C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – AN INTRODUCTION
III. Learn Conduct rules through Judicial
judgments
1. Misconduct of departmental nature
It has been held by the Supreme Court
quoting Stround's Judicial Dictionary that 'misconduct' means, misconduct
arising from ill motive, acts of negligence; errors of judgment or innocent
mistakes do not constitute such misconduct.
2. What constitutes misconduct of a
Government servant
(i) The conduct which is blameworthy for
the Government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be misconduct.
(ii) Deficiencies in personal character or
personal ability like lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness
would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.
(iii) Competence for the post, capability to
hold the same efficiency requisite for a post, ability to discharge functions
attached to the post, are things different from some act or omission of the
holder of the post which may be styled as misconduct so as to incur the penalty
under the rules.
(iv) These qualities may be very relevant
while considering whether a person should be promoted to the higher post or not
or having been promoted, whether he should be retained in the higher post or
not or they may be relevant for deciding the competence of the person to hold
the post.
(v) Failure to attain the highest standard
of efficiency in performance of duty, permitting an inference of negligence
would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct
Rules, as would indicate lack of devotion to duty.
(vi) Gross or habitual negligence in
performance of duty may not involve mens rea, but still constitute misconduct
for disciplinary proceedings.
[Union of India and others v. ). Ahmed
(1979) SLJ 308 (S.C.); 1979 Lab IC 792; 1979 (2) Lab L.J. 14; 1979. SCC (Lab)
157; 1979(2) SCC 286; AIR 1979 SC 1022.]
3. What is "misconduct" -
Supreme Court's ruling
The word "misconduct” though not
capable of precise definition, its reflections receive its connotation from the
context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline
and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude; it must be improper
or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, wilful in character; forbidden act, a
transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but
not mere error of judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of the
duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality of character. Its ambit has
to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein
the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public
purpose it seeks to serve. Police service is a disciplined service and it
requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline
in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.
[State of Punjab v. Ram Singh,
Ex-Constable, ATR 1992 (2) SC; (1992) 21 ATC 43560
Note: The above two SC judgements can
be cited in the replies to the charge sheets when warranted. Another important
judgment about the charges of violation of rules should not be vague is
produced hereunder
4. Charge of the violation of Rule 3(1) of the Conduct Rules should not be vague
Rule 3 (1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules
is vague and of general nature. It is obligatory on the disciplinary authority
to specify and, if necessary, define with precision and accuracy what
constitutes a misconduct. Mere violation of a general provision such as
contained in Rule 3.(1) does no constitute a misconduct and no penalty can be
imposed for such violation. A charge that rests on the general definition
of failure to maintain absolute integrity as a public servant may not be
amenable to objective evaluation and may, therefore, lead to arbitrary and
unfair penalization of the public servant concerned. The impugned officer was
charged with not refunding the advance taken for housebuilding and not
returning the advance taken for purchasing motorcycle within the stipulated
time. He was removed from service after inquiry on the ground that the
violation of rules granting house building advance amounted to not maintaining
absolute integrity and thus he was found guilty of misconduct. The Supreme
Court held that the charge framed against the impugned employee did not
independently constitute misconduct and the description of failure to maintain
absolute integrity was vague and of a general nature that could not justify the
charge of misconduct. Moreover, rules for granting advances themselves provided
the consequences of breach of the rules. There was, therefore, no ground for
initiating disciplinary enquiry as the breach of the rules did not constitute
misconduct.
[ A.L.Kalra v. Project & Equipment
Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 S.C. 1361.]
Sir
ReplyDeleteThis blog sure to say best reference for those who want to gain knowledge
and writing replies.I salute for this effort 🙏