211. Daily Rules Recap - Irregular audit objections in case of fixation of pay after the end of minor penalty of reduction of pay
• In such cases, mostly the objections were based on the DOPT OM No.6/3/2013-Estt (Pay I) dated 6.2.2014 because in the said OM did not have the illustration on Rule 16 cases about reduction of pay.
• The DOPT vide its order under OM No.11012/15/2016-Estt A III dated 18.6.2019 subsequently rectified the mistake in its earlier order dated 6.2.2014 and added the illustration for such cases under Rule 16 punishments.
• The 6.2.2014 order became obsolete due to the amendments given by the DOPT in the subsequent order dated 18.6.2019 in which illustration for minor penalty reduction of pay has been furnished.
• According to FR 29 (1), if the pay of a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower stage in his time scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state in the proceeding orders about the period for which it shall be effective and whether on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate in postponing the future increment and is so to what extent.
• In accordance with the M.F. O.M.No F2(34) E III/59 dated 17.8.1959 and 9th June 1960 under Para(b), the question as to what should be the pay of the Govt servant on the expiry of the period of reduction shall be decided as follows:
(i) If the original order of reduction lays down that the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone future increments or is silent on this point, the Govt servant should be allowed the pay which he would have drawn in normal course but for reduction.
• In most of the memos, the Disciplinary authority had specifically mentioned that the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay.
• The Audit in most of the places are being raised the objection and regulated the pay as per the verification memo by citing OM No. 6/3/2013- Estt (Pay) dated 6.2.2014. by citing the example of 2-A of the O.M. No 6/3/2013 dated 6.2.2014.
• The example cited is contrary to the statutory rules under FR 29(1). No one is having the right either to violate, disobey or misinterpret the statutory rules by citing the instructions.
• The DOPT, understanding the wrong issue of illustration in the Memo cited above dated 6.2.2014 which has not made illustrations separately for the both the reductions with cumulative effect and without cumulative effect separately and made one for both the cases in the said memo
• In order to rectify the errors in the said memo has now released the OM dated 18.6.2019 in which under example 6 ie. Reduction to a lower stage without cumulative effect (penalty under Rule 11 (vi) and the same is applied the objection raised by the DA(P) will be proved as wrong.
• However the irregular fixation of pay after the end of punishment was manyn in Tamilandu Circle duly sticking on the 2014 DOPT illustrations.
• The Tamilnadu P3 NFPE union took the issued with the CPMG who in turn sought clarification from the DOPT.
• Now the DOPT vide its ID Note No.11012/02/2024-PP.AIII darted 24.5.2024 clarified that minor penalty should not in may impact the pension and regulate the pay fixation as per the illustrations as per the 18.6.2019 orders.
• The CPMG Tamilnadu communicated to settle all the similar cases.
(DG (P) No. 02-01/2023 – PAP dated 28.5.2024)
Post a Comment