complicated and important cases as and when arguments are scheduled to be heard by the High Court it is desirable to have meetings of the Advocate in charge of the case, the Secretary of the department concerned and the Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs a day or two earlier to the date fixed for arguments and again once or twice as may be necessary if the arguments last for more than one or two days to study the progress of the case and the points raised in the Court so that a combined effort may be made to effectively meet the points raised by the other side. Secretary, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs who will be in touch with the concerned Advocates will kindly arrange for such meetings.
8. All the Secretaries to Government are requested to extend their full co-operation in this exercise.
sd/-
R.A.Naik,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.LAW 166 LAG 81(P) Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated : 4th March 1982.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Review of judgements wherein decisions have been given by the Courts aganist the State.
Ref:- O.M. No. LAW 166 LAG 81, dated 18.12.1981.
Para 5 of the O.M. dated 18.12.1981 referred to above envisages convening of a meeting in the chambers of the Additional Chief Secretary on a date and time in the second week of the succeeding month to be notified, for reviewing the judgements relating to the cases wherein decisions have been given by the Courts aganist the State.
It is now considered necessary that such review should be taken at the level of the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka.
In partial modifications of O.M. dated 18.12.1981 referred to above, it is hereby directed that the meeting as envisaged in para 5 of the aforesaid O.M. shall be convened under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka in the last week of the succeeding month (date and time to be fixed in consultation with the Chief Secretary).
sd/-
R.A.Naik,
Chief Secretary to Government.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 12 SDE 82 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated : 13th April 1982.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Departmental proceedings aganist Government servants placed under suspension- Delay in instituting
Ref:- i) O.M.No. GAD 21 SSR 65, dated 26.2.1965
ii) O.M.No. DPAR 11 SSR 77, dated 5.7.1977
iii) O.M.No. DPAR 59 SDE 81, dated 17.12.1981
Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, provides for placing a Government servant under suspension, when, among other things, disciplinary proceedings aganist him are contemplated. This is only an enabling provision. Whether in individual cases where disciplinary proceedings are proposed Government servant should be suspended or not should be determined with reference to the guidelines contained in the O.M cited at (i) above. But once a decision is taken to suspend a Government servant for the reason that disciplinary proceedings are proposed to be instituted, it is imperative to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are instituted without delay in the official memoranda cited at (ii) and (iii) above detailed instructions have been issued for review of cases of suspension. The Central idea of these instructions are that there should not be prolonged suspension which have, apart from adverse effects on the Government servants concerned, serious financial implications also.
2) In a recent cases a Government servant was placed under suspension but no-action was taken to institute disciplinary proceedings for over nine months. When the aggrieved Government servants filed a Writ Petition, the Court was constained to direct the authorty concerned to take the Government servant back to duty.
3) Government, therefore, direct that when a Government servant is placed under suspensions pending institution of disciplinary proceedings, action to institute such proceeding should be taken within a period of three months from date of suspension. In complicated cases involving detailed investigation etc. that time may be extended upto to total period of six months.
4) Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments should seriously view failure to comply with these instructions and take appropriate action aganist those responsible.
sd/-
M.K.Venkateshan,
Additional Chief Secretary.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 10 SDE 82 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated the 9th April 1982.
CIRCULAR
Rule 18 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 provides for appeal aganist orders imposing penalties and rule 25 prescribes the procedure for consideration of such appeals and their disposal. While reviewing the orders of Courts in accordance with O.M.No.LAW 166 LAG 81, dated 18-12-1981 it is noticed that the Appellate Authorities pass very breif orders sometimes one sentance order like 'appeal considered and rejected' - such brief orders are technically defective and voilative of rules of natural justice and are, therefore, being quashed by the Courts or by the Governor while excersising his powers of review. As a result, Government servants who deserve, on merits of the case, severe penalties unpunished. It is therefore necessary that all the Appellate Authorities strictly follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 25 of the rules before they pass final orders.
2) The important points to be borne in mind by the Appellate Authorities while considering the appeals are
i) Whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation prescribed
ii) Whether the disciplinary authority has followed the prescribed procedure before passing final orders,
iii) Whether in a case before the inquiry officer has been appointed to hold inquiry and the disciplinary authority proposes to accept the recommendation of the inquiry officers, the several steps prescribed in rule 11 of the rules have been taken by the Inquiring Officer and whether he has analysed, appreciated and evaluated the evidence for and aganist the charges and whether he has dealt within his orders each of the contentions raised by the concerned accused Government officers and whether the Inquiring Officer has given reasons for his conclusions.
iv) Whether the disciplinary authority has complied with the requirements of rule 11-A or Rule 12 as the case may be; and
v) Whether the penalty is adequate, inadequate or excessive.
3) The Appellate Authority should consider the contensions raised by both sides and give his findings therein. He should not hesitate to accept errors, if any, committed by the Inquiry Officer and to give proper relief if wrong has been done to the accused officer. He should decide the case without bias in a spirit of and with the sense of responsibility of a Tribunal so that the departmental remedy, by way of appeal, provided for in the rules does not become illusory.
4) Any lapse on the part of the Appellate Authorities in this behalf would be viewed by Government seriously.
sd/-
M.K.Venkateshan,
Additional Chief Secretary.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 8 SDE 82 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated the 28th April 1982.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 - clarification regarding second show cause notice.
Ref:- i) Circular No. DPAR 70 SSR 76 dated, 29.1.77
ii) Circular No. DPAR 56 SSR 78, dated, 16.8.79.
Consequent on the amendment of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, Rules 11-A, 25 and 26 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, were amended in Notification No.DPAR 70 SSR 76, dated 15.1.77. The main object of the amendment of Article 311(2) was to do away with what was generally known as "the second show cause notice." In the Circular cited at (i) above it was clarified that after the amendment of the Rules it was not necessary to issue the second show cause notice. In the Circular cited at (ii) above it was, however pointed out that in respect of proceedings started prior to the 42nd amendment of the Constitution or prior to the amendment of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, and which were pending with the disciplinary authorities, it was advisable to issue the seond show cause notice as was necessary prior to the amendment.
2) This issue was examined by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 17572 of 1980 (M.P.Naik Vs. the State of Karnataka and others). The court held the view, among others, that the opportunity to show cause to be given to the Government servant after furnishing a copy of Inquiry Officer's report was a part of the reasonable opportunity of being heard contemplated by Article 311(2) before as well as after its amendment and that what was denied by the amendment of Article 311(2) was only an opportunity of making representations in regard to the proposed penalty. According to the court, the amendment did not take away the right of Government servant to be supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer and to an opportunity of showing cause vis-a-vis the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report.
3) The State Government have appealed to the Supreme Court. But pending decision on the appeal, it is considered necessary to comply with the direction of the High Court of Karnataka in the W.P. referred to above.
4) Thus, in modification of the instructions contained in the Circulars read above, Government direct that before passing the final orders imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of rule 8 of the K.C.S. (C.C.&A) Rules, 1957, on a Government servant, a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report should be given to the Government servant providing him an opportunity of showing cause why the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report should not be accepted. It is not necessary to intimate him the tentative decision of the disciplinary authority in regard to the penalty proposed.
5) The Secretaries to Government and the Heads of Departments are requested to bring the above instruction to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities/Appointing Authorties under their control.
sd/-
A.H.Someshwar,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 8 SDE 82 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated the 17th July 1982.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 - further clarification regarding second show cause notice.
Ref:- Circular No.DPAR 8 SDE 82 dated 28-4-1982.
In the circular dated 28-4-1982 referred to above, it was clarified, among others, that before passing final orders imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (viii) of rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 on a Government servant, a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report should be given to the Government servant thus providing him an opportunity of showing cause why the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his report should not be accepted.
2) This matter has been further examined and the following further clarifications are issued:
(i) In a case where the Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on all or any of articles of charge, the findings of the disciplinary authority specifying reasons for such disagreement may also be communicated together with a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report to the Government servant.
(ii) When an inquiry has been conducted by the Viglance Commission under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 and report of the Inquiry Officer's and the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission are received by the Government, a copy of recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner should also be supplied along with a copy of Inquiry Officer's report to the Government servant.
3) The Secretaries of Government and the Heads of Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities/Appointing Authorities under their control.
sd/-
A.H.Someshwar,
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 21 SDE 83 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 1st June. 1983
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Review of disciplinary cases which are pending finalisation-prescription of monthly progress report.
It has been observed that in processing the departmental inquries instituted against Government servants, the Disciplinary/Appointing Authorities are not bestowing their attention to see that these inquiries are finalised as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, in cases where Government servants are placed under suspension pending inquiry, suspension continues for long periods. In most of the cases suspensions and departmental inquiries extend over a period of years causing infructuous expenditure to Government. With a view to minimise the delay in completing the departmental inquiries it is considered necessary to review all such pending cases at regular levels. Accordingly the following instructions are issued.
i) Heads of Departments are requested to collect on the first of every month a progress report from each one of the suspending/disciplinary/appointing authorities in their departments in the enclosed proforma. They should undertake a review of all these progress reports and issue appropriate instructions to the concerned authority who has a large number of pending disciplinary (including suspension) cases for finalising them.
ii) They should also consolidate the data received by them from the subordinate offices and prepare one consolidated statement showing the number of cases pending in the department as a whole and submit this consolidated statement to the concerned administrative Secretariat Department by the 5th of the following month.
iii) The Secretaries to Government in the administrative department should add to the statement so received from the Heads of Departments in accordance with item (ii) above, the inquiry cases pending in the Secretariat Department and review all such cases and issue appropriate instructions to the concerned Heads of Departments/Secretariat Officers with whom the number of pending departmental inquiry (including suspension) cases is very high by the 10th of the following month.
iv) Secretaries to Government should please forward to D.P.A.R (Service Rules) a consolidated statement including therein the figures furnished by the Heads of Departments and those belonging to the Secretariat Department on the 10th of the following month.
4. The first report to be furnished in the matter should relate for the month of June 1983.
5. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to follow these instructions strictly. They are also requested to bring this position to the notice of all the appointing authorities/disciplinary authorities/suspending authorities under their administrative control.
sd/-
A.H. Someshwar
Deputy Secretary to Government
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules).
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÀASÉå: r¦JDgï 41 J¸ïrE 83 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
«zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 16ŠCUÀ¸ïÖ 83.
C¢üPÀøvÀ eÕÁ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ
«μÀAiÀÄ: MAzÀÄ ªÀμÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÉƼÀUÉ ¤ªÀøwÛ ºÉÆAzÀ°gÀĪÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼ÀÄŠEªÀÅUÀ¼À ²ÃWÀæ «¯ÉêÁjUÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ.
¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ DyðPÀ ºÁ¤ vÀgÀĪÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹, G½zÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ºÀÆrgÀĪÀ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊ©qÀĪÀAvÉ C£ÉÃPÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EwÛÃaUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ §gÀÄvÀÛ°ªÉ. EzÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt, EAvÀºÀ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ¥ÀÅà ºÉÆj¸À®àlÖ ¸ÀPÁðj C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÀøvÀÛgÁUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀ¢zÀÄÝzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CAvÀºÀ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ¤ªÀøwÛ ºÉÆA¢zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«®èzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ, EAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è PÁ®«ÄwAiÉƼÀUÉ «μÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀ滹, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£Àgï «ªÀIJ𹠲ÃWÀæ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîªÀÅzÀÄ CvÀåªÀ±ÀåPÀ.
2. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ J¯Áè ²¸ÀÄÛ¥Á®£Á ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ (r¹¦è£Àj CxÁjnøï) EzÀPÉÌ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀĪÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ «ªÀgÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À wAUÀ¼À 5£Éà ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ M¼ÀUÁV F PɼÀUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
UÀÆæ¥ï '¹' ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÆæ¥ï 'r' ªÀUÀðPÉÌ E¯ÁSÁ
¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ
«ªÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ.
UÀÆæ¥ï '©' ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ
¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ
«ªÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ. PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ½UÉ
E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÁªÉà ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹gÀĪÀ vÀ¤SÁ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ªÀiÁ¹PÀ «ªÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃj¹ CAxÀºÁ J¯Áè ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅ£Àgï «ªÀIJð¹, E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀøvÀÛgÁUÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ DzÉò¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
CAvÉAiÉÄà ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄzÀ J¯Áè E¯ÁSÁ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀÆæ¥ï 'J' ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÆæ¥ï '©' C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ CAxÀºÀ J¯Áè E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ ¥ÀÅ£Àgï «ªÀIJð¹, £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀøwÛ ºÉÆAzÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
4. E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß J¯Áè ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Àj¥Á®£Á ¥Áæ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
¸À»/Š
ªÉÄÊ.PÀø. ªÉAPÀmÉñÀ£ï,
C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 55 SDE 83 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 14th November 1983
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Review of disciplinary cases which are pending finalisation-further instructions regarding.
Ref:- 1) Circular No. GAD 131 OOM 66 Dt. 21/12/66.
2) O.M. No. GAD 28 MAR 72, dated 30/5/72.
3) Circular No. DPAR 21 SDE 83 dated 1.6.83.
Consequent on the prescription in the Circular cited at (3) above of monthly returns to indicate the number of suspension/inquiry cases pending, the quarterly returns prescribed in the Circular cited at (1) above may be discontinued. However, the special Register prescribed in Annexure I to the Circular cited at (1) above should be continued to be maintained.
2) The review of the quarterly return prescribed in the O.M cited at (2) above may now be undertaken in respect of the monthly return prescribed in the Circular cited at (3) above.
3) The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring this position to the notice of all the Appointing Authorities/Disciplinary Authorities/Suspending authorities under their administrative control.
sd/-
A.H. Someshwar
Joint Secretary to Government,
Dept. of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 8 SDE 84 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 14th March 1984.
CIRCULAR
Sub:- Defending the cases/suits filed in Courts against Government-Instructions-reg.
Government have come across cases in which suits filed against Government Departments were decided ex-parte on the ground that the Government Pleaders authorised by Government to defend the suits did not appeal on the dates of hearing. Another reason for such a situation is that the defendant Heads of Departments do not pursue the suits/cases with Government Pleaders with proper care and ensure effective defence.
Departmental Heads as defendants to suits are responsible to see that effective steps are taken in time to defend the cases, giving no room for any laxity on their part in pursuing the cases with Government counsels. Government, therefore direct that in cases/suits filed against Government in Courts, the concerned Heads of Departments and Officers should take necessary action to defend by providing timely assistance to the defence counsels authorised by Government and pursue the cases till they are heard and decided by the Courts.
The Secretaries to Government are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of the Heads of Departments and all other concerned Officers/Officials. The Secretary, Department of Law and Parly. Affairs in particular is requested to issue suitable instructions to the District Government Pleaders.
sd/-
A.H. Someshwar
Joint Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
No. DPAR 12 SDE 83, BANGALORE DATED THE 21st APRIL, 1984.
Sub:- Suspension of Government Servants and their promotions pending inquiries instructions regarding.
In the O.M.No. GAD 21 SSR 65 dated 26-2-1965 certain guidelines were issued indicating certain circumstances under which Government servants might be placed under suspension, Government have further examined this matter and in modification of the earlier instructions the following instructions are issued for the guidance of the appointing/disciplinary authorities.
Circumstances under which Government servants may be placed under suspension:
(i) Where an accused Government servant if continued in service is likely to temper with witnesses or documents, shifting him to another station or post should first be considered. If it is still apprehended that he is likely to temper with witnesses or documents, he should be placed under suspension.
(ii) When a Government servant is prosecuted for any offence committed in the course of his duty and which involves moral turpitude;
(iii) Government servants caught red-handed while receiving illegal gratification;
(iv) In certain situations where continuance of Government servant in service during investigation/inquiry is considered not desirable, the Government servant may be given the option to proceed on leave. Alternatively, he may be placed under suspension;
(v) When the Vigilance Commission recommends placing a Government servant under suspension, the recommendation should be examined in the light of points (i) to (iv) above and decision taken accordingly.
Period for which suspension should be continued pending investigation/inquiry
The period of suspension should be limited as indicated below:
(a) Where a Government servant is placed under suspension pending investigation, if investigation is not completed within six months, he should be reinstated. In such a case, if at the end of the investigation a Prima facie case is established there would be no objection to suspend him again pending inquiry/trial.
(b) Where suspension is ordered or continued pending inquiry or trial, suspension should be revoked if inquiry/trial is not commenced within three months or the inquiry/trial even though commenced within 3 months, is not completed within nine months from its commencement.
Promotion of Government Servants Against whom inquiries are pending.
In O.M. No. GAD (SI) 56 SSR 59 dated 9/10/59 as modified in O.M No. GAD 80 SSR 65 dated 11/4/66 it was clarified that unless a Government servant is placed under suspension the mere fact that a departmental inquiry is pending against him, is no bar for considering his case for promotion. In further amplification of these instructions Government servant against whom inquiry is pending may be considered for promotion without reference to the pending enquiries and if he is otherwise found to be eligible, he should be promoted subject to the condition that the promotion would be reviewed at the conclusion of the inquiry based on the findings in the inquiry.
The Secretaries to the Government and Heads of Department are requested to follow these instructions and to bring them to the notice of all the appointing authorities/disciplinary authorities/suspending authorities under their administrative control.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv.
Reforms, (Service Rules)
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
¸ÀASÉå: r¦Jgï 33 J¸ïrE 83 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ,
«zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 24£Éà ªÉÄà 1984.
C¢üPÀøvÀ eÕÁ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ
«μÀAiÀÄ: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVðÃPÀgÀt ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¦Ã®Ä) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957gÀ ¤ªÀøwÛ DUÀ°gÀĪÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇtðUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ CªÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆrzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ¤ªÀøwÛAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼À 214 (J) ¤AiÀĪÀÄPÉÌ M¼À¥ÀlÖªÀÅUÀ¼À£Àß®èzÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¹«¯ï ¸ÉêÁ (ªÀVðÃPÀgÀt, ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¦Ã®Ä) ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ, 1957gÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt F ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
2. ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀ£ÀÄ ¤ªÀøwÛAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀÆqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ DyðPÀ ºÁ¤ GAmÁV®èªÉA§ PÁgÀtzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É »AzÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÉÌ §gÀÄwÛªÉ.
3. EvÀåxÀðªÁUÀzÉà G½¢gÀĪÀ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇwðUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ EAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è DUÀĪÀ «¼ÀA§ªÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¸À®Ä MAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ «ªÀgÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ C¢üPÀøvÀ eÕÁ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: r¦JDgï 41 J¸ïrE 83 ¢£ÁAPÀ 16Š8Š1983gÀ°è ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
4. E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ F C¢üPÀøvÀ eÕÁ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°ègÀĪÀAvÉ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è EAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ GzÀ㫸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÉÄÃAiÀĪÀÅ MzÀV §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
5. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16Š8Š1983gÀ C¢üPÀøvÀ eÕÁ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¤ªÀøwÛ DUÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀÆqÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ E¯ÁSÁ vÀ¤SÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀøwÛ DUÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAZÉ EvÀåxÀðªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ E¯ÁSÁ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ½UÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EAvÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §AzÀgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß wêÀðªÁV ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¸À»/Š
JA.JA. £ÁAiÀiïÌ
G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ,
(¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 12 SDE 83 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated, 21st June 1984
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Reinstatement of Government servants placed under suspension at the request of the State Vigilance Commission.
Ref:- 1. Circular No. DPAR 71 PVC 78 dated 17-7-1979.
2. O.M. No. DPAR 12 SDE 83 dated 21-4-1984
Government reviewed the policy in respect of suspension of Government servants and revocation of suspensions etc. and on such review, issued revised instructions/guidelines (vide O.M. No. DPAR 12 SDE 83 dated 21-4-1984) indicating the circumstances under which Government servants might be placed under suspension, the time after which suspensions might be revoked, pending investigations/inquiries against them.
These revised instructions or guidelines have also to be applied to the cases where Government servants are placed under suspension at the instance of Karnataka State Vigilance Commission and their reinstatement after revocation of the suspension. As a result, it would be no more necessary to consult the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission in the matter of revocation of suspensions of Government servants ordered at the instance of the Commission as specified in the Circular No. DPAR 71 PVC 78, dated 17-7-1979 and hence, the said Circular is hereby rescinded.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 16 SDE 84 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 2nd Aug. 1984
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Departmental Inquiry under rule 11 of the K.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957-entrusting the cases to the Officers of Karnataka State Vigilance Commission.
Ref:- O.M. No. DPAR 5 SSR 79 dated 8/7/81 and 17/8/81.
In O.M. No DPAR 5 SSR 79 dated 8/7/81 it was directed that in the departmental inquiry cases initiated against Government servants at the level of Government and at the level of Heads of Departments the Officers of Karnataka Vigilance Commission should be appointed as Inquiry Officers. It was further clarified in the O.M dated 17/8/81 that only cases instituted under rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, should be referred to the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission and not those initiated under rule 12 of these rules.
The Vigilance Commission has brought to the notice of Government that in a good number of disciplinary cases initiated by the Heads of Departments under rule 11 of these rules and entrusted to the officers of the Commission for conducting inquiry, the charges are of simple nature requiring action under rule 12 of the rules and that cases are referred to the Commission, mechanically by the Disciplinary authorities without examining the nature of charges to decide whether a case calls for a major or minor punishment.
Rule 11 of the rules deals with the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authorities for imposing major penalties and rule 12 deals with that for imposing minor penalties. It should not be difficult for the Disciplinary Authorities to understand and decide whether a case on hand warrants a procedure for imposing major penalties or minor penalties if they apply their mind to go through all the important facts and circumstances of the case. Depending on the nature of charges and other circumstances the Disciplinary Authorities should be able to decide whether the cases call for a major or minor punishment. Only such cases as in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority calling for imposition of a major punishment should be initiated under rule 11 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and entrusted to the officers of the Vigilance Commission for inquiry in accordance with the Official Memorandum referred to above.
Merely referring all types of cases mechanically to the Commission without proper application of mind would not only cause a lot of inconvenience to the Government servants involved in such inquiries but also burden the Commission with unnecessary work.
It is therefore impressed on the Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments that they should assess the gravity of charge and come to a specific conclusion whether it does requires imposition of a major penalty if the charge is proved and refer only such a case to the officers of the Commission.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 30 SDE 84 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 27th Nov. 1984.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Joint Inquiry against Govt. servants under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
According to the provisions contained under Rule 13 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Government or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceedings.
2. Whenever an order for holding a Joint Inquiry under the said rule is passed, such order should also specify-
i) The authority which may function as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of such common proceedings;
ii) The procedure to be followed; and
iii) The penalties specified in Rule 8 of the said rules which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose.
3. A case has come to the notice of Government where a Joint Inquiry was ordered but the penalties which the Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose and the penalties in respect of which it has to refer the case to higher authorities are not mentioned. A defective order of the above kind may vitiate the entire further proceedings.
4. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bear in mind the requirement of the rules as explained above while passing orders to hold Joint Inquiries under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. They are also requested to bring this to the notice of all the appointing authorities and other officers under their administrative control who are empowered to make orders under rule 13 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Joint Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 43 SDE 84 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 14th Feb. 1985
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Review of disciplinary cases which are pending finalisation-prescription of quarterly progress report.
Ref:- 1. Circular DPAR 24 SDE 83 dated 1.6.1983
2. O.M. No. DPAR 12 SDE 83 dated 21/4/1984.
In Circular dated 1/6/83 referred to above a preforma has been prescribed to furnish information every month about disciplinary cases which are pending finalisation. Instructions were also issued for reviewing all such cases regularly.
2) In the O.M. dated 21st April 84, guidelines have been provided for revoking suspension of Government servants who are placed under suspension pending enquiry/trial. According to these guidelines where a Government servant is placed under suspension pending investigation and if investigation is not completed within six months he should be reinstated. It has also been made clear therein that where suspension is ordered or continued, pending inquiry or trial, the suspension should be revoked if the inquiry/trial is not commenced within three months or the inquiry/trial even though commenced within three months is not completed within nine months from its commencement.
3) The matter regarding submission of monthly reports prescribed in the Circular dated 1.6.83 has been reviewed further, taking into account what is stated in para 2 above and it is considered that quarterly reports should be prescribed instead of monthly reports prescribed in the Circular dated 1/6.1983. Accordingly, in supersession of the instructions issued in Circular dated 1.6.83 the following instructions are issued.
i) Heads of Departments may collect a progress reports in the proforma attached to this O.M. from disciplinary authorities and undertake a review of these cases in the light of the instructions contained in O.M dated 21/4/84. Appropriate instructions to the concerned authorities may be issued for finalising the pending cases expeditiously.
ii) A statement for the entire department may be prepared in the same proforma and submitted to the concerned administrative Secretariat Department by the 10th of the month following the quarter for which the statement is prepared.
iii) The Secretaries to Government in the administrative department may have a consolidated statement prepared in the same proforma, including-
a) the details received from the Heads of Departments under their administrative control ; and
b) the cases pending at Secretariat level.
They may also issue appropriate instructions to the concerned Heads of Departments/Secretariat Officers with whom the number of pending departmental inquiry (including suspension cases) is very high. The statement may thereafter sent to the Additional Chief Secretary so as to reach him by the 20th day of the month following the quarter.
4) The first such report to be furnished in the matter should be for the quarter ending on 31st March 1985.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Joint Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
Statement of inquiry Cases/trial cases including suspension) cases pending in the Department of the ……………………………. for the quarter ending ………………………..
Part-I Suspension cases
Break up of col.5
No of Govt. Servants
under suspension
at the end of
previous quarter
No. of Govt.
servants placed
under suspension
during the
quarter
Total
No of suspended
Govt. servant
reinstated in
service during
the quarter
Balance
Over 3
months
Over 6 months
Over 9
months
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Part-II Inquiry cases
Break up of col. 5
No of D.E Cases/
prosecution cases
pending at the end
of the previous
quarter
No. D.E. Cases/
prosecution cases
instituted during
the quarter
Total
No of cases
finalised and
orders issued
during the
quarter
Balance
Over 3
months
Over 6
months
Over 9
months
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Note Below : For purposes of this statement D.E. casess means cases in which articles of charges have been served on Govt. Servants or a notice under rule 12 of CCA Rule has been issued to Government servant and prosecution cases means cases in which charge sheet has been filed in Court.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 12 SDE 83 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 4th March 1985
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub: Suspension of Govt. servants and their promotions pending inquiries-Instructions regarding.
The para relating to period for which suspension should be continued pending investigation/inquiry, in the O.M. No. DPAR 12 SDE 83 dated 21st April 1984, shall be substituted by the following:
The period of suspension should be limited as indicated below:-
(a) Where a Government servant is placed under suspension before the commencement of investigation into the allegations against him, he should be reinstated in service if the investigation is not completed within 6 months from the date of suspension. In such a case, if at the end of investigation a prima facie case is established, there is no objection to suspend him again before commencement of inquiry/trial.
(b) Where a Government servant is placed under suspension when the investigation is in progress, or at any time between conclusion of the investigation and commencement of inquiry/trial he should be reinstated in service if the inquiry/trial is not commenced within three months from the date of suspension;
(c) Where a Government servant is placed under suspension when the investigation/inquiry/trial is in progress or at any time between conclusion of the investigation and commencement of inquiry/trial, the period of his suspension should not extend beyond nine months from the date of commencement of the inquiry/trial or from the date of suspension whichever is later;
(d) The periods laid down in (a), (b) and (c) above for continuing a Government servant under suspension are only outer limits and do not prevent the appropriate authorities from reinstating the Government servant earlier if circumstances of the case warrant. Where a Government servant has been suspended by any authority other than the Government, the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 should be complied with.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Joint Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 13 SDE 85 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, Dated 3rd July 1985
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub: Suspension of Government Servants and their reinstatement.
Ref: 1) O.M. No: DPAR 12 SDE 83 dated: 21-4-1984.
2) O.M. No. DPAR 12 SDE 83 dated 04-03-1985.
In the official memoranda referred to above, certain guidelines were issued indicating circumstances under which Government Servants might be placed under suspension and the period for which suspension should be continued pending
investigation/inquiry. Government have further examined this matter and in supersession of the earlier instructions, the following instructions are issued for the guidance of the appointing/disciplinary authorities.
2. Circumstances under which Government servants may be placed under suspension:
i) Where continuance in office of the Government Servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (i.e. apprehended tampering with witnessess or documents)
ii) Where continuance in office of the Government Servants is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the Government Servant is working.
iii) Where the Government Servant is prosecuted for any offence committed in the course of his duty involving moral turpitude.
iv) Corruption embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money or money of a foreign employer under whom the Government Servant has worked on deputation or otherwise, possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers for personal gain.
v) serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to Government and to the foreign employer while the Government Servant had worked on deputation.
vi) return to duty after unauthorised absence.
vii) refusal, or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior officers.
3. Period of suspension: Rule 10 of the CCA Rules provides for placing a Government Servant under suspension where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending or where a case in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. It is thus permissible to place Govt. Servants under suspension even before the commencement of investigation into the allegations against him. Taking into account the above position, it is hereby directed that Govt. Servants placed under suspension should be reinstated in service if the stages of investigation or inquiry trial following the date of suspension are not adhered to according to the schedule below, namely, where-
a) the investigation or inquiry/trial into the allegations against Govt. Servants have not commenced within three months from the date of suspension;
b) the investigation into the allegations against Govt. Servants is not completed within six months from the date of commencement of the investigation;
c) the inquiry/trial has not commenced within three months on conclusion of the investigation;
d) the inquiry/trial has not concluded within twelve months from the date of commencement of the inquiry/trial or from the date of suspension whichever is later.
The period laid down for continuing a Govt. Servant under suspension is only outer limit and do not prevent the appropriate authorities from reinstating the Govt. Servant earlier if circumstances of the case warrant. Where a Govt. Servant has been suspended by any authority other than the Govt., the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 should be complied with.
4. Where any department, having regard to the gravity of the allegation and the complexity of the case in respect of the following types of cases is of the view that the time schedule laid down in the preceeding para cannot be adhered to and further continuance of the suspension of Govt. Servants is justified, such cases may be examined on their own merit and decision taken by the Minister concerned whether to continue suspension;
i) Moral turpitude;
ii) Corruption (including trap cases, embezzlement or misappropriation of money of Govt. or a foreign employer, possession of disproportionate assets and misuse of official power for personal gain);
(iii)Refusal or deliberate failure to carry out Written orders of superior officers
5. Promotion on during inquiry:- In O.M No: GAD (SI) 56 SSR 59 dated: 09-10-1959 as modified in O.M NO: GAD 80 SSR 65 dated: 11-04-1966, it was clarified that unless a Govt. Servant is placed under suspension, the mere fact that a departmental inquiry is pending against him, is no bar for considering his case for promotion. In further amplification of these instructions, a Govt. Servant against whom inquiry is pending may be considered for promotion without reference to the pending enquiries and if he is otherwise found to be eligible, he should be promoted subject to the condition that the promotion would be reviewed at the conclusion of the inquiry based on the findings in the inquiry.
6. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to follow these instructions and to bring them to the notice of all the appointing authorities/disciplinary authorities/suspending authorities under their administrative control.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Joint Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 14 SDE 85 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, Dated 5th July 1985
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub: Withholding of special increments such as stagnation increment or increment for passing departmental examinations as a measure of penalty under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 - Clarification regarding.
Under rule 8 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 "withholding of increments" is one of the penalties which may be imposed on a Government Servant for good and sufficient reasons.
2. Whether the increments referred to in the aforesaid rules shall also include increments such as stagnation increments and additional increments for passing departmental examinations granted to Government Servants, has been examined.
3. It is hereby clarified that taking the structure of increment as a whole, the increment referred to in rule 8 of the said rules refers to normal increments in time-scale of any posts and does not include special increments such as stagnation increment or increment for passing departmental examinations. Hence the increment other than the normal increment cannot be withheld as a measure of penalty under the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. In cases where the penalty of withholding of increments cannot be imposed as a measure of penalty on a Government Servant for the reason that he has already reached the maximum of the pay scale, the disciplinary authority may consider the question of imposing any other minor penalties including the reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale of pay.
4. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the appointing authorities and other disciplinary authorities under their administrative control for guidance.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Joint Secretary to Government
Department and Personnel and Admnv. Reforms
(Service Rules)