Disciplinary proceedings - Difference of opinion with CVC
The Central Vigilance Commission has observed that in a number of cases of disagreement with the Commission’s advice, the Commission has not been informed about the reasons for disagreement or whether a reference to the DOPT, as required under the above instructions, was made. So now the CVC wants the CVOs to
1. to ensure that before it is finally decided to disagree with the Commission’s advice on further action on a complaint or on an investigation report, or in a vigilance case, reference is made to the Department of Personnel in respect of all such cases, where the appointing authority is the President or the disagreement is due to UPSC’s advice.
2. note these instructions for strict compliance.
3. that wherever it has been finally decided to disagree with the Commission’s advice, reasons for the same are communicated to the Commission along with a final order in the case, to enable the Commission to decide about inclusion of the case in its Annual Report.
Before taking disciplinary action against government employees, the advice of the CVC is obtained on the quantum of penalty.
Is the CVC’s advice binding on the Disciplinary Authority?
A Madras High Court order in January last year had held that ‘‘Any advice or opinion to be sought from the CVC can be only on procedural matters and if any advice is given in the matter of appreciation of evidence, proof of charges, or the quantum of punishment, such advice shall be ignored and not be binding on the disciplinary authority (the concerned Government office). Any regulation to the contrary will be wholly without jurisdiction and inoperative.’’
Reacting to this order, the then CVC remarked, ‘‘This ruling questions the basic fibre of the CVC’s existence which which it has been operating since 1964. Till this order is remedied it remains law and with it, our supervisory role vanishes in one stroke.’’
When the CVC’s advice is binding, what is the point in explaining to the CVC why his advice has not been followed? Isn’t the order supposed to be a speaking order and shouldn’t it explain why a particular punishment is awarded?
CVC Circular No.39/10/06 dated the 10th October, 2006