58th (2007-08) Annual Report - UPSC

advice of the Commission was communicated to
the Ministry on May 29, 2006.
2.3 In June, 2007 the Ministry of Finance
passed an order imposing 20% cut in the pension
of the Charged Officer for a period of ten
years, in disagreement with the advice of the
Commission.
2.4 Since the order passed 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.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted
against an Officer belonging to Indian
Administrative Service
3.1 Disciplinary proceedings were instituted
against an officer belonging to Indian
Administrative Service by the Government of
Maharashtra under Rule 8 of the AIS (D&A)
Rules, 1969 on the charge that (I) he caused a
loss of Rs.5,10,825/- to the Government by
unauthorisedly granting increases in the sanctioned
rates to the suppliers concerned in respect of the
commodities to be supplied to Schools in spite
of the existence of an annual contract for the
supply of these commodities & in spite of there
being no provision in the agreement; that (II) he
committed serious financial irregularities in the
purchase of commodities to be supplied to the
Schools and Hostels by increasing rates of various
commodities exorbitantly and unauthorisedly and
that (III) he committed serious administrative and
financial irregularity by according the approval to
the proposal of the project officers for purchasing
the question paper sets for the students of Schools
under his control. In June, 2005 a reference in the
case was received from the Govt. of Maharashtra
seeking advice of the Commission along with a
proposal to impose the penalty of ‘Censure’. The
Commission after taking into consideration all
the facts and circumstances of the case observed
in respect of Article I that the records did not
show any effort made by the Charged Office
to persuade or coerce the suppliers to continue
supplying the requirements for the remaining
58th (2007-08) Annual Report of Union Public Service Commission
Chapter 10 Non-Acceptance of the Commission’s Advice by the Government
part of the academic year at the originally agreed
rates, as the tender for rates had been invited for
the whole year and as Chairman of the Purchase
Committee, which allowed upward revision of
rates on the ground of a spurt in prices and as
a very senior officer responsible for the overall
supervision, had a higher responsibility than
the junior officers who were members of the
Committee. The Commission also observed
that even if the contention of MOS regarding
the quantum of supplies contracted to be made
by the suppliers is accepted for argument’s sake,
there would still be no justification for not going
through the process of inviting fresh tenders for
additional quantities instead of procuring supplies
from the same suppliers paying a much higher price
without fresh tender. Therefore, the Commission
held the Article I of the charge as proved. As
regards Article II of the charge the Commission
observed that the orders for revision of rates were
issued by the MOS without even securing the
fig leaf of Purchase Committee endorsement
and that it appeared that the MOS colluded with
the suppliers to create a situation of stoppage of
supply and then ordered upward revision of rates.
In view of the above the Commission held the
Article II as fully established. As regards Article
III of the Charge the Commission observed
that the same was established to the extent that
MOS did not get expert opinion on the different
options available before approving the proposal to
purchase the Scientific Test Series directly without
going through a competitive process. In the light
of the above findings the Commission considered
that the ends of justice would be met in this case
if the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages
in the time scale of pay for 2 years with further
stipulation that during the period of reduction he
would earn increments of pay and that on expiry
of this period the reduction would not have the
effect of postponing his future increments of
pay, is imposed on the MOS. Accordingly, advice
of the Commission was communicated to the
Government of Maharashtra on June 12, 2006.
3.2 In April, 2007 the Government of Maharashtra
passed an order in this case imposing the
45