Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Letters

Letters

Ratings: (0)|Views: 562 |Likes:
Published by jaiswal_manish10

More info:

Published by: jaiswal_manish10 on May 05, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/05/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Item No.1Sub: Disciplinary proceedings arising out of Vigilance casesagainst Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ staff 
Railway Servants(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 have been framedby the President of India under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitutionof India and the disciplinary proceedings assume the nature of quasi-judicial.Well defined laid down procedure governs conduct of proceedings. Anydeviation from the laid-down procedure attracts judicial intervention onappeal. The Disciplinary Authority is required to take independent and fairdecision by applying its independent mind without being influenced orguided by anybody. Disciplinary authority is expected to be fair, impartial,neutral and unbiased in dealing with disciplinary cases and also not to actunder pressure or influence as violation of such qualities would underminethe spirit of natural justice due to becoming biased or prejudiced.In dealing with the disciplinary proceedings arising out of non-CVC/Vigilance cases against group ‘C’ and ‘D’ staff, the executive authoritiesconcerned have to act under the dictation of Vigilance Organizationinasmuch as that where a major penalty is proposed by the Vigilance and theDisciplinary Authority after considering defence or inquiry report, differs fromthe first stage advice of the Vigilance and decides to exonerate or impose aMinor Penalty, then it should first record provisional order and consult theVigilance once. After such consultation, it will pass speaking orders sending acopy of N.I.P. to the Vigilance, who may seek revision, if considerednecessary. Likewise, if a Major Penalty is imposed on the advice of theVigilance and the Appellate/Revisionary Authority proposed other penalty, itshould first record provisional decision and consult Vigilance once and thentake final decision(Ref: Railway Board’s letter No.2002(V-1)CVC/1/1 dated24/12/2003).In the above context, the following comments are offered:-
1 
 
(a)Action taking authority is not free to take its independentdecision.(b)Recording provisional order/decision and then consulting theVigilance, once implies second stage advice which has beendispensed with in non-CVC cases.(c)The Vigilance Organization seldom agrees to the views of actiontaking Authority and insists on imposing a specific penaltyalthough the said authority feels reluctant to do so and the casegets lingered on. Several cases of this nature are lying in thedivision for a pretty long time awaiting finalization.(d)Action taking Authority may succumb to the pressure of theVigilance.(e)Consultation with the Vigilance Organization will render theproceedings as biased.(f)Consultation with the Vigilance consumes a long time gap as theVigilance does not give instant reply.Vide their letter No.E(D&A)2001/RG-6-5 dated 30/07/2001, theVigilance Directorate of the Railway Board should not suggest any specificpenalty while forwarding a case to Revisionary Authority for revision as theproceedings are quasi-judicial in nature but in terms of Railway Board’sinstructions, issued vide their letter No.E(D&A)2000/RG-6-30 dated 23/09/02,the Vigilance may recommend imposition of a “Stiff Major Penalty” viz.Compulsory Retirement/Removal/Dismissal From Service. It is violation of Railway Board’s instructions issued vide their letter ibid dated 30/07/2001.According to para 2(ii)(c) of Railway Board’s letter No.92/V-1/VP/1/3dated 7.2.1995, regarding Major Penalty cases, if Disciplinary Authorityimposes a Minor Penalty or exonerates the employee, the case be sent to theVigilance who may get it reviewed within 3 months from the dateDisciplinary Authority send the case to them. It implies that the DisciplinaryAuthority is free to take its own decision and the Vigilance can get itreviewed later on by the Revisionary Authority. The period of 3 months is along period affecting promotional prospects of the employees and it maysuitably be reduced to minimum possible time and in case nothing is heardfrom the Vigilance within that period, the employee be promoted as in thecase of promotion of non-gazetted staff Vigilance clearance is required and if nothing to the contrary is heard from them within 14 working days from theacknowledged date of receipt of the reference to Vigilance Organization, itwill be assumed that all is clear and the Railway Servant can be
2 
 
promoted(Ref: Railway Board’s letter No.E(D&A)88/RD-6-21 dated21/09/1988).It is observed that the Vigilance Organization is showing keen interestin almost every case whether corruption or fraud is involved or not. It is notfair and the Vigilance should initiate action only in those cases wherecorruption or fraud is involved or suspected. The Board are requested to have necessary orders issued to the effectthat the Disciplinary Authority should be free to take action on theconsideration of defence or inquiry report and advise the VigilanceOrganization.
3 

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->