One Day, One Minute, One Rule – 400 What instructions were issued by the Directorate regarding promotions to the Higher Selection Grade-I (Non-Functional Grade) [HSG-I (NFG)] in light of the proposed merger of the Postmaster cadre with the general line?

 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -279

Time-limit for taking decision. 
1085. Since disciplinary proceedings are of great concern to the charged employee whose fate hangs in balance, it shall be appropriate for disciplinary authority to take final decision without any avoidable delay. Taking quick and timely decisions is an essential part of good administration. In S.S. Rathore v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 10, a seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court prescribed six months as outer limit for deciding a departmental appeal. This indicates that the Supreme Court is desirous for early decisions in departmental proceedings. The Government of India in their O. M. No. 39/43/70-Estt.(A), dated 8.1.1971, issued by the Department of Personnel have prescribed that disciplinary authority should normally take final decision within three months. Though the provisions of this O.M. have been held to be directory [Union of India v. R.S. Saini , 1991 AIR SCW 745], this direction of the Government has to be followed as far as possible.

Until and unless the final order is issued it can be changed. 
1086. The respondent who was working as a Branch Manager with the appellant Bank was charge sheeted for temporary misappropriation and the Appointing authority took the view to impose the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. When the Chief Vigilance Officer of the bank was informed, he observed that more severe punishment was deserved in the case. Thereafter, the appointing authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. The plca of the employee was that the appointing authority having once taken a view could not change the penalty. The Supreme Court rejected the plea observing that since no order had been issued and communicated, there was nothing wrong in altering it. It was only after the issue of the order that the disciplinary authority becomes functus officio (State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, C.A. No. 4243 of 2004 decided on 2.5.2008]

ISSUE OF FINAL SPEAKING ORDERS
1087. The final order issued by the disciplinary authority should be clear, precise and unambiguous. Such an order must be complete in itself and is to be understood with reference to the language used in the order itself and cannot be construed in the light of any explanation subsequently given, as the Supreme Court has observed :
“Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanation subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself’ [Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji , AIR 1952 SC 16).