58th (2007-08) Annual Report - UPSC

2005 conveyed their decision to treat the posts as
exempt from the Commission’s purview in terms
of proviso to Article 320 (3) of the Constitution
and Item (3) of Schedule I to the UPSC
(Exemption from Consultation) Regulations,
1958 to the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation.
It was stated by the Department that
with the resolution of the pending issue, the
Department of Agriculture & Cooperation had
recast the draft Recruitment Rules for the posts
of Chairman, Member (official) and Member
(Secretary), CACP based on the guidelines laid
down by the DoP&T and requested for the
concurrence of the Commission on the draft
Recruitment Rules.
1.11 The Commission vide letter dated
January 30, 2006 informed the Department of
Agriculture & Cooperation that the proposal of
the Department to treat the posts of Chairman,
Member (official) and Member (Secretary) had
not been concurred by the Commission. While
the DoP&T had decided to treat these posts in
the CACP as exempted from the purview of the
Commission, the Department had not confirmed
categorically the non-acceptability of the advice
of the Commission. Without such a categorical
decision, the Department’s contention that the
pending issues had been resolved did not appear
to be true and needed clarification. To sort out the
pending issue, it was decided to hold a meeting.
1.12 Accordingly, a meeting was held on March
24, 2006 with the representative of the Ministry.
The representative of the Ministry stated that the
DoP&T had agreed to exempt those posts from
the purview of the Commission. He was asked to
send a formal letter in reply to the Commission’s
letter dated January 30, 2006 explaining the facts
as in such a situation, this case becomes a case
of non-acceptance of the Commission’s advice.
Ministry’s Representative also agreed that the
proposal sent by them for framing the RRs of
those posts should be withdrawn.
1.13 However, despite number of reminders,
no communication was received from the
58th (2007-08) Annual Report of Union Public Service Commission
Chapter 10 Non-Acceptance of the Commission’s Advice by the Government
Department. The Commission vide letter dated
March 16, 2007 informed the Department of
Agriculture & Cooperation that in case no reply
was received by March 30, 2007, the matter would
be treated as non-acceptance of the Commission’s
advice. As no communication has been received
from the Ministry, the Commission vide letter
dated April 16, 2007 informed the Department
that the Commission have decided to treat the
proposal of the Ministry for framing of the RR’s
for the posts of Chairman, Member (official) and
Member (Secretary) formally returned.
1.14 In view of the Department of Agriculture
and Cooperation’s position on the matter as
brought out in the preceding paragraphs, the
Commission considers that the Department have
not acted in accordance with the Commission’s
advice. Further, the Department of Personnel and
Training, by conveying their decision vide O.M.
dated June 13, 2005, to treat the posts as exempted
from the Commission’s purview in terms of
provision to Article 320(3) of the Constitution and
Item (3) of Schedule-I to the UPSC (Exemption
from Consultation) Regulations, 1958, have acted
against the advice of the Commission. Since
the O.M. issued by the Government is not in
accordance with the advice of the Commission,
this has been treated as a case of non-acceptance
of the Commission’s advice.
Action under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 against an officer belonging
to Income Tax Department
2.1 Disciplinary proceedings were instituted
against an officer belonging to Income Tax
Department, Ministry of Finance under Rule 14
of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the charge
that he (i) passed assessment order without
conducting proper investigation, ignoring lines
of inquiry suggested in the Appraisal Report and
blindly accepted the assessee’s version and omitted
the discussion or the important items of seized
materials; (ii) did not carry out any investigation
and made perfunctory and slipshod assessments;
(iii) deliberately and wrongly summed up the
marriage expenses of the son of the assessee and
43