1000, TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -152
636. CHARGE SHEET
Vocabulary used in the charge-sheet should not give impression that Disciplinary Authority has already made up his mind that allegations stand proved, meaning thereby that formulations should not be couched in definite statements, Charge Sheet which is not couched in proper language would suggest that the charge-sheet represents a mala fide disciplinary proceedings, or an exercise in personal vindictiveness. – Nabi’s
Charges and imputations should confine to the period for which investigation has been carried out. Inclusion of old and stale charges smacks of vindictiveness.
Charge-sheet should be issued only when all the supporting evidences are available in the custody of Disciplinary Authority. The practice of collecting the listed documents by the Presenting Officer after issuing the charge sheet should be done away with as this results into delay.
It is not the function of the Presenting Officer to search for and locate evidence, which would imply that the charge-sheet was issued originally without supporting evidence and on this account Charged Official will raise objections.
637. Amendment to Charge-sheet
The disciplinary authority has the inherent power to review and modify the article of charge or drop some of the charges or all the charges after the receipt and examination of the written statement of defence submitted by the accused Government servant under rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
During the course of inquiry, if it is found necessary to amend the charge-sheet, it is permissible to do so, provided a fresh opportunity is given to the Charged Official in respect of the amended charge sheet. The Inquiring Authority may hold the inquiry again from the stage considered necessary so that the Charged Official should have a reasonable opportunity to submit his defence or produce his witnesses in respect of the amended charge-sheet.
If there is, however, a major change in the charge-sheet, it would be desirable to hold fresh proceedings on the basis of the amended charge-sheet.
The authority had dropped the charges initially framed on the ground of a technical flaw, it would be open to him to once again frame charges. Instructions issued by the Director-General, P&T require that reasons should be given for cancellation of original charge-sheet or for dropping the proceedings and it must be stated that the proceedings are being dropped without prejudice to further action. `
The original order directing the framing of the charges was initially passed by the appellate authority and not by the disciplinary authority and it was in these circumstances the first charge memo held to be rescinded and a subsequent charge memo issued by the disciplinary authority. No mala fides or colourable exercise of power is attributed in seeking to reopen the case. [P. Malliah vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, 1989 (2) SLR CAT Hyd. 282]
638. Charge – Typographical Error
Communication of corrigendum to charge-sheet correcting a typographical error, by a deputy of competent authority does not constitute any irregularity or illegality. (Paresh Nath vs. Senior Supdt., R.M.S., 1987 (1) SLR CAT All. 531]
CVC has advised vide their letter No.4/4/75-R dated 04.01.1977 that the article of charge should first state the plain facts leading to the charge and then only the particular provision in the conduct rules which has been violated need be mentioned.
Drafter of the charge-sheet must remember that disciplinary proceedings can be drawn up and initiated for “good and sufficient reasons” vide preamble of Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
639. Authenticity Certification
There is a doubt in the minds of the disciplinary authorities as to whether only forwarding memorandum of the charge-sheet needs to be signed or all the annexures. The Ministry of Law have advised' that the annexures having been referred to in the Memorandum need not be signed.
640. CVC's Guidelines regarding Framing of Charge-Sheet - (Relevant Extracts from the Vigilance Manual)
The articles of charge should be framed with great care. The following guide lines will be of help :
(a) Each charge should be expressed in clear and precise terms; it should not be vague;
(b) If a transaction/event amounts to more than one type of misconduct then all the misconducts should be mentioned;
(c) If a transaction/event shows that the public servant must be guilty of one or the other of misconducts, depending on one or the other set of circumstances, then the charge can be in the alternative;
(d) A separate charge should be framed in respect of each separate transaction/event or a series of related transactions/events amounting to misconduct/misbehaviour;
(e) Multiplication or splitting up of charges on the basis of the same allegation should be avoided;
(f) The wording of the charge should not appear to be an expression of opinion as to the guilt of the accused;
(g) A charge should not relate to a matter which has already been the subject-matter of an inquiry and decision, unless it is based on benefit of doubt or on technical considerations;
(h) A charge should not refer to the report on Preliminary Investigation or the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission;
(i) The articles of charge should first give the plain facts leading to the charge and then only at the end of it mention the nature of misconduct/misbehaviour (violation of Conduct Rules, etc.);
(j) A charge really answers the questions 'who', 'whať, 'when' and 'where' relating to a transaction/event amounting to misconduct misbehaviour. The statement of imputations answers the question 'how'. When we are considering the imputations or when the defence is replying, the question 'why' becomes relevant;
(k) A charge should briefly, clearly and precisely identify the misconduct/misbehaviour. It should also give time, place and persons or things involved so that charged official has clear notice of his involvement;
(l) If a transaction/event amounts to more than one type of misconduct then all the misconduct should be mentioned;
(m) The wording of the charge should not appear to be an expression of Disciplinary Authority's opinion as to the guilt of the SPSs;
(n) A charge should not relate to a matter which has already been the subject matter of an inquiry resulting in conviction/punishment or acquittal/exoneration unless it is based on benefit of doubt or on technical considerations;
(0) The statement of imputations should cover all specific and relevant facts covering how acts of commission and omission took place and include admissions of the charged official, if any. In particular, in cases of any misconduct/misbehaviour, it should mention the conduct/behaviour expected or the rule violated. It should be precise and factual. In particular, it would be improper to call an investigating Officer's report a statement of imputations. While drafting the statement of imputations, it would not be proper to mention the defence and enter into a discussion of the merits of the case. Wording of the imputations should be clear enough to justify the imputations inspite of the likely version of the charged official.
N.B. : (a) to (i) Para 14.2 of Chapter X of CVC Vigilance Manual Vol. 1 (Fifth Edition) () to (o) Para 5.4 to 5.7 of CVC Vigilance Handbook (1982).
Post a Comment