GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE
No.GAD 57 PVC 68 Mysore Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 18th-21st October 1968.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Disposal of cases received from the State Vigilance Commission -Stipulation of time limit.
No.GAD 57 PVC 68 Mysore Government Secretariat,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore, Dated 18th-21st October 1968.
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Sub:- Disposal of cases received from the State Vigilance Commission -Stipulation of time limit.
Under the Mysore State Vigilance Commission Rules 1965 after the enquiry into any particular case has been completed, the State Vigilance Commission will forward to the Government, the records of the case with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and its recommendations thereon. Thereafter, the concerned Secretariat Department has to examine the case in consultation with the Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary under the Mysore Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1958, and obtain orders of the Government by placing the subject before the Cabinet, if necessary.
2. I had an opportunity to scrutinise and discuss some of the pending cases with the concerned secretaries. It was found that in many cases, there was unconscionable delay in taking a decision and/passing final orders of Government in certain cases, well over two years have elapsed since the recommendations of the Commission were received, but formal orders of Government have still to issue.
3. Most of the cases have to pass through the following stages where, in varying degrees, delays are caused:-
(1) Delay in examination of the recommendations of the Vigliance Commission:
Normally, it should not be difficult for the Department to carefully go through the recommendations of the Commision together with the relevant records in any particular case within a period of two to three weeks from the date of the receipt of the papers from the Commission. At any rate, as all Vigilance cases have to be accorded very high priority, there is no reason why delay in examination at this stage should not be out to the bearest minimum.
(2) Delay in issue of Show Cause Notice to the accused official:
In fact, there is no justification for the delay at this stage because after the case has been examined in the light of the recommendation of the Commission, in most cases the issue of show cause notice calling upon the accused to furnish his explanation against the punishment proposed, is an inevitable step. All this is required after the necessary examination has been done, is to draft the notice and this need not take more than one or two days.
(3) Reply to the Show Cause Notice:
Normally, a time limit of 15 days is specified in the show cause notice. This should be adhered to rigidly and in no case more than one week's extra grace period should be allowed. The total time accounted by this stage of the proccedings: i.e., between the issue of the show cause notice and the receipt of the reply, must not exceed three weeks.
(4) Examination of the reply from the accused Officer to the Show Cause Notice:
There is no reason why such an examination should take more than a week, at the end of which the Department should be ready with its provisional conclusions regarding the penalty to be imposed.
(5) Reference to the Public Service Commission:
Making of the reference to the Public Service Commission involves only drafting of the letter to the Secretary, Public Service Commission. This should not take more than a day or two. The Commission could be specifically requested to accord their concurrence or their views on the findings of Government in the case under reference as also on the punishment proposed, within a period of 4 to 6 weeks from the date of reference.
(6) Passing of final orders:
The reply of the Public Service Commission to Government's proposals will be either concurrence or suggestions for modificatioins in the findings and quantum or nature of punishment. Final orders can issue, immediately if the Commission agrees with the proposals of Government otherwise the Department has to decide whether it should modify its own stand regarding the punishment etc., to conform to the views of the commission or stick to its original proposal. In the former case when it is sought to accept the modification suggested by the Public Service Commission, there should be no difficulty in issuing final orders on this basis straight away. In the latter event, the Department will have to bring the matter before the Cabinet. There again, as a Cabinet meeting is held every week, it should not be difficult to obtain the orders of the Cabinet within a period of a week to ten days from the date of receipt of the papers from the Public Service Commission. Final orders of the Government on the basis of the decision of the Cabinet should issue within a period of few days from the date of intimation of this decision.
Total time:
It will be seen that the toal time taken up in various stages from the date of the receipt of the report or the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission to the date of issue of final orders must not exceed 14, or say, 15 weeks. Making allowance for the possible back reference from the Public Service Commission another 4 weeks can be added to this period increasing the permissible aggregate time limit to 20 weeks.
4. My examination of a few long-pending cases has disclosed that a good deal of time is wasted in making needless reference to Law Department. For example, it is not always necessary for the draft show cause notice to be put up to the Law Department for vetting. Similarly, the final order imposing the punishment could ordinarily issue without prior
scrutiny of the draft by the Law Department. Only where specific legal issues are involved, in respect of which precedents or case law have not been established and the Department is likely to go wrong, if it acted on its own judgement, the matter should be referred to the Law Department for advice. In majority of cases, the various steps of procedure to be gone through are clear and simple drafting of the show cause notice or the order of punishment should present no serious difficulty requiring guidance of the Law Department.
5. Another misconception which has contributed to a good deal of delay in certain cases is that a second reference to the Vigilance Commission is considered necessary when the Public Service Commission have suggested modification of the findings and punishment proposed by Government, especially because of the conclusions of Government are based on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission. Such a reference is only unnecessary and must be avoided. It is for Government to take a view as to whether the modification suggested by the Public Service Commission should be agreed to or not. Further advice of the Vigilance Commission at this stage need not be sought.
6. All Departmental Secretaries are requested to kindly consider those observations carefully and make special efforts to ensure that final orders of Government in all disciplinary cases, where recommendations of the Vigilance Commission have been received, are passed expeditiously. In no case, the total time required for processing and issue of final orders should exceed a period of 20 weeks. Wherever this time limit is exceeded, a detailed report on the reason for delay should be made to this office.
R.N.Vasudeva,
Chief Secretary to Government.
2. I had an opportunity to scrutinise and discuss some of the pending cases with the concerned secretaries. It was found that in many cases, there was unconscionable delay in taking a decision and/passing final orders of Government in certain cases, well over two years have elapsed since the recommendations of the Commission were received, but formal orders of Government have still to issue.
3. Most of the cases have to pass through the following stages where, in varying degrees, delays are caused:-
(1) Delay in examination of the recommendations of the Vigliance Commission:
Normally, it should not be difficult for the Department to carefully go through the recommendations of the Commision together with the relevant records in any particular case within a period of two to three weeks from the date of the receipt of the papers from the Commission. At any rate, as all Vigilance cases have to be accorded very high priority, there is no reason why delay in examination at this stage should not be out to the bearest minimum.
(2) Delay in issue of Show Cause Notice to the accused official:
In fact, there is no justification for the delay at this stage because after the case has been examined in the light of the recommendation of the Commission, in most cases the issue of show cause notice calling upon the accused to furnish his explanation against the punishment proposed, is an inevitable step. All this is required after the necessary examination has been done, is to draft the notice and this need not take more than one or two days.
(3) Reply to the Show Cause Notice:
Normally, a time limit of 15 days is specified in the show cause notice. This should be adhered to rigidly and in no case more than one week's extra grace period should be allowed. The total time accounted by this stage of the proccedings: i.e., between the issue of the show cause notice and the receipt of the reply, must not exceed three weeks.
(4) Examination of the reply from the accused Officer to the Show Cause Notice:
There is no reason why such an examination should take more than a week, at the end of which the Department should be ready with its provisional conclusions regarding the penalty to be imposed.
(5) Reference to the Public Service Commission:
Making of the reference to the Public Service Commission involves only drafting of the letter to the Secretary, Public Service Commission. This should not take more than a day or two. The Commission could be specifically requested to accord their concurrence or their views on the findings of Government in the case under reference as also on the punishment proposed, within a period of 4 to 6 weeks from the date of reference.
(6) Passing of final orders:
The reply of the Public Service Commission to Government's proposals will be either concurrence or suggestions for modificatioins in the findings and quantum or nature of punishment. Final orders can issue, immediately if the Commission agrees with the proposals of Government otherwise the Department has to decide whether it should modify its own stand regarding the punishment etc., to conform to the views of the commission or stick to its original proposal. In the former case when it is sought to accept the modification suggested by the Public Service Commission, there should be no difficulty in issuing final orders on this basis straight away. In the latter event, the Department will have to bring the matter before the Cabinet. There again, as a Cabinet meeting is held every week, it should not be difficult to obtain the orders of the Cabinet within a period of a week to ten days from the date of receipt of the papers from the Public Service Commission. Final orders of the Government on the basis of the decision of the Cabinet should issue within a period of few days from the date of intimation of this decision.
Total time:
It will be seen that the toal time taken up in various stages from the date of the receipt of the report or the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission to the date of issue of final orders must not exceed 14, or say, 15 weeks. Making allowance for the possible back reference from the Public Service Commission another 4 weeks can be added to this period increasing the permissible aggregate time limit to 20 weeks.
4. My examination of a few long-pending cases has disclosed that a good deal of time is wasted in making needless reference to Law Department. For example, it is not always necessary for the draft show cause notice to be put up to the Law Department for vetting. Similarly, the final order imposing the punishment could ordinarily issue without prior
scrutiny of the draft by the Law Department. Only where specific legal issues are involved, in respect of which precedents or case law have not been established and the Department is likely to go wrong, if it acted on its own judgement, the matter should be referred to the Law Department for advice. In majority of cases, the various steps of procedure to be gone through are clear and simple drafting of the show cause notice or the order of punishment should present no serious difficulty requiring guidance of the Law Department.
5. Another misconception which has contributed to a good deal of delay in certain cases is that a second reference to the Vigilance Commission is considered necessary when the Public Service Commission have suggested modification of the findings and punishment proposed by Government, especially because of the conclusions of Government are based on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission. Such a reference is only unnecessary and must be avoided. It is for Government to take a view as to whether the modification suggested by the Public Service Commission should be agreed to or not. Further advice of the Vigilance Commission at this stage need not be sought.
6. All Departmental Secretaries are requested to kindly consider those observations carefully and make special efforts to ensure that final orders of Government in all disciplinary cases, where recommendations of the Vigilance Commission have been received, are passed expeditiously. In no case, the total time required for processing and issue of final orders should exceed a period of 20 weeks. Wherever this time limit is exceeded, a detailed report on the reason for delay should be made to this office.
R.N.Vasudeva,
Chief Secretary to Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment