G.I., Dept. of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. F No. 11012/6/2007-Estt (AI11), dated 21-7-2016

Si­mul­ta­ne­ous ac­tion of pros­e­cu­tion and ini­ti­a­tion of de­part­men­tal pro­ceed­ings

Bureaucracy Today - - OFFICERS & GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS -

The un­der­signed is di­rected to re­fer to the Depart­ment of Per­son­nel and Train­ing OM of even num­ber, dated 1st Au­gust, 2007 on the above sub­ject and to say that in a re­cent case, Ajay Ku­mar Choudhary v Union of In­dia Through Its Sec­re­tary and an­other Civil Ap­peal No. 1912 of 2015, (JT 2015 (2) SC 487), 2015 (2) SCALE, the Apex Court has di­rected that the cur­rency of a Sus­pen­sion Or­der should not ex­tend be­yond three months if within this pe­riod a Mem­o­ran­dum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delin­quent of­fi­cer/em­ployee;

It is no­ticed that in many cases charge-sheets are not is­sued de­spite clear prima fa­cie ev­i­dence of mis­con­duct on the ground that the mat­ter is un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion by an in­ves­ti­gat­ing agency like the Cen­tral Bu­reau of In­ves­ti­ga­tion. In the afore­said judg­ment, the Hon’ble Court has also su­per­seded the di­rec­tion of the Cen­tral Vig­i­lance Com­mis­sion that pend­ing a crim­i­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion, de­part­men­tal pro­ceed­ings are to be held in abeyance.

 In the sub­se­quent paras, the po­si­tion as re­gards the fol­low­ing is­sues has been clar­i­fied:—

(i) Is­sue of charge-sheet against an of­fi­cer against whom an in­ves­ti­gat­ing agency is con­duct­ing in­ves­ti­ga­tion or against whom a charge-sheet has been filed in a Court.

(ii) Ef­fect of ac­quit­tal in a crim­i­nal case on de­part­men­tal in­quiry.

(iii) Ac­tion where an em­ployee con­victed by a Court files an ap­peal in a higher Court.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.