GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
No.DPAR 16 SDE 84 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 2nd Aug. 1984
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Departmental Inquiry under rule 11 of the K.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957-entrusting the cases to the Officers of Karnataka State Vigilance Commission.
Ref:- O.M. No. DPAR 5 SSR 79 dated 8/7/81 and 17/8/81.
No.DPAR 16 SDE 84 Karnataka Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore, dated the 2nd Aug. 1984
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Departmental Inquiry under rule 11 of the K.C.S. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957-entrusting the cases to the Officers of Karnataka State Vigilance Commission.
Ref:- O.M. No. DPAR 5 SSR 79 dated 8/7/81 and 17/8/81.
In O.M. No DPAR 5 SSR 79 dated 8/7/81 it was directed that in the departmental inquiry cases initiated against Government servants at the level of Government and at the level of Heads of Departments the Officers of Karnataka Vigilance Commission should be appointed as Inquiry Officers. It was further clarified in the O.M dated 17/8/81 that only cases instituted under rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, should be referred to the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission and not those initiated under rule 12 of these rules.
The Vigilance Commission has brought to the notice of Government that in a good number of disciplinary cases initiated by the Heads of Departments under rule 11 of these rules and entrusted to the officers of the Commission for conducting inquiry, the charges are of simple nature requiring action under rule 12 of the rules and that cases are referred to the Commission, mechanically by the Disciplinary authorities without examining the nature of charges to decide whether a case calls for a major or minor punishment.
Rule 11 of the rules deals with the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authorities for imposing major penalties and rule 12 deals with that for imposing minor penalties. It should not be difficult for the Disciplinary Authorities to understand and decide whether a case on hand warrants a procedure for imposing major penalties or minor penalties if they apply their mind to go through all the important facts and circumstances of the case. Depending on the nature of charges and other circumstances the Disciplinary Authorities should be able to decide whether the cases call for a major or minor punishment. Only such cases as in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority calling for imposition of a major punishment should be initiated under rule 11 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and entrusted to the officers of the Vigilance Commission for inquiry in accordance with the Official Memorandum referred to above.
Merely referring all types of cases mechanically to the Commission without proper application of mind would not only cause a lot of inconvenience to the Government servants involved in such inquiries but also burden the Commission with unnecessary work.
It is therefore impressed on the Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments that they should assess the gravity of charge and come to a specific conclusion whether it does requires imposition of a major penalty if the charge is proved and refer only such a case to the officers of the Commission.
The Vigilance Commission has brought to the notice of Government that in a good number of disciplinary cases initiated by the Heads of Departments under rule 11 of these rules and entrusted to the officers of the Commission for conducting inquiry, the charges are of simple nature requiring action under rule 12 of the rules and that cases are referred to the Commission, mechanically by the Disciplinary authorities without examining the nature of charges to decide whether a case calls for a major or minor punishment.
Rule 11 of the rules deals with the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary authorities for imposing major penalties and rule 12 deals with that for imposing minor penalties. It should not be difficult for the Disciplinary Authorities to understand and decide whether a case on hand warrants a procedure for imposing major penalties or minor penalties if they apply their mind to go through all the important facts and circumstances of the case. Depending on the nature of charges and other circumstances the Disciplinary Authorities should be able to decide whether the cases call for a major or minor punishment. Only such cases as in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority calling for imposition of a major punishment should be initiated under rule 11 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules and entrusted to the officers of the Vigilance Commission for inquiry in accordance with the Official Memorandum referred to above.
Merely referring all types of cases mechanically to the Commission without proper application of mind would not only cause a lot of inconvenience to the Government servants involved in such inquiries but also burden the Commission with unnecessary work.
It is therefore impressed on the Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments that they should assess the gravity of charge and come to a specific conclusion whether it does requires imposition of a major penalty if the charge is proved and refer only such a case to the officers of the Commission.
sd/-
M.M. Naik
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Department of Personnel & Admnv. Reforms,
(Service Rules)
No comments:
Post a Comment