Selected Case Laws On Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

Indian Audit and Accounts Department
Courseware on Common Administrative Issues, Reservation Rosters, Vigilance and

Disciplinary Proceedings
Session 6.4: Selected Case Laws on CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
SESSION OVERVIEW
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
This session being the last

discussion for the day, we will sum up
the statutory provisions and the rules
prescribing the mode of inquiry in
disciplinary cases with due regard to
the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 vis--vis
CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
At the end of the session

participants will be able to understand
the practical implications of CCS
(CCA) provisions and rules and their
impact on the final decision in a given
case if the rules are not followed
rigidly. It also aims at informing the
participants that any failure to observe
the proper procedure is liable to vitiate
the entire proceedings rendering them
null and void irrespective of the status
of the Competent Authority.
We will discuss selected case

laws given on CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
to appreciate that the decision of the
authority in a disciplinary proceeding
is to
Observe rules of natural justice
Give due regard to the statutory
provisions and rules laid down
in the CCS(Conduct) and
CCS(CCA) procedure and
code.
Impose punishment only after
appreciation of the supporting
evidence.
Take merits of the case into
account before delivering any
decision.
Arrive at a logical conclusion
without being arbitrary or
capricious.
After going through the
decisions cited hereinafter, it will be
clear that it is important for the
Competent Authorities to exercise their
powers with the greatest care, concern
and scrupulous regard for the rules and
procedures and without any personal
bias and prejudice, fear or favour and
with independence and impartiality.
Note 6.4
SELECTED CASE LAWS ON CCS

(CCA) RULES, 1965
A. Ex-SI Bhola Ram Meena Vs.
Additional Commissioner of Police
and another, 7/2001,. SwamysnewS
74, (P.B. New Delhi),
date of
judgement
28-8-2000
O.A. No. 3267 of 1992
1. Facts : Applicant was proceeded
against
departmentally
on
the
allegation, dated 14-1-1991, that he
wilfully absented himself without any
authorisation, on as many as 13
different occasions between 28-9-1989
and 4-12-1990 for varying periods and
was thus a habitual absentee who had
violated the instructions contained in
Standing Order No. 111/88.
1.1
The Inquiry Officer (IO) in his
findings, dated 26-4-1991, held
applicant partly guilty of the charges.
In respect of one such absence, the IO
specifically held applicant not guilty
and in respect of two other absences he
held that the applicants contentions
did have some force although it was
110

mandatory on the applicants part to
have obtained prior permission of his
superior officer before absenting
himself. On behalf of the applicant, it
was contended that the Disciplinary
Authority in his impugned order dated
10-7-1991, has differed with IOs
findings dated 26-4-1991 but no
opportunity was given to the applicant
of being heard before such difference
was recorded and no reasons were
recorded by the DA why he differed,
which has violated the principles of
natural justice.
2. Held : In our view, the ratio of the
rulings of (i) [JT 1998(5)SC 548]
Punjab National Bank & Others Vs.
Shri K. B. Misra
(ii) [1998 SCC
(L&S) 875] State of Rajasthan Vs. M.
C. Saxena (iii) [1969 SLR 657]
Narain Misra Vs. State of Orissa are
squarely applicable to the facts of the
case. While the IO held the applicant
only partially guilty of the charge, the
DA without recording any reasons why
he differed and without giving
applicant an opportunity of being
heard, held the charges against the
applicant to be fully proved, and on
that basis dismissed the applicant from
service vide impugned order dated 167-1991, which has also been upheld in
appeal vide impugned order of the DA
and of the Appellate Authority cannot
be legally sustained.
2.1
In result, the OA succeeds and is
allowed to the extent that the impugned
order of the DA and the Appellate
Authority are quashed and set aside.
Following the Honble SCs ruling in
[JT 1996 (5) SC 403], State of Punjab
Vs. H. S. Greasy the matter is remitted
to the Disciplinary Authority to follow
the procedure from the stage of receipt
Note 6.4
of the applicants representation to the

IOs findings and to pass fresh orders
in accordance with law.
3. Findings:- The case defines the
Procedure to be followed by the
Disciplinary Authority where he differs
from the findings of Inquiry Officer
3.1
From the above decision it is
clear that whenever the DA differs
from the IOs findings, it is necessary
for him to record his reasons for doing
so and to give the Government servant
concerned an opportunity to represent
before imposing penalty.
3.2
However, speaking order is not
necessary when disciplinary authority
agrees with Inquiry Officers findings
as held in the case of Indradeo Singh
Vs. UOI, 1992 (Calcutta), judgement
dated 30-1-1992.
B. V.S. Cutinho Vs. Union of India
and another, (Mumbai), date of
judgement
9-8-2000
O.A. No. 1306 of 1994
1. Held : The applicant has sought to
make his case for seeking the relief as
prayed for on the following grounds:1.1 Suo moto action of the President
for issue of the Memorandum, dated
18-9-1986, proposing to hold inquiry
under Rule 14 after the earlier penalty
of Censure as per the order, dated 234-1985, having become final, was
illegal and bad in law.
1.2 Memorandum, dated 18-9-1986
was issued without cancelling the
earlier disciplinary proceedings as per
charge-sheet, dated 28-2-1985, and the
111

penalty already imposed. Therefore,
the charge-sheet suffers from illegality.
1.3 The order of the President lacks
application of mind.
1.4 Order, dated 8-11-1994, stating
that the penalty of withholding of
promotion for a period of one year as
per order, dated 4-10-1994 is held
legal, the said penalty will have effect
from 23-4-1985, and not from 1-111994. The penalty order would be over
on 23-5-1986, and thereafter, the
applicant is entitled to be considered
for promotions as due.
2.
It is clear from Rule 29 of the
CCS (CCA) Rules that in case of
Revision, if the Competent Authority,
(President in this case) comes to the
conclusion on review either on his own
motion or otherwise that the order
imposing penalty needs to be modified
by way of enhancement, then he is
required to issue a show-cause notice
to the delinquent employee to give him
opportunity to represent against the
proposed enhancement of punishment
before the order of punishment is
passed. If the proposed enhanced
penalty is a major penalty covered by
clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11, the
inquiry under Rule 14 is required to be
conducted. This would mean that the
Revision Authority will take steps for
conducting of inquiry as per the
provisions of Rule 14 from the stage of
issue of charge-sheet.
2.1
Since the satisfaction of the
Competent Authority for need to
enhance the punishment is the result of
review on his own motion (as in the
present case) or otherwise, this would
imply that the earlier punishment
Note 6.4
stands till the same is revised by the

Revision Authority after following the
due process as laid down in Rule 29.
Thus, any order passed by the Revision
Authority enhancing the punishment
following the procedure laid down in
Rule 29 will substitute the original
punishment order which was proposed
to be revised through show-cause
notice.
2.3 The logical inference which will
flow from the provision of Rule 29, is
that, the revised order of punishment
will relate back to date of the original
punishment order. In view of this
analysis of the provisions of Rule 29,
we are unable to accept the contention
of the respondents that the order of the
Revision Authority enhancing the
punishment will be effective from the
date of issue of the order.
The
respondents have perhaps taken this
stand on the misplaced understanding
of Rule 29, that with the issue of
charge-sheet, dated 18-9-1986, the
earlier disciplinary proceedings and the
punishment order, dated 23-4-1985,
stands cancelled and fresh proceedings
would start with issue of charge-sheet,
dated 18-9-1986.
2.4
In fact, the action of
the
Revision Authority cancel the earlier
punishment order, dated 23-4-1985, as
per his order, dated 24-3-1987, was not
called for as per the provisions of Rule
29. The earlier punishment order
would stand till the same is substituted
by modified order of the Revision
Authority after following the due
process for enhancing the punishment.
In this connection, we refer to the
decision 5 of Government of Indias
order below Rule 29, dated 14-5-1968,
at pages 110-111 of Swamys
112

Compilation of CCS(CCA) Rules,
(2000 Edition) wherein the action to be
taken under Rule 29 with regard to the
earlier punishment order which is
sought to be revised has been detailed.
2.5 In the case of [1992(21) ATC 63]
I.C. Sharma vs. Union of India and
others, Principal Bench has held that
the charge-sheet was issued on 15-101962. After holding inquiry, the
applicant was exonerated as per order,
dated 1-3-1969. While he was waiting
for promotion, the President on his
own motion reviewed the penalty
under Rule 29(1) (i) and issued showcause notice on 31-7-1970 proposing
enhancement of the punishment and
differing with the DA. After
considering reply to the show-cause
notice,
the
President
imposed
punishment as per order, dated 18-21974. The issue under challenge was
that, the Presidents order will be
effective from 1-3-1969, being in
substitution and the applicant deserved
the due promotions. The Bench while
interpreting the legal meaning of word
substitute came to the conclusion that
Presidents order, dated 18-2-1974,
will be effective from 1-3-1969, as the
same was passed to modify the original
punishment order. We have, therefore,
no hesitation to accept the contention
of the applicant that penalty imposed
by the Revision Authority as per order,
dated 4-10-1994 will relate back to the
impugned punishment order, dated 234-1985.
2.6
As a consequence of the above
deliberations, the O.A. is partly
allowed with the following directions:-
(i)
Impugned punishment order

does not call for any
interference.
(ii)
The punishment order, dated

4-10-1994, will relate back
to the original punishment
order, dated 23-4-1985.
(iii)
The order, dated 8-11-1994,

reverting the applicant is set
aside.
3. Findings: It defines the scope of

exercise of power by the President
under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, to review the punishment
earlier imposed.
C. K.N. Prakashan Vs. Union of
India and others, (1992) 20 ATC
676 (Bombay), judgement dated 1411-1991
1. Facts: The applicants contentions
against the charge-sheet served on
him are that the charges do not
disclose the exact nature of the
allegation and in what connection
and on what date the applicant
committed the alleged delinquencies.
The applicant nevertheless submitted
his reply to the charge-sheet pointing
out the inadequacy of the charge-sheet
in this regard. The applicants
submission is that the same should
have been taken into consideration by
the respondents for quashing the
charge-sheet. However, instead, the
respondents chose to appoint the
Inquiry Officer to proceed with the
charges.
2. Held : We are of the view that the
matter is amenable to being looked at
Note 6.4
113

differently from the ways above
pressed before us. Annexure II of the
charge-sheet consists of statement of
imputations
of
misconduct
of
misbehaviour. This part is blank. The
list of documents relied upon in
support of the articles of charges figure
in Annexure III.
2.1 Annexure I containing the articles
of charges, Annexure II the statement
in support of the articles of charges and
Annexure III, list of documents and
witnesses form part of a single
document on the basis of which
disciplinary proceedings take place
under the rules. The delinquent officer
figures out his line of defence from the
contents of these three Annexures
taken together. When Annexure II has
been left blank, the delinquent
applicant stands deprived of the
information which should have figured
in Annexure II but does not. When
such information has not been
furnished to the delinquent applicant,
an obvious consequence of such
omission can be to handicap the
applicant in his defence even at the
stage of furnishing of his reply to the
charge and later.
2.2
Rule 14(3) (ii) of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965, stipulates what a
statement of the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour in support
of each article of charge shall
contain. In its dictionary meaning
contain implies what should be in it
or what it should have. This meaning
negatives Annexure II being left blank,
which besides likely to become a
handicap to the delinquent applicant in
his defence as above stated, is also
violative of the provisions of the
statutory rules which the second
Note 6.4
respondent has no option but to

comply with. Non-compliance with the
statutory rules is violative of the
provisions of statutory rules. An
inevitable result of the same is to
render the product of such violation
invalid and illegal and therefore the
charge-sheet is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
3.
Findings: Charge sheet not
accompanied
by
statement
of
imputation
of
misconduct/
misbehaviour, renders the whole
exercise invalid and is violative of
disciplinary rules.
D.
G.V. NAIK Vs. UNION OF
INDIA, judgement dated 16-3-2000,
O.A. No. 942/ 1998
1. Facts : The applicant challenges
an order, dated 28-8-1998, passed by
the first respondent, that the pay of the
applicant be reduced by three stages
from 20,900 to Rs 19,400 in the time
scale of pay of Rs 18,400-500-22,400
for a period of two years with effect
from 1-9-1998. While the applicant
was working as Collector of Central
Excise,
Belgaum,
disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the
applicant by framing the charges under
Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,
dated 24-11-1994, that, by using his
official position of Collector threatened
and pressurized his subordinates into
producing a bogus informer and
recording from such informer an ante
date and doctored information with an
intent to make it appear as if the case
of seizure of 76 bars of silver value of
Rs 2.29 crores with the truck at Nipani
on 24-2-1992, was a case resulting
from such bogus information and with
114

an intent to earn the consequential
reward of Rs. 27.55 lakhs. Thus G.V.
Naik, the then Collector of Central
Excise, Belgaum, failed to maintain
absolute integrity, devotion to duty and
conducted himself in a manner
unbecoming of a Government servant.
The Inquiry Officer held that the
charge is partly proved, in his report,
dated 29-3-1996. After consulting
UPSC, the impugned order has been
passed.
2. Held : Though normally, the
Tribunals and Courts cannot reappreciate the evidence in disciplinary
proceedings, it can be interfered with if
the orders have been passed on no
evidence or it is perverse or a
reasonable man would not have come
to the conclusion on the basis of
evidence adduced on record. It is well
settled that if reasonable opportunity is
denied, Article 311 of the Constitution
is violated. In this case, the Enquiry
Officer himself has stated that no
reward was claimed or recommended
by the applicant. It is also seen that
fake informer one Shri Basavraj, had
not been examined. According to the
official respondents, he has passed on
the information as reported in DRI
(Intelligence). The Inquiry Officer has
come to the conclusion merely on
conjecture. It is also stated by the
Inquiry Officer that there was no loss
to the Government and there was no
sharing of reward by the applicant, and
his two subordinates. The only
conclusion arrived at is that, an
abortive attempt has been made by the
three officials jointly in fabricating a
false information. As we have already
stated that one Shri Basavraj, who is
supposed to be the informer has not
been examined and a person to whom
Note 6.4
he passed on the information has not

been examined. But the statement of
Basavraj has been relied upon. This
itself is suffice to hold that the charge
has not been proved and the Inquiry
Officer has come to the conclusion
merely on conjecture and no
reasonable opportunity has been given
to the applicant in so far as the
statement of the fake informer,
Basavraj, has been accepted by the
Enquiry Officer and the applicant had
denied the benefit of cross-examining
the said Basavraj. A reading of the case
clearly shows that an informer should
be there and the information also
reached the applicant. In this case, both
the persons are not examined. As such,
we have no hesitation to hold that the
order cannot stand in the eye of law.
2.1 Though the opinion of UPSC, is
not binding on the Government, the
impugned order clearly shows that the
official respondents have taken
advantage of the part of the report
favourable to them. In result, the
impugned order stands set aside and
the OA is allowed.
3.
Finding :If reasonable
opportunity is denied to a delinquent in
an enquiry, Article 311 of the
Constitution is violated.
E.
Kaveri Gaur and another Vs.
Union of India and another, 1992, 22
ATC 727, New Delhi, date of
judgement 22-1-1992
1. Facts : The applicants were not
given copies of the report of the
115

Inquiry Officer before the impugned
orders of dismissal from service were
passed by the disciplinary authority.
The stand of the respondents is that the
applicants did not attend the Inquiry
and the inquiry officer was compelled
to proceed ex-parte. In such a case, it
was not incumbent on the disciplinary
authority to give a copy of the report of
the enquiry officer to the applicants
before passing the final orders of
punishment on them.
2.
Held : It is clear from the
judgement of the Supreme court in
UOI Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, [(1991)
16 ATC 505], that there is no
difference between an ex-parte inquiry
and regular inquiry as regards the
obligation of the disciplinary authority
to give a copy of the report of the
enquiry officer to the charged
employee. It is also pertinent to state
that even in an ex-parte inquiry; the
disciplinary authority is bound to
follow the procedure laid down in the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2.2
In the above view of the matter,
we direct that the impugned orders
whereby the penalty of dismissal from
service was imposed on the applicants,
be set aside and quashed. This decision
will not preclude the disciplinary
authority from holding enquiry in
accordance with law from the stage of
supply of the Inquiry Report with an
opportunity to the applicants to
represent, including personal hearing.
3.
Finding :- It is mandatory to
supply copy of Inquiry report to the
charged official in an inquiry, whether
regular or ex-parte, so that he may
make representation before the
punishment is awarded. Non-supply of
a copy of the Inquiry Officers report
Note 6.4
has the effect of making

punishment order non est.
the
F. Satya Prakash Vs Union of India

and others, 1992, New Delhi,
judgement dated 22-7-1992
1. Facts : The standard of proof in a
criminal trial is in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act
and the Criminal Procedure Code,
while in a departmental inquiry, only it
has to be seen whether the principles
of natural justice are observed or not
and whether there is preponderance of
probability. In a criminal trial, the
prosecution is required to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution is required to stand on its
own legs and no burden of proof lies
on the accused unless he has taken a
particular defence, but the burden
proof of the accused is only to the
extent of creating preponderance of
probabilities. If there is any doubt, in
the case of the prosecution, then the
accused gets the benefit of doubt, but a
departmental
inquiry,
completely
differs from the nature of a criminal
trial. In a departmental inquiry, only
propriety, misconduct or contravention
of the rules is to be judged by the
inquiry officer who submits his report
to the disciplinary authority who either
agrees with the opinion of the inquiry
officer or disagrees. If he agrees with
the report and the inquiry officer, then
he can, after affording an opportunity
to the delinquent, pass appropriate
orders, according to the rules. The
principle of proof beyond reasonable
doubt cannot be imported in a
departmental inquiry because it is also
known that in a domestic inquiry, the
delinquent is the servant and the
116

Government authorities are the
masters. The masters can always
inquire about the misconduct of their
servant, but within the framework or
parameters of the rules and the
principles of natural justice. In a
judicial review, only this much is to be
seen as to whether in a domestic
inquiry the rules of inquiry and the
principles of natural justice have been
observed or not and the delinquent has
not been prejudiced in any way.
2. Finding : Principle of Proof
beyond reasonable doubt not to be
imported to departmental inquiry
where only the rule of Preponderance
of probability applies.
G. D.R. Jagiya Vs. Union of India
and others, (Kolkata), judgment
dated 11.1.2001, O.A No. 1243 of
1998
1.
Facts : Applicant, a Technical
Assistant in Ministry of Information
and Broadcast has filed this OA against
issue of charge sheet and disciplinary
proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965. The fact of the
case in brief is that, the charge sheet,
dated 26-3-1998, under Rule 14, ibid
was issued against the applicant by Dy.
Director(Admn.), the respondent no.3.
To inquire into the charges, Inquiry
Officer was appointed vide order dated
15-6-1998 by the Director, the
respondent no. 2. By another order,
dated 15-6-1998, the respondent no.2
appointed Presenting Officer. The
Inquiry Officer vide notice, dated 11-91998 fixed first hearing on 9-10-1998.
The applicant represented against the
appointment of Inquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer by respondent no. 2
Note 6.4
vide his representation dated 22-91998. The applicant challenged the

authority of the respondent no.2 to
appoint IO and PO as respondent no. 2
is not the Disciplinary Authority but is
the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the
applicant submitted that the said orders
are illegal and against the Rules and
any action taken with reference to them
about the charge sheet would be illegal
and unauthorised and hence the charge
sheet being defective, illegal and
baseless should be dropped and inquiry
should be stayed. Being aggrieved by
the inaction of the respondent
authorities, the applicant filed this OA.
1.1 The learned Counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the
applicant was promoted and appointed
as Technical Assistant by the Dy.
Director (Admn.). As such, the Dy.
Director (Admn.) became Appointing
Authority. The charge sheet has been
issued against the applicant by the Dy.
Director(Admn.),
who
is
the
Competent Disciplinary Authority of
the applicant as Technical Assistant.
The Dy. Director (Admn.) is not thus
subordinate to that authority who
appointed the applicant as Technical
Assistant but is of equal status.
2. Held : It is clear that the applicant
was appointed by Director as Junior
Stenographer and by Dy. Director
(Admn.) as Technical Assistant. The
same individual has been appointed on
initial and promoted posts by two
authorities. The two authorities are not
of equivalent status. The Appointing
Authority, viz., the Director, of the
initial post of Junior Stenographer is
admittedly superior to the Appointing
Authority, viz. Dy. Director (Admn.) of
the promoted post of Technical
117

Assistant. In other words, the
Appointing Authority,
viz. Dy.
Director (Admn.) of the post of
Technical Assistant is an authority
subordinate to the authority by which
the applicant was appointed as Junior
Stenographer. The individual is one
and the same and the Appointing
Authorities
are
two
different
hierarchical status. The major penalty
order to be passed by the Subordinate
Authority in respect of holder of the
Technical Assistant post will definitely
affect the same individual who was
initially
appointed
as
Junior
Stenographer
and
subsequently
promoted to the post of Technical
Assistant. The effect of the penal order
cannot be made applicable to the
holder of the post of Technical
Assistant only. It will definitely affect
the individual who was initially
appointed as holder of Junior
Stenographer post and subsequently
promoted as Technical Assistant.
Therefore, Principles of Justice as well
as provisions of Article 311 (1), (2) of
the Constitution make it imperative
and
demand
that
disciplinary
proceedings may be initiated by the
Subordinate Authority but the final
penal order regarding removal/
dismissal/ reduction in rank should be
passed by the authority not subordinate
to the authority by which the applicant
was appointed on any post. The Dy.
Director (Admn.), who is the
Subordinate Authority, should have
submitted the file for final order to the
Director after completion of the
proceedings up to that stage, which has
not been done.
2.2 We thus find the entire disciplinary
proceedings irregular, vitiated and
illegal. We, therefore, hereby partially
Note 6.4
allow the original application No. 1243

of 1998 without going into the merit of
the charges. If the Dy. Director (Admn)
finds justification for imposing major
penalty of removal, dismissal or
reduction in ranks, he should submit
the entire proceedings to the
Competent Authority., viz., the
Director for passing final orders and
that the entire disciplinary proceedings
from the stage of appointment of IO
and PO is set aside being illegal and
against the provisions or rules.
3.
Finding :- From the facts it is
clear
that
though
disciplinary
proceedings may be initiated by the
subordinate authority, final order of
punishment should be passed by the
authority not subordinate to the
authority who appointed the employee
to the post.
H. Suresh C. Sehgal Vs. Union of
India, (1992), Bangalore, date of
judgment 17-7-1991
1. Facts : With the retirement of the
applicant on 31-8-1989, there is no
scope for the continuation of the
disciplinary proceedings pursuant to
the memo of charges, dated 28-7-1989.
The action proposed to be taken
against the applicant was only under
Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2. Held : Rule 16 of the rules lays
down the procedure for imposing any
of the minor penalties specified in
clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the
Rules. After the retirement of the
Government servant, none of the
aforesaid penalties can be imposed on
him, for the simple reason that it is not
possible to do so. Only withholding or
118

withdrawing of his pension or part
thereof and of recovery from the
pension of any pecuniary loss caused
to Government can be made under
Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972. No doubt it is laid down in Rule
9 (2) of the Pension Rules that the
departmental proceedings instituted
while the Government servant was in
service shall, after the final retirement
of the Government servant, be deemed
to be proceedings under this rule and
shall be continued and concluded by
the authority by which they were
commenced in the same manner as if
the Government servant had continued
in service. There is also the important
circumstance that the imposition of the
penalty under Rule 9(1) of the Pension
Rules can be done only if the pensioner
is found guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence during the period of his
service. It follows that issue of
memorandum of charges against the
Government servant prior to his
retirement under Rule 16 of the CCS
(CCA) Rules for the imposition of a
minor penalty contemplated under
Rule 11 of the said rules will not
enable the disciplinary authority to
continue the proceedings after his
retirement invoking the fiction
incorporated in Rule 9(2) of the
Pension Rules. The result is that in a
case where the proceedings initiated
under Rule 16 are not completed
before the retirement of the
Government servant; such proceedings
automatically come to a close.
therefore, necessary that such penalties

may be finalized before the date of
retirement.
SUMMARY
In this session participants were
exposed to various circumstances
involving interpretation of CCS (CCA)
Rules as upheld by various Tribunals
and Courts including Apex Court. It is
expected that the participants will
exercise utmost care, and adhere to the
laid down Code, while charging an
employee of misconduct so that the
proceedings stand the test of appeal at
the level of Tribunal/ Courts and are
not knocked down on the grounds of
being baseless, defective and illegal.
3.
Findings :Minor penalty
proceedings under Rule 16 cannot be
continued after retirement for the
simple reason that such penalties
cannot be imposed once a Government
servant retires from service. It is
Note 6.4
119

Selected Case Laws On Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selected Case Laws On Ccs (Cca) Rules 6.4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Audit and Accounts Department

Courseware on Common Administrative Issues, Reservation Rosters, Vigilance and

This session being the last

At the end of the session

We will discuss selected case