cmpdiJlJtW;~M~

Ba-S:;<'i ~ c<'iIPfal lJUS f%'31I$<rl ~<:J~ ~_>

(<ffi<;r ~ ~ ;:f;'r ~ ~ I :I11T<1~l>~ /1;, C' , ",),,, ~'loJ," I

al~a-~al<rll ~, ~ ••~. ~ - 8340, I, $"I1'l:uiS (:Hl./.('l)

Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited(A Subsidiary of Coal India Limited I Govt, of India Public Sector Undertaking)Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi - 834 031, Jharkhand (INDIA)Corporate Identity Number (CIN): U14292JH1975GOIOO:l223

No. CMPDIIHQ/IR/Disciplinary Proceeding! ~ - 711 $? Dated: 04.03.2016.#~";-"'~-""-

To ,y'-t:rJ. "- _."-.,, .~ -'" '-'i' - :--.

The Regional Director, /::~-lt..;..J'--· - ;. \CMPDI, RI-I/II/III/IVN/VINII, (-J::,~r I{ 3J~~r:;\\Asansol/DhanbadIRanchi/Nagpur/Bilaspur/Singrauli/Bhubneswar, ~..04(31 r~<,;t~)All HoDs, CMPDI (HQ), Ranchi. '. _ ,2"?J'J/ ;c;~;' '\;/

, .. ,'. \'-;''1-'(,1+1 • ,.-", '.~;.,.;:-

Sub: Timely completion of Disciplinary Proceeding/Departmental InquiryProceeding-improving vigilance administration.

Dear Sir,

Enclosed please find herewith copy of circular nO.02,O1.2016 rec:eived fromCentral Vigilance Commission, New Delhi vide their letter No.OOO-VGL-18/305053 dated 18.01.2016 on the above subject for your kind information &necessary action please.

Encls : As above,Y~ithfullY,

( Biml~du Kumar)Dy.General Manag,er (P&A)

Copy to:

~eral Manager (lCT), CMPDI (HQ), Ranchi with a request to kindly atTange toupload the above circular on the website of CMPDI.

o•. ,,!.,.,..... ' .,' •...- i~1063

q;)o:r ~ / Phone No. : +91 651 2230483;

~ ~ / Fax No.: +91 651 2231447

~ ~ / Website Address: www.cmpdLco.in

EPABX24600200~/Fax: 24651186

CamJ1lissio~1sCircu~ar·No. 8(1)(g)/99(2) dated 19.01.1999Co~mission"s Circular No. 8(1)00/99(3) dated 03.03.1R99Cammissian's Circular Na. 3(v)/99(7) dated 06.09.1999Commission's Circular No. 000NGU18 .dated 23.05.2000Commission's Office Order N.o.51/08/2004 dated 10.()8.2004

Timely completion()f disciplinary proc~lael!dep.rtm atalinq uiry proceedings-ifu praving vigilance admlnl.tratlon.

~~~

~~ 1i~~\..~~~ ~

/'~;~~;~OMMISSION -«-('I~ci>~~-l'f{CR, ~:Qt.an-.4lT~~_(ffi, :I. .' ..... :I·/::'u\r..-\ GiffiCfl ~, ~.~.~., ~ ~ l'002~(t.~. (:,\\ Satarkta Bhawan, G.p.a. ~omplex,

I w;.···· 1 j fCb .' >':1 BlockA,INA,NewDelhlll0023\ 4. L.vl" :'::J~'

\\ \~ ./.:~~/ ~./No ~..lJ.~!!~.YQ!-::.~.~.1.~.~.5.P.?3~ ..t ' ·"Ii\..~i·:---" _,<;',D/ ~ / D J.8012016~.,':;- . <.:,:':,7-' I"'''I~ ate ...: ...:•.........................

. ~~f~.:.· ..-Circular No. 02/01/2016

Ref: (i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)

Subject:

.1'elegraphic Address:"SATARKTA: New Delhi

E-Mail Addresscenvigil@nic.in

Websitewww.cvc.mc.m

The Commission has noted with serious concern that the administrative autharities are~ ~ not adhering to the time-schedules p~ri~ for comple~ia~ of disciplinary p~~ng$. In a/ y~,,0 ~;)recentstudy conducted by the O:>mmlsslon,!t h~.been natlced that whtl~ the 8\Crage tIme taken(/ ~ ~ by the a?mini~tive auth?rities in. finalisati~.~f di~ciplinary proceedings is ~?re than 2 years;":7 s. . the maxun~ time taken 10 a partIcular case was eIght (8) years and at least·m 2~%.~s the

/ ,. inquiry took more than two years. The Commission vide itsCireular. No. 8(1)(g)f9~(3) dated~ 03.03.1999 and Na. OOONaUlS dated 23-;-05.2000 has·. laid down the time linilt$' (Or various

~

stages of disciplinary proceedings .right •from the:' stage ~of~investigatk>n to· f'maIi$jQ~ of "the. disciplinary case. The time-limit for completion .of departmental inquiry is sixmondi~~m the

. ~ of appointment .of the 10. 11l% it ap~ that this time limit is nat being adhefe<i'~ by •~ majority of the DepartmentsiOrgait~ons:-~ucih ·long·delaYsriot only are Unjust ta afficiats who

may be ultimately- aCquitt~ buthelp:the guilty .evade ;punitive·.aetion for 10ng periods. Further,they have an adverse impact onotheIiwh~·beIievethai ".nothing will hapPen". TheC<mlmisSionhas been emphasising from:time to time on the' need -for expeditious completion of diSciplinaryproceedings. .. .. ~,., ,'. . .

2. Recentiy, the,Hon 'bl~ .Supr~~. c.ourt.i.~ .its ju~en~Aated 1~.~2.2015.in Ci.vil Ap~1No. 958 af2010 Prem Nath.BaJiVs. Registrat:,High Court ofDelhi·& Anr has viewed the delay

. in handling of disciplinary Casesadversely.·The-HQn'bleStipreme·Court:while allowing the saidappeal in favour of the .Appelland~mploy~fi~ ob~erv~as follows: ..... .'. .'

. . .... ~~, .. ~~ .

CHI- a'b 4 IMISC, MINISTRY *1,9>.WI- .- .' , ' ">L l.. \': \) , ~ (L~ATE 2!:--'~.\h t-A:~_ •.y~.o.~('P '.L (l--·_~~)a L\\)_ <~~.~c~i,)~\j0Al L Ck~'

~ l1-1~ ~\" odf;~dJ<}>?-f\·.W/) ~.

"29. One cannot dispute in this case that t/I(' .IUS/NII.I/O/l/1('''lIId was unduly long. Wealso find lhal the delay in completion of the dCjJartmentol JJr()c('('{ii/lJ~swas not whollyattributable to the appellant but it was equally attributahle to the respondents as well.Due to such unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a lot hecause he and hisfamily had to survive only on su!>pensionallowance for a long period 0[9 years.

30. We are constrained to ;bserve as to why the departmental proceeding, whichinvolved only one charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more than 9 years to .conclude the' departmental inquiry. No Justification was forthcoming from therespondents' side to explain the undue delay in completion of the departmental inquiryexcept to throw blame on the appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully justified.

31. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer toensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee isconcluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases wherethe delinquent is placed under 'suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then itbecomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concludedin the shori:est possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rightsof the delinquent employee, . .

32. As a matter of eXperience, we often notice that after completion of the inquiry, theissue involved' therein does not come to an end because if .the findings of the inquiryproceedings have gone against the delinquent employee; .he invariably pursues the issue inCourt to ventilate his grie'vance, which again<X1ns~mestlmefor its final conclusion. .

33, Keeping these factors inmilUi.we are a/the considered opinion that everyemployer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to condude thedepartmental inquiry proceedtngs once initiated against the delinquent employee within areasonable time by givitzgpri'oritytosuchproceedings and asfcir as ossible it shaul ecolicluded within six months as an'oiiterlimiLWhere .it IS not pass _ e for t e emplo)'er tpconclude due/a certain unavoidable ciUises'arisiTtg 7n the proceedings within the /im(!frame 'then effortsslWUld-be ~e ioc.(mcliide"" within'reasonabl extended er/odd.;pending up<J.nthe cause andtJze nature 0, inquiiyb'ut not more than a year. ",. - . " .. ' ..•.. ,..... . .

3. . The Commission has obserVed tliat'a nWilber'of factots contribute to the delay in theconduct of departmental inquiries andwitfiprodertt management this needs to be checked. Thedepartmental inquiry iSoften delayed due to. laxity on the part of 10, lack of monitoring by DA& CVO, n<m-availabilityof liSted or additional documents,. dela}' in inspection of originaL orcertifIed doc~ents, frequent adjoumiilentS/non •.atteridance of,'witnesses, especially privatewimeS$es, faulty charge-sheets aridfreque6t-eharlge.·ofIOIPOand non-monitoring of progress ofinquiry. The Commi.ssion suggeSts IDa-nhe foUowing' Steps: may heerisured and complied strictlyby the lOs/administrative authoriti.es:· ". '., ". . :-.-

(i) In caseswhe~e investigation has been conducted by the CBI/ other investigatingagency and the documents have beet:l seized by them for prosecution in courts aqdRDA is also contempla~it 'isthe·responsibility,.ofthe'CVOIDA to procure fromthe <;:BIrmvestigatingagencyjegiblecerj1fied,~opi~s of. seized d~uments requiredfor RDA..-In Cases: mvestlgate<j.·by C:V<>s it :illu$t ..1?eensured that ~rtified legiblephotocopies of all documents:are made· ..availahle:at the'time of preparation of draftcharge-sheedtself. ~

~. ".

--,

(il) Wlilk d"tfiillg the citargc-slin-f It 11l(IY k l'J1SIIll'l1 that all the relied UPOIl

doclIlllCn!S as well as cupies oj lc!e.vanl flJl(~s/jllstf\lctions are _in the custody ofCYO. ARcr Issue of charge-sheet and subl1lissinll of defence statement, the DA isrequired to take a decision with in 15 days fC)f appointment of IOIPO ill majorpenalty eases_

(iii) As far as practicable, the 10 should be chosen from amongst the servingofficers/retired officers in the'same station where the charged officer is postea, whoIS likely to continue till the conclusion of inquiry,

(iv) It may be ensured that the PO is appointed simultaneously, Changes in IOIPO beresorted to only in exceptional cases under intimation to the Commission (in respectof officers within the jurisdiction of the Commission).

(v) In cases involving more than one charged officer, it may be ensured that, as far aspracticable, same IOIPO is appointed in all cases.

(vi) The PO must 'keep ~pies of r~levant Rule~egulation&llnstruetions etc. readilyavailable with him. Departrne~ts/Organisations should' also ensure' onlineavailability of all their Rules/Regulations/Instructions etc. SCI that it can bedownloaded during the inquiry proceedings without any loss oHime.

(vii) It may be ensured that the deferiee.dooUJ1lents are made ,vellable within the timeallowed by the 10. Re~pons'ibility should, be fixed on tho custodian of suchdocuments for any undue delay/not producing it in time or loss of these documents.

(viii) The 10 should normally conduct 'Regular' Hearing on a day to day basis and.!!2!..~rant more than one adjournment for appearance of witnesses, It may be ensuredthat all the prosecution or defence witnesses are summoned and examined In 'separate but simultaneous batch~s expeditiously.

(ix) If witnesses do not apw inrespori~e to notiCes or are not produced 'by PO/CO asthe case may be, powers conferred under the Departmental Inqui~es (Enforcementof Attendance 'of Witnesses and Produ~ti<:in ofDocumeI)ts) Act, 1972 ~ exercisedto request the CO~pe;tent Court topass-ordetS for production of the witness throughsummons issued by the Court; , " , ' .

(x) The 10 should, as far as practicable, desist from allowing interlocutory documentssought either by the eo or-the CO 'as additional documents during the deposition ofwitnesses. ' . . -.'.... ., ','-

(xi) The time-limit for varioUs stages of inguY.:v. as prescribed by the COmmission videits Circular No~ 8(1)(g)99(3) ,dated03.03.1999~ may be complied with strictly by

• the disciplin8l)' _a~orities arid.the inquiry ~fficers ..' , ., , .

(xii) where the CO or PO do 'nofco-operate in 'the 'manner of attendan~, production ofdocuments, witnesses etc., 10 may after affording reasonable oppoftU!1ity, proceedto give a report' ex-parte based orifa~ts;dOeUments, witnesses produced before him.

\I

4. The suggested time limits for conducting departmental inquiries prescribed by theCommis~ion for various stages is annexed for ready reference. Timely completion ofdepartmental inquiry/departmental proceedings is the prime res[JOnsibility of the DisciplinaryAuthority. Therefore, the disciplinary authorities in each MinistrylDepartment/Organisation may"regularly monitor the progress of inquiry on regular basis and ensure that theinquiry/departmental proceedings are completed witqinthe ti~e-limit prescribed as laid down byHon'ble Supreme Court iIi the 'above cited case. The CVO concerned ~ould assist thedisciplinary authority in monitoring the progress of departmental proceedings. The Commissionmay recommend adverse action against the concerned disciplinary/administrative authority whois found responsible for any unexplained delay observed in any case. In appropriate caseswherein the 10 delays the proceedings, DA may not hesitate to take necessary and appropriateaction against the ro. . .

~~(J. Vinod Kumar)

Director

To)

(i)(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

The Secretaries of all Mini~esfPep~ents:ofGoIAll Chief Executives of CPsus/Pliblic SectbrBarikslPublic Sector InsuranceCompanies/Autonomous B<xlie~¢tC.." ':'; ;.'" .All CVOs of MinistriesIDepartmentsof GoIlCPSUs/Public Sector Bank5lPublloSector Insurance Companies! Autonomous Bodies! etc.Website ofCVC

.....,....

:' -:

'. . ~'.~.;

........ '... ,', .

1;'".•....

:,'

• ' • I .'. ..' ," • ...,..~., '~" ••••• JO'.-

" , '. . " ~~.'.'' .. ',':..~'...": ':"."', .' , •.... :.'::.::.: : ~~ -.~_ < '- ,. ..•... ~ :~..'..:.. :~.' ..':.. ~

.. .' , ._, •. ':-....-;::,:.r' •....~.... . ~

~',. .... .'.. :;. '. < ... ,,' ..? ..~'.~:."~;'.

:~ .....'I' : ,.... , •. ., . ~ .,.. •••••• .:; ~}~~~:: .,."

.:;.~·:,;,~·;(:::~L~~-':!~':';:"':~?:itl:",.'., ::,'. ~ .: .:' ~'~t~:':~.:~.':_(:;....~:;~" ,,:'.~.~:'{.,: : ':.'

...' ..... ".~ .: --

.: .~.. :.............

It.

. ~.;. .

~~.. , .' ..

:~'.:'::." .. '.-

.. : '. '.' ~'.' .'~', ..'.. . :~:'

>~:.~--':.:'~-" _.

-.. " .. '.-'.- - .. '-

.- .. '

.- -...~.'- ... , ...- :.... .~ ' .. ~. : ••• : •• ?-!>.~_•..~••,'~ .';"-•..•.: •••-- ..-.....

Annexure

Model Tillll" Limit [0(- Dcpartmcntallnquil-ics <I~laid dowlI ill ("II"('ul:lr No. 8(l)(g)99(3)

dated 03.03.1999

Sta c of Dc artmental In uir• Fixing date of Preliminary Hearing and inspection f)f

Iisted documents, submission of Defencedocuments/witnesses and nomination of a DefenceAssistant (DA) (if not already nominated)

• Inspection of relied upon documents/submission of listof DWslDefence documents/Examination of relevancyof Defence documentslDWs, procuring of additionaldocuments and submission of certificates confinninginspection of additional documents by COIDA

• Issue of summons to the witnesses, fixing the date ofRegular Hearing and arrangement for participation ofwitnesses in the Regular Hearing

Time Limit rcscribedWithin four weeks

'3 months

•••o

Re ular Hearin on Da to DabasisSubmission of Written Brief by PO to COIIOSubmission ofWrit1:en anefb Co to 10Submission of Inquiry Report from the date of re.ceipt. ..of written BriefbPO/CO

15 days15 days30 days

NB: lfthe above schedule is "not'~nsistent /in conflict ~ith the existing ruleS! regulations ofany organisation, the outer tiIlle .limit .of six months for completing the DepartmentalInquiries should be strictly adhered. to.,

......

".-.. ' ~... .' '. .,"

•

'. I

I

,