30th June retirees case - Supreme Court passed comments- noncompliance costs as well as interest may be imposed.

A need for immediate debate and interaction is inevitable under the present context of punishing the innocents on the pretext of contributory factors and also by misusing the Rule 3 (1) (i) and (iii) of CCS (conduct) Rules 1964, the unbecoming of the Government Servant.

Recoveries on alleged grounds of so-called contributory negligence are increasing day by day. The officers follow only one Rule-the inhuman Rule of recovering the entire losses sustained by the Government from the innocent employees foisting on the unfortunates some charge or other. 

During my visit to Bhimavaram this month I could see the entire officials in the division were in panic and shedding tears on the proposed action to recover lakhs of rupees towards overpayment of TPF interest which is not at the fault of the officials but due to the ambiguity still existing in the clarificatory orders and also main rules. The SSPOs mercilessly proceeded Rule 14 Charges on the last week of one senior official before Superannuation and dropped the Charges after the official credited a huge amount.
At the beginning of this month in Bilaspur, on the basis of a complaint made by the Divisional administration against a MPKBY agent at police Station, the innocent APM counter was taken into police custody for interrogation and remained in Jail over 15 days. There is a total turmoil and panic in the entire Circle resulting to declaration an indefinite strike in the division from 1st July'08.

In Varnasi West division, many innocents retired with the heavy brunt of recoveries and the guilty is receiving the subsistence allowance regularly every month. This is the regular feature and more such cases are prevailing in the entire nation. The Rules 11 (A) of CCS (CCA) Rules state the recovery be made only if the official is directly responsible or the Rule 107 & 108 of volume III about consideration of extenuating nature while imposing recovery were merely on the books and volumes and not applied in any case. Even the Rule 204 A (i) of volume III which stipulates to condone the honest errors if the official has acted in good faith and done his best up to the limits of his ability and experience become invisible to the jaundiced eyes of officers.

In general, the charges are usually framed that the employees did not adhere to this or that rule in the discharge of duties. All these rules are quoted only when a loss occurs. The other rules like providing adequate manpower as per the standards are sidelined. Even the question of basic working conditions provided by them will permit the employees concerned to observe the rules that do not come to their mind before ordering inhuman recoveries. The innocents are the victims and scapegoats and the fraudulent and guilty are scat free from the scene in most of the cases.

There is the other side of the disciplinary cases in protracting the delay and causing tension and mental agony to the charged officials. Dilatory tactics are adopted in Disciplinary Proceedings in order to fabricate the evidence or even they wait for instructions from higher quarters on the nature of the moves they have to make.

Such delay, in most cases, amount to harassment to the official concerned. A delinquent official is completely helpless to fight out the delay and consequent suffering that may be forced upon him. But the disciplinary authority is fully armed to cut short any delay he wants. From the issue of charge sheet to the issue of show cause notice, he can prescribe time limits at every stage of the entire proceedings, by which to receive the reply from the delinquent official. He is fully authorised to decide a case exparte when the reply from the official is not received in time.

All along our complaint has been that the employees do not receive justice at the hands of the bureaucracy in the existing procedure of conducting disciplinary proceedings in the midst of abrupt misuse of powers by invoking the rule 3 (1) (i) as a weapon to punish the officials by hook or crook. 
We should demand the appointment of the Appellate Committee consisting one or two members of the staff side in each circles to review the decisions of the disciplinary authority  if appealed by the charged official. The review of appeal it is even though in the hands of Bureaucracy, the staff side should have a say in the decision and armed with the right to intervene effectively in case of any misuse of disciplinary powers by any officer. The undue punishment awarded may be undone by such committee.      
The Supreme Court's Historical judgement in the C. A No 2168 of 2006 dt. 21.04.2006 pronouncing that " when an officer who exercised judicial or Quasi judicial powers acting negligently or recklessly could be proceeded against by way of disciplinary action" should be brought as a rule to arrest menace and put a check to the inhuman officers misusing the Disciplinary rules & also acting excessively and punishing the innocents on flimsy reasons under the unbecoming of Government servants and on contributory factors. 

Let us demand an appellate Committee at Circle/All India level instead of vesting the power with single officer and also seek nomination from the staff side as members of the said committee. 

 
Let us demand this to save our class from the clutches of exploitation under the contributory factors and unbecoming of the Govt. Servant.

(Kayveeyes - Editorial Bhartiya Post July 2008)