it2025_00344 — An employee who is charge-sheeted for misconduct should, without fail, attend the enquiry proceedings on the dates informed to him by the Enquiry Officer. Otherwise, his absence for enquiry may lead to his tacit approval of charges levelled against him and an adverse finding against the charge-sheeted employee may follow leading to award of appropriate punishment to him based on the gravity of proved charges

IT Rules

An employee who is charge-sheeted for misconduct should, without fail, attend the enquiry proceedings on the dates informed to him by the Enquiry Officer. Otherwise, his absence for enquiry may lead to his tacit approval of charges levelled against him and an adverse finding against the charge-sheeted employee may follow leading to award of appropriate punishment to him based on the gravity of proved charges — This chunk discusses two main issues: (1) the competence of Sr. Deputy Accountant-General (Admn.) to issue the suspension order dated 23-6-2008, and (2) the scope for interference in this case of ex ... — Facts: The Applicant herein was a Sr. Accountant in the Office of Accountant-General (A&E), Assam. He was suspended on 11-4-2007 followed by issue of a charge-sheet, dated 26-3-2008 for his misconduct. An enquiry was conducted and he did not attend the enquiry, probably on non-payment of suspension allowance. Sr. Deputy Accountant-General (Admn.) removed him from service. Against that order, this OA is filed. It is not necessary to state the charges levelled against him as these charges are discussed in the order of the Tribunal. It is enough if the reasoning of the Tribunal in disposing of the case is noted. Two important questions arise in this OA namely,
(i) the competence of Sr. Deputy Accountant-General (Admn.) to issue the suspension order, dated 23-6-2008 and
(ii) Scope to interfere in this case of ex parte disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in not paying him subsistence allowance. Based on the reference to Comptroller and Auditor-General Manual of standing orders (Administration) Volume II, it is established that for all Group 'C' posts in Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Senior Deputy Accountant-General / Deputy Accountant-General / Officers or equivalent rank is the Appointing Authority. The Applicant was promoted by Senior Accountant-General by Order, dated 30-3-1993 as "Senior Accountant". Hence Article 311 (1) of the Constitution provides for removal of the Applicant by R-4 herein. Hence his removal is in order. As regards the payment of Suspension Allowance, it is the responsibility of the suspended official to submit a certificate to the effect that he is not employed anywhere from which employment he is getting renumeration. He did not comply with that requirement. On submission of that certificate on 21-9-2007, he was paid Subsistence Allowance on 4-10-2007. Whether non-payment of Subsistence Allowance had caused prejudice to his case was examined. In the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and others [ 2004 (1) SCC 281 ], it was held that the prejudice, if any should be brought out by the suspended employee. The Applicant could not substantiate that nonpayment of subsistence allowance is deliberate and not due to his fault. Hence no prejudice is caused to him due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. His non-attending of the enquiry is deliberate as the officer conducting the enquiry is few yards from his office where he was working. He did not explain his conduct for not attending the enquiry. He was asked to submit the report of CGHS or CCS (Conduct) Rules and also a period of one month was given to submit his explanation on the enquiry report supplied to him. It is also noted by Tribunal that enquiry proceedings containing the queries put to witnesses and their reply were also sent to the delinquent employee. Thus ample opportunity was given to explain his conduct as held in Indira Bhanu Gaur case (supra). He totally defied the instructions and showed total indifference in extending co-operation. Hence on that score also, he has no grievance to decide his case in his favour. On perusal of penalty order, it revealed that if such stringent punishment is not awarded to a delinquent employee of his character, insubordination will creep in the administration which is injurious. The stand of the Applicant is not conducive to proper administration of an office. Taking into account all the factors as above, the Tribunal concluded that he had been afforded all opportunities of hearing, punishment imposed is neither shocking nor disproportionate and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry proceedings and order of D.A. were based on overwhelming evidences brought on record. The judgment cited by the Applicant is irrelevant to his case.

IT Rules

An employee who is charge-sheeted for misconduct should, without fail, attend the enquiry proceedings on the dates informed to him by the Enquiry Officer. Otherwise, his absence for enquiry may lead to his tacit approval of charges levelled against him and an adverse finding against the charge-sheeted employee may follow leading to award of appropriate punishment to him based on the gravity of proved charges — This chunk discusses two main issues: (1) the competence of Sr. Deputy Accountant-General (Admn.) to issue the suspension order dated 23-6-2008, and (2) the scope for interference in this case of ex ... — Facts: The Applicant herein was a Sr. Accountant in the Office of Accountant-General (A&E), Assam. He was suspended on 11-4-2007 followed by issue of a charge-sheet, dated 26-3-2008 for his misconduct. An enquiry was conducted and he did not attend the enquiry, probably on non-payment of suspension allowance. Sr. Deputy Accountant-General (Admn.) removed him from service. Against that order, this OA is filed. It is not necessary to state the charges levelled against him as these charges are discussed in the order of the Tribunal. It is enough if the reasoning of the Tribunal in disposing of the case is noted. Two important questions arise in this OA namely,
(i) the competence of Sr. Deputy Accountant-General (Admn.) to issue the suspension order, dated 23-6-2008 and
(ii) Scope to interfere in this case of ex parte disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in not paying him subsistence allowance. Based on the reference to Comptroller and Auditor-General Manual of standing orders (Administration) Volume II, it is established that for all Group 'C' posts in Indian Audit and Accounts Department, Senior Deputy Accountant-General / Deputy Accountant-General / Officers or equivalent rank is the Appointing Authority. The Applicant was promoted by Senior Accountant-General by Order, dated 30-3-1993 as "Senior Accountant". Hence Article 311 (1) of the Constitution provides for removal of the Applicant by R-4 herein. Hence his removal is in order. As regards the payment of Suspension Allowance, it is the responsibility of the suspended official to submit a certificate to the effect that he is not employed anywhere from which employment he is getting renumeration. He did not comply with that requirement. On submission of that certificate on 21-9-2007, he was paid Subsistence Allowance on 4-10-2007. Whether non-payment of Subsistence Allowance had caused prejudice to his case was examined. In the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and others [ 2004 (1) SCC 281 ], it was held that the prejudice, if any should be brought out by the suspended employee. The Applicant could not substantiate that nonpayment of subsistence allowance is deliberate and not due to his fault. Hence no prejudice is caused to him due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. His non-attending of the enquiry is deliberate as the officer conducting the enquiry is few yards from his office where he was working. He did not explain his conduct for not attending the enquiry. He was asked to submit the report of CGHS or CCS (Conduct) Rules and also a period of one month was given to submit his explanation on the enquiry report supplied to him. It is also noted by Tribunal that enquiry proceedings containing the queries put to witnesses and their reply were also sent to the delinquent employee. Thus ample opportunity was given to explain his conduct as held in Indira Bhanu Gaur case (supra). He totally defied the instructions and showed total indifference in extending co-operation. Hence on that score also, he has no grievance to decide his case in his favour. On perusal of penalty order, it revealed that if such stringent punishment is not awarded to a delinquent employee of his character, insubordination will creep in the administration which is injurious. The stand of the Applicant is not conducive to proper administration of an office. Taking into account all the factors as above, the Tribunal concluded that he had been afforded all opportunities of hearing, punishment imposed is neither shocking nor disproportionate and there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry proceedings and order of D.A. were based on overwhelming evidences brought on record. The judgment cited by the Applicant is irrelevant to his case.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text