HC sets aside govt order dismissing employee on theft charge

Terming as "harsh" the Centre's decision to dismiss a government employee from service for stealing government property, the Bombay High Court has set aside the impugned order and instead lowered the punishment to compulsory retirement from service. 

Justices Naresh Patil and BP Colabawalla set aside the July 27, 2010, order of dismissal of Ramchandra Goya Sadhu, who was caught stealing copper rods on May 14, 2010, by the Defence Security Corps Platoon at Tiger Gate here. He was found to have tied the rods around his waist, hiding them inside his clothes. 

The court also set aside the March 15, 2013, order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had upheld his dismissal from service for committing theft of government property. 

Instead, the bench ordered that the said employee be slapped with the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and paid pensionary benefits in accordance with law. 

Sadhu had cited a government order wherein four employees who were facing a similar charge of stealing property were not dismissed but given a lesser punishment. Some of them were compulsorily retired from service while others were not given increments for two years. 

"Taking into consideration the period of service of the petitioner and his unblemished record in serving his employer, we are of the view that the punishment meted out... namely dismissal from service, was harsh," the bench noted in its order, which was delivered recently. 

"We find that the interest of justice would be met if the order of dismissal of the petitioner is set aside and, instead, the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement from service is imposed," the bench said. 

"We are not for a moment condoning the actions of the petitioner. The charge of theft is indeed a serious one, but looking to the totality of the facts, we feel that in the present case it would be punishment enough if the petitioner is compulsorily retired from service so that he receives pensionary benefits as per the rules," the judges observed. 

The bench said it had taken a sympathetic view in the case only because the petitioner has an unblemished record of 22 years of service and other similarly-placed employees found guilty on theft charges were slapped with penalties lighter than what was meted out to him.

Government employee can't seek promotion after refusing it: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: A government employee, whose promotion is canceled owing to his refusal to accept it, cannot ask for it at a later stage, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed the state government to restore the promotion of one of its employees whose promotion was cancelled after he turned down the offer as he did not want to get transfered to some other place.

"As we find that it is the respondent himself who is responsible for cancellation of the promotion order as he did not join the promoted post, the impugned order of the high court is clearly erroneous and against the law," a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar said.

The court passed the order on an appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh government challenging the high court order.

The government had submitted that the high court failed to consider that Ramanand Pandey himself sent back the promotion order and continued on his post and approached the court after two years when it cancelled his promotion.

It said that at the time of promotion, Pandey was posted in Bhind district where he remained for almost 15 years and his intention was to stay at that place only.

The apex court, after hearing both sides, quashed the high court order.

"It is clear that he wanted to remain in Bhind district, where he had continued since 1990, as he was ready to go on leave instead of joining the place of transfer. Moreover, for more than two years from the date of cancellation of the order of promotion, the respondent kept totally mum and maintained stoic silence.

"There was not even a semblance of protest as to why his promotion order was cancelled or that he wanted to join the promotion post after the alleged inquiry into the so-called complaint was over. He filed the writ petition on October 24, 2008, i.e. almost two years after cancellation of his promotion order," it said.

Bureaucrats asked not to act on oral orders from ministers

NEW DELHI: Ministers or their personal staff may no longer be able to get any work done by merely passing an 'oral' order as government officials have been advised not to go ahead with any decision unless written orders are issued by their immediate superiors.The advisory, issued as part of an office memorandum at the behest of Prime Minister's Office (PMO) last week, will be applicable to staff across ministries where a junior official will carry out oral order of his/her senior only after getting written confirmation. Written confirmation of any oral order will be a must, irrespective of whether such instructions are in accordance with the rules or not.In recent years, ministers have often been reluctant to record their observations and have instead instructed officials verbally. While some officers insist that orders be spelt out on file, in several cases, including some crucial ones, babus have gone ahead and complied with the ministers' wishes. By issue the latest missive, the PMO has also put ministers on alert. The instructions from the PMO are the latest in a series of advisories and orders on toning up the government and improving the overall decision-making process."If any officer receives oral instructions from the minister or from his personal staff and the orders are in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations or procedures, they should be brought to the notice of the secretary (or the head of department where the officer concerned is working in)", said the manual, referred to by the office memorandum (OM).In case the orders are "not in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations or procedures", an official should approach the secretary "stating clearly that the oral instructions are not in accordance with the rules".Though the government manual talks about certain exceptions during emergency/urgency or when a minister is on tour or sick, it still insists that the officer should obtain the order in writing from the minister's private secretary and get it confirmed when the minister returns.The manual said, "In rare and urgent cases when the minister is on tour or is sick and his approval has to be taken on telephone, the decision of the minister shall be conveyed by his private secretary in writing. In such case, confirmation will be obtained on file when the minister returns to headquarters or rejoins."Besides spelling out such dos and don'ts for babus on oral order, the ministry of personnel through the OM also instructed all ministries to conduct a regular weekly training programme for junior officials.Noting that the present training structures were largely meant for senior civil servants as part of their "induction training" and "mandatory mid-career training", the OM, issued on October 17, said, "Perhaps, there is no training being imparted at ministry/department level covering all its Group B and C employees on same subject."It noted that such training is also important for officials, ranging from UDC to under secretary, in this "era of rapid transformation and heightened expectation of prompt and effective public service delivery"."The effectiveness with which the new policies are implemented will largely be dependent on the quality of civil service administration and the ability of its members to operate effectively in the changed environment. This requires a continuous focus on training of employees," said the OM.Accordingly, the ministry of personnel advised all central departments to hold "an hour in-house weekly training" for all employees on a regular basis without dislocating their work.

Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bureaucrats-asked-not-to-act-on-oral-orders-from-ministers/articleshow/44913683.cms

HAPPY DIWALI

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES, PURI DIVISIONAL BRANCH WISHES A VERY HAPPY DIWALI TO ALL ITS MEMBERS AND VIEWERS OF THIS BLOG. LETS CELEBRATE DIWALI WITH COLOURFULL LIGHTS.

                   SRI GOBINDA CHANDRA PRATIHARI
       
        DIVISIONAL SECRETARY , NAPE gr-'c'
                          PURI

Suggestions are invited on the proper utilization of the deposits remained unclaimed in various Small Saving Schemes with Post Offices and Banks for welfare and protecting financial interest of Senior Citizens.

SWACHHA BHARAT ABHIYAN

Dept of Posts hiring insurance agents

Hyderabad, October 14: 

The Department of Posts, AP Circle is hiring an unspecified numbers of direct agents to work for the Postal Life Insurance (PLI) and Rural Postal Life Insurance (RPLI) through walk-in interviews.

The minimum educational qualifications should be a pass in 12th standard for those who are living in areas with a population of 5,000 or above 10th standard for those living in any other places. Interested candidates might attend the walk-in-interview on October 31 at the officer of the senior superintendent of posts, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad at 10 am with relevant proof of date of birth and educational qualifications. Short-listed candidates would be given provisional licence number besides necessary training to get through the licentiate examination conducted by Insurance Institute of India to get permanent licence.

The PLI agents would get 0.25 per cent commission on the sum and two per cent on renewal premium collected by them on cash policies procured by them. For RPLI agents, it would be 10 per cent on premium collected for the first 12 months after acceptance and 2.5 per cent on renewal premium, according to a release.