58th (2007-08) Annual Report - UPSC

7.2 In September, 2005 a fresh reference was
received from the Ministry seeking reconsideration
of the advice of the Commission for the reasons
that the recommended penalty would be too
harsh as the lapses on the part of CO were
only technical and not serious, no financial loss
was suffered by the Govt. as the amount of DA
drawn by the Charged Officer in excess of the
ceiling was recovered from his gratuity and no
malafides were established against the Charged
Officer. The case was reconsidered by the
Commission in the light of facts then intimated
by the Ministry and observed that all the facts
and circumstances of the case had already been
taken into consideration while examining this
case earlier, and keeping in view of the gravity of
the charges proved against the Charged Officer,
a conscious decision was taken to impose 30%
cut in pension on permanent basis. Since the
DA had brought out no new fact, necessitating
reconsideration of Commission’s earlier advice,
they reiterated their earlier advice. Accordingly,
advice of the Commission was communicated to
the Ministry on December 13, 2005 reiterating
their earlier advice.
7.3 In November, 2006 the Ministry passed an
order in this case imposing 5% cut in pension of
the Charged Officer for a period of five years and
recovery of an amount of US$ 637.50 in equivalent
Indian currency from his gratuity, in disagreement
with the advice of the Commission.
7.4 Since the order passed by the Ministry 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.
Review petition preferred by an
Officer belonging to Ministry of Urban
Development against the penalty of
compulsory retirement
8.1 Disciplinary proceedings were instituted
against an officer belonging to Ministry of Urban
Development under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 on the charge that he replaced/
changed the quoted rates of various contracts by
58th (2007-08) Annual Report of Union Public Service Commission
Chapter 10 Non-Acceptance of the Commission’s Advice by the Government
cutting/overwriting in the tender documents,
tender opening register etc. (Articles 1 to 8),
conducted negotiations with the lowest tenderer
beyond his powers (Article 9) and awarded work
and entered into agreement in violation of CPWD
Manual (Article 10). The Director General
(Works) CPWD after following the prescribed
procedure imposed the penalty of compulsory
retirement on the Charged Officer on December
30, 2003. Aggrieved by the said order he preferred
an appeal, which was referred to the Commission
in August, 2004 seeking their advice on the appeal.
The Commission after taking into consideration
all the facts and circumstances of the case held all
the charges as proved. It was also observed that
tampering with the official documents relating to
the tenders, entering into contracts in violation
of the powers are grave enough charges and that
in the circumstances an ulterior motive cannot be
ruled out. As regards the point that there was no
benefit either to the contractor or to the Charged
Officer and consequent loss to the Government
by dint of his actions, the Commission observed
that issue had not been raised in the Articles of
Charge. The Commission, therefore, concluded
that the penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’ earlier
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was
commensurate with the charges proved against
the Charged Officer. Accordingly, advice of the
Commission was communicated to the Ministry
to reject the appeal on May 12, 2005.
8.2 In February, 2006 a fresh reference
was received from the Ministry seeking
reconsideration of the advice tendered earlier
stating that the penalty of compulsory retirement
imposed on the Charged Officer was too harsh visà-vis
the proven charges and proposing imposition
of penalty of ‘reduction of pay by three stages in
the time scale of pay for a period of five years with
further directions that he would not earn increments
of pay during the period of such reduction and that
on the expiry of this period, the reduction would
have the effect of postponing his future increments
of pay’. The Commission reconsidered the case
and observed that the appellate authority had not
furnished any new fact or point of law warranting
51