Quiz 9 — CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: Suspension, Penalties & Appeals

Statements 1 and 2 are correct. The 1971 instructions say “every effort should be made to file the charge-sheet in court or serve the charge-sheet on the Government servant … within three months of the date of suspension”, failing which the disciplinary authority “should report the matter to the next higher authority explaining the reasons for the delay”. The DP&AR OM of 9 November 1982 adds that where no charge-sheet issues within three months, the reasons for suspension should be communicated so that he can appeal under Rule 23(i), and “the time-limit of forty five days for submission of appeal should be counted from the date on which the reasons for suspension are communicated”. Statement 3 is false: paragraph 4 of that OM says it “will not, however, apply” where the suspension is for activities prejudicial to the security of the State. Read these with the later rule: since Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015), followed by the DoPT OM of 23 August 2016, a suspension should not continue beyond three months if no memorandum of charges or charge-sheet is served within that period. (b) and (c) each drop a correct statement. (d) accepts statement 3, which the 1982 OM excludes.

Rule 14(4)(a) first requires delivery of "a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses"; Rule 14(4)(b) then calls for the written statement of defence. At the hearing the case for the disciplinary authority goes first — under Rule 14(14) its witnesses "shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined" — and only "when the case for the disciplinary authority is closed" does Rule 14(16)–(17) call on the servant to state his defence and produce his evidence. Rule 14(23) closes with the report and findings on each article. (a) is wrong because it examines witnesses before the written defence; the defence decides which articles are denied and so what is left to inquire into. (b) is wrong because a defence cannot be filed against charges that have not yet been delivered. (d) is wrong because it reverses Rule 14(14) and 14(16): the charged officer answers the case against him, not the other way round.

The DPC first "assesses them along with everyone else, WITHOUT taking the pending case into account" and seals the result; the vacancy is then filled "only in an officiating capacity". The appointing authority must "review the case every SIX MONTHS from the first DPC", and only if the case is "still not concluded after TWO YEARS", and he is not under suspension, may ad-hoc promotion be considered — weighing, among other things, whether he might "misuse the higher position". If he is later "acquitted on merits or fully exonerated", the ad-hoc promotion is "confirmed and treated as regular from its date". (a) is wrong because it fills the vacancy on an officiating basis only after two years of reviews; the officiating arrangement is made as soon as the DPC's assessment is sealed. (b) is wrong because the officiating arrangement follows the DPC's sealed assessment; it cannot come before it. (c) is wrong because ad-hoc promotion is considered only once the two-year mark has been reached.