58th (2007-08) Annual Report - UPSC

three years, in disagreement with the advice of
the Commission.
4.3 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 against an
Officer belonging to Indian Company
Law Service
5.1 Disciplinary proceedings were instituted
under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company
Affairs against an officer belonging to Indian
Company Law Service on the charge that
he misused his official position by allowing a
relative of his subordinate to set up a counter
inside the premises of office of Registrar and
to transact private business to sell endorsed
share transfer forms and other related forms. In
October, 2004 the Ministry made a reference
to the Commission in the matter along with
a tentative decision to impose a major penalty
on him. The Commission after taking in to
consideration all the facts and circumstances
of the case observed that the evidence on
record established that till August 1994 the
endorsement of share transfer forms used to be
done in the stock exchanges and from then on
there was a change in the procedure; that though
the changed procedure had not been brought
on record it appeared that it was to the effect
that endorsements would be done in the office
of the ROC, Ahmedabad; that subsequently a
further change was brought about and a private
agency was allowed to sell share transfer forms
from within the office premises; that since this
practice was illegal, obviously there would be no
official record of introduction of that practice;
that there was also no clarity in the evidence as
to when this practice was introduced, whether
it was introduced around 1994 itself or later. On
the basis of the above facts, the Commission
concluded that the charge was not established
because there had been no evidence on record
to establish that the practice was indeed started
58th (2007-08) Annual Report of Union Public Service Commission
Chapter 10 Non-Acceptance of the Commission’s Advice by the Government
during the tenure of the Charged Officer as
ROC. The Commission, therefore, arrived
at the decision that ends of justice would be
met if the proceedings were dropped and the
Charged Officer be exonerated of the charges
framed against him. Accordingly, advice of the
Commission was communicated to the Ministry
on October 26, 2005.
5.2 In April, 2006 the Ministry made a fresh
reference seeking reconsideration of advice of
the Commission in the case stating that the
Disciplinary Authority had not agreed with
the advice of the Commission to exonerate
the Charged Officer. The Commission after
consideration of the case afresh observed that
it had already addressed all the issues involved
in the case while tendering their advice to the
Ministry and that Disciplinary Authority had
not brought out any new facts or points of
law or any new evidence, which had not been
considered earlier by the Commission while
exonerating the Charged Officer. Accordingly,
advice of the Commission was communicated
on October 27, 2006 to the Ministry reiterating
their earlier advice to exonerate the Charged
Officer.
5.3 In September, 2007 the Ministry passed an
order in this case imposing 10% cut in monthly
pension of the Charged Officer for a period of 5
years.
5.4 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 Central
Secretariat Service
6.1 Disciplinary proceedings were instituted
against an officer belonging to Central Secretariat
Service under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 on the charge that he while working as
Deputy Chief Assayer of Madras Gold Collection
Centre (I) took away gold formed out of spillage
47