All the eight officers of the Mumbai zones, who have been served with the notice for termination of services under Rule 56 (j) appears to have been done in contradiction to the instructions issued by DoPT as shown below.
Short-cuts have been adopted without exhausting the available mechanisms under the CCS Rules and also under pressure. Every year, the administration has submitted a NIL report and no cases were reported as fit for consideration under Rule 56 (j). Suddenly, they find eight officers fit for compulsory retirement under Rule 56 (j) !! This inconsistency & change of stand by the Administration, as per the compelling situations, certainly will lead to stress, de-motivation and increase in staff attrition in the Department.
No.25013/0
I /2013-Estt.A-IV
Government
of India
Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department
of Personnel and Training
Establishment
A-IV Desk
*****
North
Block, New Delhi
Dated 11th
September, 2015.
OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
Subject : Strengthening of
administration-Periodical review under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972
The undersigned is directed to refer
to this Department's OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the
periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules.
2. Various instructions issued on the
subject deal with compulsory retirement under the above mentioned provisions.
The Supreme Court has observed in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001
(3) SCC 314 as follows:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant
are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be
compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory
retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the
Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is
necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be
passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the
officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential
record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even un-communicated entries in the
confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not
be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more
desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite
adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the
officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a
punitive measure.
3. In every review, the entire service
records should be considered. The expression 'service record' will take in all
relevant records and hence the review should not be confined to the consideration
of the ACR / APAR dossier. The personal file of the officer may contain
valuable material. Similarly,
the work and performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into
files dealt with by him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by
him. It would be useful if the Ministry/Department puts together all the data
available about the officers and prepares a comprehensive brief for
consideration by the Review Committee. Even uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARs
may be taken into consideration.
4. In the case of those officers who have
been promoted during the last five years, the previous entries in the ACRs may
be taken into account if the officer was promoted on the basis of seniority cum
fitness, and not on the basis of merit.
5. As far as integrity is considered, the
following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may, while upholding
compulsory retirement in a case, may be kept in view:
The officer would live by reputation built
around him. In an appropriate case, there may
not be sufficient evidence to take punitive
disciplinary action of removal from service.
But his conduct and reputation is such that
his continuance in service would be a menace to public service and•iniurious to
public interest.
S.
Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Orissa
[(1994) 3
SCC 424]
Thus while
considering integrity of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the
employee which do not appear to be above board, complaints received against
him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient
evidence to initiate departmental proceedings, may be taken into account.
Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shri K. Kandaswamy L.P.S. (TN:1966)
in K. Kandaswamy vs Union Of India & Anr, 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6)
162 is relevant here. There were persistent reports of Shri Kandaswamy
acquiring large assets and of his getting money from his subordinates. He also
indulged in property transactions which gave rise to suspicion about his
bonafides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld his compulsory retirement under
provisions of the relevant Rules.
6. Similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming
of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement. As per
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of U.P.And Others vs Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal
(civil) 2083 of 2002:
If
conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs
the efficiency in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily
retire such an employee in public interest.
7. Many changes in the nomenclature and in
the areas of responsibility of various departments/Ministries have taken place.
In order to simplify and speed up the procedure of review, a need is felt to
reconstitute the Review Committees. In partial modification of the OM 25013/15/86-Estt
(A) dated 27/06/1986, it has been decided that the Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling
Authorities will constitute Review Committees consisting of two Members at appropriate
level. The Review Committees in the case of various levels of employees will be
as under:
(A)
In case of officers holding Group A posts:
(a)
In r/o ACC appointees:
Review
Committee may be headed by the Secretary of the concerned
Ministry/Department
as Cadre Controlling Authority.
(b)
In r/o Non-ACC appointees:
(i)
Where there are Boards viz CBDT,
CBEC, Railway Board, Postal Board,
Telecom Commission, etc. the Review Committee may be headed
by the Chairman of such Board.
(ii)
Where no such Boards/Comrnissions
exist, the Review Committee may
be headed by Secretary of the. Ministry/Department.
(B)
In case of Group B (Gazetted) officers:
Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level officer will
head the
Review
Committee.
(C)
In the case of Non-Gazetted employees:
(i)
An officer of the level of Joint
Secretary will head the Committee. However in
case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank than a Joint
Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head.
(ii)
In the case of Non-Gazetted
employees in other than centralised cadres, Head
of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide the
composition of the Review Committee.
8. CVO in the case of gazetted officers, or
his representative in the case of non-gazetted officers, will be associated in
case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee.
9. In addition to the above, the Secretary
of the Ministry/Department is also empowered to constitute internal committees
to assist the Review Committees in reviewing the cases. These Committees will
ensure that the service record of the employees being reviewed, alongwith a summary
bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the Cadre Authorities at
least three months before the due date of review.
10. The procedure as prescribed from time to
time has been consolidated and enclosed as Appendix to the OM issued by this
Department on 21/03/2014. As per these instructions the cases of Government
servant covered by FR 56(j), FR 560), or Rule 48(1) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 should be reviewed six months before he/she attains the age of 50/55
years, in cases covered by FR 56(j) and on completion of 30 years of qualifying
service under FR 56(I)/Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the
following calendar:
SI. No.
|
Quarter
in which review is to be made
|
Cases of employees
who will be attaining the age of 50/55 years or will be completing 30 years
of service or 30 years of service qualifying for pension, as the case may be,
in the quarter.
|
1
|
January to March
|
July to September of the same year
|
2
|
April to June
|
October to December of the same year
|
3
|
July to September
|
January to March of the next year
|
4
|
October to December
|
April to June of the next year
|
11. All Ministries/Departments are requested
to follow the above instructions and periodically review the cases of
Government servants as required under FR 56(j)/FR56(I)/Rule 48(1)(6) of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
12. Instructions on composition of the
Representation Committees will be communicated
separately.
Sd/-
(Mukesh
Chaturvedi)
Director
(Establishment)
Tel:
23093176
To
The Secretaries of All Ministries/Departments
(as per the standard list)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.