Need for self-contained speaking and reasoned order - CVC
Instances have come to the notice of the Central Vigilance Commission in which the final orders passed in disciplinary cases by the competent disciplinary authorities did not indicate proper application of mind, but a mere endorsement of the Commission's recommendations which leads to an unwarranted presumption that the DA has taken the decision under the influence of the Commission's advice. Further, it is also observed that the DAs in the Departments/Organisations, in practice, do not provide a copy of Commission's advice to the employees concerned. The cases where the final orders do not indicate proper application of mind by the DA and or non supply of Commission's advise, are liable to be quashed by the courts.
So the Commission reiterates that
(i) the CVC's views/advices in disciplinary cases are advisory in nature and it is for the DA concerned to take a reasoned decision by applying its own mind.
(ii) The DA while passing the final order, has to state that the Commission has been consulted and after due application of mind, the final orders have been passed.
(iii) Further, in the speaking order of DA, the Commission's advice should not be quoted verbatim.
(iv) CVOs should ensure that the DAs in their respective Departments/Organisations strictly follow the above guidelines/procedures while processing the disciplinary cases.
So this means that the Disciplinary Authority while passing the order has to rewrite the CVC's advice in his own words. If the DA has to pass his own orders, why should the CVC's advice be sought at all and who will differ from the CVC?
CVC Circular No. 02/01/09 Dated: January 15, 2009