Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 24 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 24 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – AN INTRODUCTION

III.  Learn Conduct rules through Judicial judgments

6.    Acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistakes committed by a Government servant cannot be treated as misconduct

Held: The learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V. J. Ahmed [AIR 1979 SC 1022]. It has been held by the Supreme Court quoting Strouds Judicial Dictionary that 'misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistakes do not constitute such misconduct'. In the instant case, it is only, if at all, errors of judgment or mistake which cannot be treated as misconduct in the context of the above. The learned Counsel for the applicant also relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Mishra v. State of Orissa (1996 SLR SC 657]. As regards the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in that decision, it was held that

If the Conservator of the Forests wanted to use them, he should have apprised him of his own attitude and given him an adequate opportunity. Since the opportunity was not given, the order of the Conservator of Forests modified by the State Government cannot be upheld. We, accordingly set aside the order and remit the case to the Conservator of Forests for dealing with it in accordance with law".

On a reading of the charge-sheet framed against the applicant, we find that it was alleged that he had committed gross misconduct under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules having been negligent and careless while exercising his power in supervisory powers over the subordinate staff and the unit in question. Even if it is accepted that the applicant was negligent and careless as alleged by the respondents that would not constitute a misconduct. In the case before us, all that is alleged in the charge-sheet is that the applicant was negligent and careless in proper discharge of his duties as a Supervisory Officer. It is curious to note that it is nowhere mentioned as to what was the resultant damage caused because of such negligence or carelessness. From the averment in the charge-sheet, the degree of culpability as observed by the Supreme Court cannot be assessed. In the absence of that, we are constrained to hold that the allegations made against the applicant would not constitute misconduct so as to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the Government servant. Judging the case from that standpoint, we hold that the charge-sheet and the disciplinary inquiry started against the applicant cannot be allowed to stand.

[Purushottam Sadashiv Kakirde v. Union of the India and others; 0.A. No.426 of 1991; decided on 25.1.1995; Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench; No. 234 of Swamy's Case-Law Digest, 1995/1.]

I HOPE YOU WOULD HAVE ENJOYED WITH THE INTERPRETATIONS AND

PLEASE READ THE WORDS IN THE PRE PARAS WITH BOLDNESS TWICE OR THRICE TILL ABSORBED IN YOUR MIND.