Strengthening of administration-Periodical review under FR 56(i) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension_ Rules, 1972 - Orders Issued on 11.09.2015
No.25013/0 I
/2013-Estt.A-1V
Government of India
Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of
Personnel and Training
Establishment A-1V
Desk
North Block, New Delhi
Dated 11th September,2015
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Strengthening of
administration-Periodical review under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972
The undersigned is directed to
refer to this Department's OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the
periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules.
2. Various instructions issued on
the subject deal with compulsory retirement under the above mentioned
provisions. The Supreme Court has observed in State of Gtyaral Vs. Umedbhai M.
Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 as follows:
(i) Whenever the services of a
public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer
can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of
compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article
311 of the Constitution.
(iii) "For better
administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of
compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire
service record of the officer."
(iv) Any adverse entries made in
the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in
passing such order.
(v) Even un-communicated entries
in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory
retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry
when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a
promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a
fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement
shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
3. In every review, the entire
service records should be considered. The expression 'service record' will take
in all relevant records and hence the review should not be confined to the
consideration of the ACR / APAR dossier. The personal file of the officer may
contain valuable material. Similarly, the work and performance of the officer
could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by him or in any papers
or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would be useful if the
Ministry/Department puts together all the data available about the officers and
prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the Review Committee. Even
uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARs may be taken into consideration.
4. In the case of those officers
who have been promoted during the last five years, the previous entries in the
ACRs may be taken into account if the officer was promoted on the basis of
seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit. –
5. As far as integrity is
considered, the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may, while
upholding compulsory retirement in a case, may be kept in view:
The officer would live by
reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be
sufficient evidence to take punitive disciplinary action of removal from
service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service
would be a menace to public service and iniurious to public interest.
S. Ramachandra Raju vs.
State of Orissa
[(1994) 3 SCC 424]
Thus while considering integrity
of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear
to be above board, complaints received against him, or suspicious property
transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate
departmental proceedings, may be taken into account. Judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Shri K. Kandaswamy, L.P.S. (TN:1966) in K. Kandaswamy vs
Union Of India & Anr, 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6) 162 is relevant here.
There were persistent reports of Shri Kandaswamy acquiring large assets and of
his getting money from his subordinates. He also indulged in property
transactions which gave rise to suspicion about his bonafides. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court upheld his compulsory retirement under provisions of the relevant
Rules.
6. Similarly, reports of conduct
unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory
retirement. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Of U.P.And Others vs
Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002:
If conduct of a government
employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency
in public services, the government has an absolute right to compulsorily retire
such an employee in public interest.
7. Many changes in the
nomenclature and in the areas of responsibility of various
departments/Ministries have taken place. In order to simplify and speed up the
procedure of review, a need is felt to reconstitute the Review Committees. In
partial modification of the OM 25013/15/86-Estt (A) dated 27/06/1986, it has
been decided that the Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling Authorities will
constitute Review Committees consisting of two Members at appropriate level.
The Review Committees in the case of various levels of employees will be as
under:
(A) In case of officers holding
Group A posts:
(a) In r/o ACC appointees:
Review Committee may be headed by the
Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department as Cadre Controlling Authority.
(b) In r/o Non-ACC appointees:
(i) Where there are Boards viz
CBDT, CBEC, Railway Board, Postal Board, Telecom Commission, etc. the Review
Committee may be headed by the Chairman of such Board.
(ii) Where no such Boards/Comrnissions
exist, the Review Committee may be headed by Secretary of the.
Ministry/Department.
(B) In case of Group B (Gazetted)
officers:
Additional Secretary/Joint
Secretary level officer will head the Review Committee
.
(C) In the case of Non-Gazetted
employees:
(i) An officer of the level of
Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However in case the Appointing
Authority is lower in rank than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level
of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head.
(ii) In the case of Non-Gazetted
employees in other than centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the
Organisation shall decide the composition of the Review Committee.
8. CVO in the case of gazetted
officers, or his representative in the case of non-gazetted officers, will be
associated in case of record reflecting adversely on the integrity of any
employee.
9. hi addition to the above, the
Secretary of the Ministry/Department is also empowered to constitute internal
committees to assist the Review Committees in reviewing the cases. These
Committees will ensure that the service record of the employees being reviewed,
alongwith a summary bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the
Cadre Authorities at least three months before the due date of review.
10. The procedure as prescribed
from time to time has been consolidated and enclosed as Appendix to the OM
issued by this Department on 21/03/2014. As per these instructions the cases of
Government servant covered by FR 56(j), FR 560), or Rule 48(1) (b) of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 should be reviewed six months before he/she attains the
age of 50/55 years, in cases covered by FR 56(j) and on completion of 30 years
of qualifying service under FR 56(I)/Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as
per the following calendar:
SI No
|
Quarter in which
review is to be made
|
Cases of employees
who will be attaining the No which age of 50/55 years or will be completing
30 review is to years of service or 30 years of service be made qualifying
for pension, as the case may be, in the quarter.
|
1
|
January to March
|
July to September
of the same year
|
2
|
April to June
|
October to
December of the same year
|
3
|
July to September
|
January to March
of the next year
|
4
|
October December
|
to April to June
of the next year
|
11. All Ministries/Departments
are requested to follow the above instructions and periodically review the
cases of Government servants as required under FR 56(j)/FR56(I)/Rule 48(1)(6)
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
12. instructions on composition
of the Representation Committees will be communicated separately.
(Mukesh Chaturvedi)
Director
(Establishment)
Tel: 23093176
Comments