C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – AN INTRODUCTION
III. Learn Conduct rules through Judicial
judgments
6. Acts of negligence, errors of judgment
or innocent mistakes committed by a Government servant cannot be treated as
misconduct
Held: The learned counsel for the
applicant relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India V. J. Ahmed [AIR 1979 SC 1022]. It has been held by the Supreme Court
quoting Strouds Judicial Dictionary that 'misconduct means, misconduct arising
from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistakes do
not constitute such misconduct'. In the instant case, it is only, if at all,
errors of judgment or mistake which cannot be treated as misconduct in the
context of the above. The learned Counsel for the applicant also relies
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Mishra v. State
of Orissa (1996 SLR SC 657]. As regards the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority in that decision, it was held that
If the Conservator of the Forests
wanted to use them, he should have apprised him of his own attitude and given
him an adequate opportunity. Since the opportunity was not given, the order of
the Conservator of Forests modified by the State Government cannot be upheld.
We, accordingly set aside the order and remit the case to the Conservator of
Forests for dealing with it in accordance with law".
On a reading of the charge-sheet
framed against the applicant, we find that it was alleged that he had committed
gross misconduct under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules having been negligent
and careless while exercising his power in supervisory powers over the
subordinate staff and the unit in question. Even if it is accepted that the
applicant was negligent and careless as alleged by the respondents that would
not constitute a misconduct. In the case before us, all that is alleged in
the charge-sheet is that the applicant was negligent and careless in proper discharge
of his duties as a Supervisory Officer. It is curious to note that it is
nowhere mentioned as to what was the resultant damage caused because of such
negligence or carelessness. From the averment in the charge-sheet, the
degree of culpability as observed by the Supreme Court cannot be assessed. In
the absence of that, we are constrained to hold that the allegations made
against the applicant would not constitute misconduct so as to initiate a
disciplinary inquiry against the Government servant. Judging the case from that
standpoint, we hold that the charge-sheet and the disciplinary inquiry started
against the applicant cannot be allowed to stand.
[Purushottam Sadashiv Kakirde v. Union of the India and others; 0.A. No.426 of 1991; decided on 25.1.1995; Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench; No. 234 of Swamy's Case-Law Digest, 1995/1.]
I HOPE YOU WOULD HAVE ENJOYED WITH THE
INTERPRETATIONS AND
PLEASE READ THE WORDS IN THE PRE PARAS
WITH BOLDNESS TWICE OR THRICE TILL ABSORBED IN YOUR MIND.
Ok sir follow as per your guidance 🙏
ReplyDelete