Model Representation 10 - Action against officers for misuse of Quasi judicial powers

One divisional Secretary was issued Rule 14 charge sheet on the last day of his superannuation to convert his case under Rule 8. It is sheer victimization and nothing but settling scores for his genuine trade union activities. After the intervention, his charge sheet was dropped. The CHQ/Circle Union may take up the case to initiate action under CCS CCA Rules against the officer who initiated the charges on the last working day of the officials. Misuse of quasi judicial power is not allowed and it can be challenged. Please take only the notes; if necessary, you can use the same when the situation warrants.

*************

Sub:    Whimsical, negligent exercise and misuse of disciplinary powers which are quasi-judicial exercises by Sri ……, SSPOs, ………… division under ……….. Circle rendering him liable for disciplinary action – reg.

Sir,

While thanking the kind gesture in set asiding the Rule 14 case which was inflicted against Sri ……….., Divisional Secretary……………. of this organisation on flimsy and fabricated reasons with the false, deceitful and irregular guidance of the regional administration as an act of vendetta against him for his genuine trade union activities, with the finding that the charges are unsustainable, we wish to place on record that the said officer must be proceeded with disciplinary action for the misuse of his quasi judicial power in this case.

The said officer has blemished the reputation of the union and also the chief executive of the divisional union of this union unwarrantly and caused irreparable damage to the organisation which cannot be ignored and allowed to leave. The irregular action of the SSPOs, …….. has caused an everlasting damage to the reputation of the Divisional Secretary of this organisation in his personal career by pasting the Rule 14 charge sheet at the home of his village in his absence on medical leave prior to the date of his superannuation on ………….

We may point out that the rules operate equally for everybody and as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed: -- howsoever great a person might be, the rules are above him.  You will kindly agree that if an officer proceeds against employees for minor errors or bit of delay taking refuge under Rule 3 (i) (ii) (iii) of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964, the same officer can also be and must be proceeded against for violation of rules and violation of Conduct Rules, 1964.

We would like to invite your kind attention to the instructions issued vide DO P&T OM No. 11013/10/93-Estt. (A) dated 06-10-1993 which has also been published as Government of India's instruction No. (3) below Rule 11 in the Swamys Compilation of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.  The said OM reads as follows:-

"In M.H.A. OM No. 41/2/55 (II) –Estt. (A) dated the 23^rd April 1955, instructions were issued emphasizing the need for Government servants, especially those holding positions of trust and responsibility, remaining not only honest and impartial in the discharge of their duties but also having the reputation of being so. Despite these instructions it is not uncommon that complaints of favouritism or ill-will shown by officers in supervisory positions towards their subordinates or other members of public are received every now and then.

While reiterating the instructions issued in the MHA, OM referred to above, it is again stressed that a Government servant must be impartial and must not show undue favour or ill-will in his official dealings.  If a Government servant is found to misuse his official position or abet and connive at improper and illegal acts, he would render himself liable for disciplinary action for violation of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

We may invite a reference to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2168 of 2006 Union of India and others vs. Dulichand {(2006) 5 Supreme Court cases 680)} wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that disciplinary action can be taken against an employee on the ground that the employee had been found grossly negligent while discharging his quasi-judicial functions.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to judgement of the same court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan {(1993) 2 SCC 56; 1993 SCC (LLS) 325; (1993) 24 ATC I)} and said, " the court used six instances when such action could be taken: (SCC P 67, Para 28)

"28. (i) where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or good faith devotion to duty.

(ii) if there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his duties.

(iii) if he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant.

(iv) if he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential for exercise of the statutory powers.

(v) if he had acted in order to unduly favour a party.

(vi) if he had activated by corrupt motive, however small the bribe may be because Lord Coke said long ago, 'though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great."

Now, we would like to enumerate some instances of negligent exercise of quasi-judicial statutory powers by the said Sri ………,Senior  Superintendent of Post Offices, …….. division which prima facie show that he has not only acted negligently but has seriously violated the provisions of rules, has been nursing undue ill will against the Divisional secretary of this Union and has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. You will kindly agree that deliberate violation of rules to cause undue harm to anybody is not only unethical but also a criminal act.  The instances are illustrative and not exhaustive. These are:-

(Note: THE DETAILS OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS NOT FURNISHED HERE)

(a)  No show cause has been given to the official before issuing the Rule 14 charge sheet on the date of his superannuation and no reasonable opportunity has been provided to him to defend his case prior to issue of Rule 14 charge sheet.

(b)  Without providing any opportunities issuing charge sheet directly on the date of his retirement itself shows the vindictive action of the divisional head duly misusing his quasi judicial power. He would have initiated action if there is any prima facie and in this case the charges are fabricated and concocted with the definite purpose to defame the Divisional Secretary of this organisation.

(c)  There is no other charges as if the official has suppressed the information about his ………….. which is totally false and in the application itself it was mentioned that it is ………...  There is no question of suppression of facts since all the service books and all the records are very much available under him. 

Apart from there being a very whimsical action and gross misuse of rule 62 of P&T Manual Vol. III, in initiating the disciplinary action on the date of superannuation on fabricated charges is clear violation of Rule 11 (iii) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as amended vide notification F.No. 1112/5/2003-Estt (A) dated 23-08-2004 from the DO P&T.

If such a case, why the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, ……… division cannot be punished for violation of Rule 11 (iii) (a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965?  He is also guilty of violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 for misusing his powers against the official.

This instance provides sufficient ground for suitable disciplinary action against Sri …….. under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for his contemptuous violation of rules and instructions in keeping with the instructions in CCS (Conduct) Rules 1965 and judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

We, therefore, request you kindly to consider the entire things seriously and initiate immediate stern action so that it can be a deterrent for such others who function in such a negligent and whimsical manner.