C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
COMMENCEMENT
OF PENAL ACTION FOR MISCONDUCT
I.
Principal
objectives of Preliminary Investigation Committee
The principal objective of a preliminary
investigation are to find out
(i) Who is responsible for the loss or
shortage of stores or cash, irregularity, negligence or fraud, etc.;
(ii) how the loss, storage, etc., occurred;
(iii) what rule or standing order to prevent
or guard against such loss, shortage, etc., were violated;
(iv) whether there is any defect or lacuna
in the extant rules or instructions or the procedure for proper accountable and
periodical check and supervision and if so, how such defect or lacuna should be
removed.
(v) Preliminary enquiries may take several
forms, depending on the judgment of the vigilance officers and the nature of
complaints.
(vi) The Vigilance Officers may ask for
explanations from the concerned employees; they may make physical inspections
of work; they may seek evidence from other departmental employee or from
persons outside the department (though most serious charges involving outside
persons will be referred to other investigating agencies like the Special
Police Establishment), they may examine records.
(vii) In some cases, preliminary inquiries
may be closed with the examination of the explanations submitted by the accused
officers. Very often, however, the veracity of such explanations will be
verified with the help of other methods of investigation.
II.
Types
of cases that are entrusted to the C.B.I.
(i) Allegations against a Government
servant involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, like
bribery, forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption, falsification
of records etc.
(ii) Possession of assets by a Government
servant beyond his known sources of income.
(iii) Allegations which involve inquiries
from non-official persons or non-Government records; and
(iv) Cases of complicated nature which call
for expert investigation,
(v) Once a case is referred to the C.B.I.
departmental authorities may not undertake departmental investigation in the
matter.
III.
Consultation
with the Central Vigilance Commission (C.V.C.)
i.
Advice
is tendered by the C.V.C. at two stages, viz. - First Stage Advice -The first
stage advice indicates the nature of action to be taken against a public
servant involved in cases having vigilance angle.The Commission may advice
(a)
closure of the case; or
(b)
prosecution; or
(c)
major or minor penalty proceedings; or
(d)
administrative action, e.g., warning, displeasure, etc. or
(e)
procedural improvements or review of existing rules and issue of administrative
instructions. Where the advice is for initiating major penalty proceedings, the
Commission may recommend the name of a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries
for appointment as the Inquiry Authority by the concerned Disciplinary
Authority.
2. Second Stage Advice- The second stage
consultation is necessary before a final decision is taken by the Disciplinary
Authority on the report of the Inquiring Authority. The Commission considers
the Inquiry Report and advices the Disciplinary Authority on the nature of the
penalty to be imposed. The Commission may advice the Disciplinary Authority to
impose a major penalty or a minor penalty or even exoneration. However, the
advice is not binding on the Disciplinary Authority.
Preliminary investigation may end in
informal corrective action instead of formal disciplinary proceedings. In some
cases, preliminary investigation may disclose doubtful degrees of culpability
on the part of officers accused of irregularities. In some others, preliminary
investigation may make out a prima facie case for the complaint but the
irregularity involved may not be of substantial character. Stray instances of
slackness in the performance of official duties, failure to observe the proper
administrative channels for official communications are examples of such
relatively minor official lapses. These are the cases where the officers
accused of irregularities cannot be exonerated from the allegation and yet
full-dressed disciplinary proceedings under the Service Rules for the further
testing of the complaint may be considered by the disciplinary authority as
unnecessary under the circumstances. In such situations, the disciplinary
authority would rather like to adopt a via media course by closing the
complaint with an informal corrective action administered on the concerned
officer than to take up the complaint to the further state of formal disciplinary
proceedings.
Sir
ReplyDeletePreliminary investigation and advice relating to CVC known through this posting 🙏