 Good evening sir. Sir, probably you are not joined with the speaker. Sir, unmute yourself. Yes sir. The audibility has to be increased, the speaker volume. So you have connected. The audibility has to be improved. Kindly come near the mic. Speaking then we can start off as all the participants know that we have been holding various vilifying sessions which are being delivered by keynote speakers who have not only been the judges of the Supreme Court, setting judges of the High Court from various courts, not only from Punjab Arena, Kerala, Madras, Bombay, Calcutta. We have also on this platform had Advocate Generals, additional Solicitor Generals. The intent of the forum is that the knowledge is decimated from the speakers who have immense knowledge. Amongst us today we have the senior advocate Dr. KP Satasin, who is a distinguished speaker. The most distinguishing factor is that he's equally good in criminal law as well as in service matters. He is not only a lawyer, but he's also known for teaching. He in fact started his career as teaching in the law college Calicut and Arun Kalam. And thereafter he has assisted the High Court as well as Supreme Court in various issues which are perimeteria and have a far reaching effect on the legal jurisprudence. He had been the CBI council for 16 years and the fact that he's delivering a key, he's a keynote speaker today on an issue which as a student of law as well as lawyer, judge or for that matter, whosoever is in a government employment is all the intent is to learn the various flips of the discipline proceedings as to when the employee, what are the proceedings required for, when is the suspension done, when is the show cause notice issued, the charge sheet, when is the minor punishment imposed, when is the major punishment imposed. These are the facets which continue to stimulate the mind of a lawyer, student and an employee. And at the same time, there are certain issues, despite the fact that you are reading it. But yet, once you hear it from a person with great eminence, it's always enriching for everyone. Thank you, sir. I on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and Punjabi Noosti Chandigarh, welcome you again for this stimulating session from your side. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. See, actually the career of a government employee starts when he is getting an advice from the public. You know the method of employment in public service is either through public service commission or through employment exchange. Slightly your head would have to be on the higher side because your face is not visible. Is it okay? Yes, sir. Not better. The mic, you will have to hold it by your hand. I will just demonstrate because I am speaking through the loudspeaker. It's just like that. If you can hold the mic and you can do it like this. Sir kindly check the voice again at your end because people are just posting the message. It's not audible. You will have to either... He has a primary responsibility to see that public interest is always protected. And suppose a government servant is not rising to that level as expected by the government or by the public. He is having a black mark by calling him dereliction of beauty and negligence of these type of functions. For that purpose normally the government has got a missionary to initiate disapproving action against the government servants. In certain cases it may go to that level where the government servant may involve or indulge in corrupt practices also. Wherein you can see that one government can initiate the proceedings by the police force, vigilance force etc. Sir may I request, since it was not audible at the first instance, we can start from the first line itself. Hopefully the appointment in a public service is made by the governments through public service commissions. This is a normal method of appointment into a government service. But in certain states the public service appointment may not be resorted to due to various reasons because it may take a tendency in inverses. The process of selection may go on and the screening effect will be different and it may change from people to people raise to raise. So in certain states they follow the practice of taking employment appointment or they are taking the government servants through the employment exchanges. Apart from these two normal methods there are other methods also by which the government feels that a service of a particular person is highly essential for the ends of justice or for the purpose of discharging a public duty. Government can take that person also into service on a contract basis like agreement, mutual agreement etc. So when all these methods are admissible or available to the government it is the option is always with the government to follow which is the suitable method to select the best person. Once a person is selected and appointed by the government he is called a government servant or a public servant. Why he is called a servant? Normally that is a common question asked by the government servant sir. After getting through this process of selection after undergoing all these audios and after undergoing a thorough study and every materials and I am being scrutinized at various levels. Thereafter I am appointed but still you are calling me as a government servant. Why don't you call me as a government officer? Why don't you call me as a public officer? Because the concept is this whenever a person is appointed to a government service he is appointed to serve the people. He is not a boss he is always a servant. His duty is to serve the public, serve the people, serve the governments and that is why he is called as government servant and he is called as public servant. While discharging the duties of a government servant it is just like extending the benefit to the public. So normally a procedure will be prescribed. Normally the rules will be there. Normally the way in which he has to function is also well defined in the service rules. Suppose while discharging the duties by a government servant he is not expecting or he is not rising to that level what is expected by the government. Or suppose his activities are not beneficial to the public. Government can initiate or government can initiate discipline proceedings against him. And suppose that government servant is involved in unfair practices like corruption, like favoritism, like that government can initiate criminal proceedings against that particular person. So normally the government servants will face with a situation where parallel proceedings will be permissible. As regards government is concerned government want to correct that government officer for which the disability proceedings are initiated. As far as criminal proceedings are concerned he has to be punished for the crime which is committed by him through the society. So the main question which was considered by the Supreme Court whether two parallel proceedings 100 criminal law and 100 service law can be proceeded with. Earlier the view was once the criminal proceedings culminated in acquittal or he seemed to be innocent. Now further proceedings can be continued along with the service law and vice-versa also. But now it is settled that the parallel proceedings can be continued because one that method of taking evidence in criminal procedure and method of taking evidence in disability action by the government are totally different. In criminal proceedings you know that one all elements are crimes, all elements are proof and every chain has to be completed. Then only the criminal police will end either in conviction or in acquittal. But as far as the disability proceedings are concerned normally no such the evidences are not so much regard. The evidences are not expected to be as like a criminal proceedings so that a formal inquiry is required. Now I will be confining myself not to the criminal proceedings what is preserved yet or what is being followed by the government and vigilance cases etc. How the disciplinary action or the departmental action can be proceeded against the government. Every departmental action starts by giving normally when before starting a departmental action a preliminary inquiry will be conducted. Some higher officer, some higher authority when an allegation is received against a government servant he will conduct a preliminary inquiry. That inquiry need not be an inquiry what we contemplate under the service law. It can be even a secret inquiry to collect the information whether the allegation requires a consideration by the government. Because normal sense when people are discharging public duties there are possibilities of making false and baseless allegations against a government servant. In either way suppose an officer is very strict then also people will revolt. Suppose an officer is incapable then also the public will revolt. So normally before initiating a disciplinary proceeding against a government servant it is customary to have a preliminary inquiry by a superior officer. And because we want to protect the interest of the public as well as the interest of the government servant also. Because his marine must also be protected by the government which is responsible to the government to see that he is protected always. So before initiating a disciplinary action against a government servant it is customary to have a preliminary inquiry by a superior authority. And when that preliminary inquiry is done it is not mandatory that particular government servant should be heard because it is only a fact finding. It is actually not a procedure which is contemplated under the service law. It is only to evaluate the circumstance under which whether we should proceed or not. So even without hearing the government servant even without avoiding him an opportunity can be heard. The superior officer can conduct a preliminary inquiry and if he feels that it requires a detailed inquiry a detailed procedure is required. He can make a recommendation with that effect to the governments. Then the government will start the disciplinary proceedings. The procedure always started by giving memo of charges. Whether it is central service or giving memo of charges. Memo of charges normally in service law consist of two parts. First one the allegation. What is the allegation made against that particular officer? Second part of that is what the government intends to do. Whether the government want to go in that way or accept that system. Because in our state also that law is totally referring from other criminal rules. What that means followed by government is also that you have committed certain such allegation which is a dereliction of duty or negligence. Or unbecoming of the government servant like that and allegation is there. And it is proposed to implicate a punishment. It is an initial step which an employee is subjected to a disciplinary procedure. Along with the memo of charges the government is legally liable to provide that statement of allegations in detail. What are the allegations? What are the allegations against that particular government servant? Which is going to be evaluated through the process of inquiry. And what are the detailed allegations which led to the formation of these inquiry proceedings. So normally along with the memo of charges the statement of allegations should also be given to the employee. And that is also now very recently appealed by the Supreme Court saying that without a statement of allegations if he gives symbol memo of charges it will not serve any purpose. Because the government servant should know what is allegation against him. And only he can defend these case. So along with that memo of charges statement of allegations will be given to him. Usually in service law a printed format is provided even in fundamental rules. And the state rules also how the memo of charges are to be given. How the statement of allegations are to be given. Normally it is given very chronologically it is arranged like that. The paragraph must be there. Each paragraph should contain specific allegation. And finally the disciplinary authority must. And the disciplinary authority can either entrust the matter to him by himself. Or he can delegate it to somebody else who is subordinate to him. He can give the memo of charges and he can give the statement of allegations. And every government servant should be given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defense. Regarding the allegations what is his version. Usually he must be given an opportunity to produce the documents. He must be given an opportunity to verify the records. He must be given an opportunity to see that the documents which is laid upon by the entire officer. After perusing all those documents and records he can submit his written statement of defense. That is the first occasion under which a government servant can resist the allegations against him. After evaluating the written statement of defense. Suppose the disciplinary authority feels that this is not satisfactory. A further inquiry is required. Naturally the next step is. So this is the first stage. I am considering the step by step how that proceedings are being followed. First you must give the memo. An allegation is there. A preliminary inquiry has to be conducted. After preliminary inquiry the disciplinary authority feels that the further probe is required. He may give a memo of charges around the statement of allegations. Then the delinquent officer shall be given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defense. And after considering the statement of defense if the disciplinary authority feels that further proceedings are to be followed. Naturally he will be given and the matter will be appointed to an inquiry officer. An inquiry officer is expected to be a quasi judicial officer. He can issue summits. He can examine witnesses. He can take evidences. He can verify documents. Whatever normal procedure is prescribed by law that he can adopt. He is just like the exercising and quasi judicial power. And the delinquent officer as well as the presenting officer will be presented before him. And who are all the or what all evidences are led upon by the disciplinary authority. All those documents and all those evidences should be produced before the inquiry officer. And the delinquent officer will be given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. To convert to the documents. To verify the records. And after considering all those things the government or the inquiry officer. The inquiry authority can come to a conclusion. In respect of each allegation. Suppose the allegation contains the seven numbers or seven allegations are there out of which five are proved. Two are disproved. An inquiry officer can come to a conclusion. This is item number one is correct. Item number two is false. Item number three requires another probe. Item number four and five are correct. Like that he can come to a conclusion. The conclusion made by the inquiry officer must be a recent conclusion. He must give reasons for his conclusion. Only based on that the inquiry report becomes a PAKA report. That inquiry report has to be presented to the government. Concerned the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer only a fact finding authority. He cannot take any final decision. On the basis of the report submitted by the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority will come to a conclusion whether he should be given a punishment. And as for the service law. Punishment consists of two types of punishments namely minor punishments as well as major punishments. Minor punishment for simple offenses like a. Warning can be considered as a minor punishment. Censure can be considered as a minor punishment. Post-formant of the agreement can be considered as a minor punishment. And the withholding of an agreement can be considered as a minor punishment. Like that these are all minor punishments. Supposed the disciplinary authority feels that because you know that one for imposition of a minor penalty separate procedure is there. For imposition of a major penalty the proceedings are totally different procedure is totally different. In the case of major punishment like removal from service or dismissal from service or reduction. Invention or reduction in immoluments. Or reversion to a lower rank. And all those are considered to be a major punishment. The proceedings were imposed in a major punishment and penalty penalty. And the proceedings were imposed in a minor penalty are totally different. In either way whether it is minor or major. Supposed the proceedings are initiated for imposing a minor penalty. And while the proceedings are going on the inquiry officer feels that he requires a major penalty. Or while the proceedings are started with imposing a minor penalty and during the process of inquiry. The inquiry officer feels that only a minor penalty is required. In either way the authority has to give his findings to the disciplinary authority. After considering this finding the disciplinary authority can take a decision. What is the punishment to be awarded. And when that decision is taken he has to give a reason order. Along with a copy of the inquiry report to the concerned delinquent employee. So you underpin the inquiry report. It is proved that you have committed certain circumstances. And I am proposing to impose a minor penalty. Or I am proposing to impose a minor penalty. Do you have anything to offer? And when that proposal is forwarded to him along with the inquiry report. That is a mandatory provision earlier. You know that one earlier this inquiry report is kept always in camera they never give up. The inquiry report was not allowed given to the government servant. But now it is going that because the inquiry report is his own document which he requires a vital document. And naturally it has to be given to him a copy of the inquiry report. On the basis of that one the disciplinary the delinquent officer can offer his explanations. Which may or may not be acceptable. If it is acceptable accordingly the punishment can be reduced. Or if it is not acceptable the punishment can be rejected and the punishment can be imposed. Now the question is once a punishment is imposed. This is a normal procedure by which a government servant can be punished by the appointing authority. Once a punishment seems to be not correct or not admissible or the government servant feels that punishment is too harsh. Or the punishment is not actually expected by him. He can file an appeal. Appellate authority is always there. In all government service there will be an appellate authority. And he can move for an appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority will consider the indirect aspects again. He is not an empty formality appeal he is not an empty formality. And suppose he is not satisfied by the filing of the appellate authority. He can move to the government by revision. Revision can be taken over by the government either so or more or on the basis of the application submitted by the delinquent employee. Revision of poverty is always with the government because the government is the ultimate master. Suppose the government feels that the punishment awarded to a servant is not proportionate to the offense committed by him. Suppose the government feels that the punishment awarded to him is excessive than what is expected to him. In both ways government can call for the ender records and revise it. And that is why the revision of power is so motor given to the government. Not at the instance of the delinquent employee alone. And this is the normal procedure under which a punishment is inflicted on a government servant. The usual question is when a punishment is proposed to be inflicted on a government servant is it mandatory that the government servant should be kept under suspension. He always say that suspension is not a punishment because during the period of suspension he will get the subsistence as provided in the subsistence act. And punishment it cannot be termed as a punishment even because he is given paid salary without doing any job. But the mental agony and trauma before the public when an officer is placed under suspension that has to be taken into consideration by the government. That is why in 2015 Supreme Court said that under no circumstances he can protect the suspension beyond three months unless the memo charges are given to the servant within that time. Now that in all the other cases also now even by the latest in anybody. The court said that no he cannot place a government servant under suspension for indefinite period at the maximum. And what is the purpose of suspension? The purpose of suspension is to prevent him from manipulating the records because as long as he is continuing in service he has got a very opportunity to handle the records. To keep away him from him. He shall not be given an opportunity to manipulate the records in his favor. Secondly it is always better to have a fair trial when he is out. And only after evaluating these circumstances the court may or the government may order to keep a government servant under suspension. And that is why he is given subsistence allowance also. That's why we say that one suspension is not a punishment. In all cases of disciplinary proceedings suspension is not mandatory. Suspension can be invoked at any time as decided by the government even before the proposal to conduct an inquiry on officer can be placed under suspension. The social stigma and the mental agony and the trauma that is going to be faced by the government servant should also be taken into consideration. That is what the Supreme Court said. So suspension is within the discretion of the appointing authority and even extends now. Now it is well settled. Now the suspension period of suspension is extending more than three months. He has a right to be reinstated in the service. Of course the government can post him in a non-sensitivity post or a government can post him in some other place which is not easily accessible to him. But he shall not be kept under suspension beyond unless the charge sheet is filed within that three months time. So you take it granted suspension is not a punishment at all. And these orders are normally issued by the government in a routine manner. When government is issuing a routine order, government do you know that one government can issue orders? Only government can function through orders only? And that is all government orders issued by the government are called SROs, statutory rules and orders. We call it as SROs. Even government of India is also issuing orders only as SROs means the statutory rules and orders. And as far as Kerala is concerned we have got three types of government orders. Routine orders we call it as DORT. And the second one DOP we call it as the Government Order Printed that got to the co-exec, the series of air. And we call it as DOMS manuscript also is there. So whatever maybe these orders are issued by the government, the ultimate aim is to purify that. And for purification of the administration, if the punishment becomes mandatory, naturally the government servant has to be punished. There was a question, if you are taking the extreme step of dismissal from service of a government servant on the basis of some allegations. Can you call it as a purity of administration? That removal is ordered, dismissal is ordered only for purifying the admission. Yes, we have got two explanations for that one. First one, the elegant officer must feel that he shall not continue this practice. Second one, it must be taken as a lesson for the other government servants to see that this type of practices shall not be resorted to. But normal sense, you know that one when the government servant is dismissed from service, and their service benefits are withdrawn. He sends a street without any, even for that one, no pension, nothing, no terminal benefit, nothing will be given. Considering the auditory service rendered by the government servant instead of dismissal from service, he can be directed to remove from service. Dismissal and removal are totally different. When we say in the common parlance, we see that dismissal is also going out of the service, removal is also going out of the service. But in the case of removal, the government servant will get the service benefits and he will also get pension depending on the decision taken by the government. And for that purpose, you know that when there are various kinds of pensions are there, invalid pension is there, the honorary pension is there, supplementary pension is there, loyalty pension is there, so many types of pensions are present. Mr. government cannot want. So dismissal completely denies the end-year benefits, but removal gives him some benefit which the government feels is just a reason of it. This is the consequence of dismissal or removal from service which is the harshest method of punishing a government servant. The most harsh punishment that can be awarded to a government servant goes to that level of the. In all other cases, the removal theory will be applicable because the government servant will get an opportunity to come back, he can get himself reformed, he can get himself as a lesson to the others. And all those other types of punishments are simple. But normally, when a government servant is imposed with a minor penalty, it will create a stigma on the public. Not only that particular person, he has to face the public, he is sitting in an office, he has to deal with the public. He is always dealing with the human beings only. And suppose a person is given warning, even that will be reflected. Suppose one increment is barred, his qualification for promotion will continue for only a year. Suppose his three increments are barred, and even if it is without a cumulative, he will lose his seniority or three years in promotion chances are gone. If it is with cumulative, he will lose the three increments permanently. So naturally, the appointing authority should evaluate each and every fact and circumstance in the case before embossing a penalty. That is what we are normally challenging in the court. We will say the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. It is well settled by Supreme Court also. Every punishment must be disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. Suppose an ordinary clerk, you know that one, large scale corruption, I am not coming because large scale corruption itself is a very hot subject which requires a considerable time. Suppose a clerk or a peon in the government office is accepting 10 rupees as bribe because of the financial stringency or conditions are faced by that particular poor man. He will consider him as a great, he is a great offense, he is accepting bribery. But at the same time, the superior office in the same office may be collecting thousands of rupees, which goes unnoticed and government will never take any action against him. Poor man, what is peon? In the office you will think, what is the mechanism machinery? What is the purpose of giving me a punishment if I accept 10 rupees for purchasing ration? My superior officer who is travelling in AC car is purchasing 10,000 rupees, particularly you know that when this situation comes in police department. In police department, the constabulary will be normally collected minimum amount and higher-ups will be collecting maximum amounts. And they are expected to be the models to the subordinates but the models are, they cannot be followed as the models by the subordinates because superior office is so correct. So, so many factors are there to be considered by the government while imposing a punishment on a government's area. It is not like a criminal offense or criminal punishment. Criminal jurisprudence is totally different. Criminal jurisprudence has nothing to do with the service law. It has absolutely independent status. That is why in the beginning I told you that the criminal proceedings as well as the service law proceedings can go simultaneously. Even if you are acquitted in a crime case, in respect to the very same allegation, departmental action can be continued with. Even if you are found to be exonerated in the department of proceedings, in respect to the very same allegation, criminal proceedings can be continued with. Nothing prevents. So, two independent aspects. These are the two fundamental aspects which have to be considered by a government servant as long as he is continuing in service. And that is the normal law also. Even you know that one in higher level, higher-ups offices, senior, very good senior offices are subjected to so many digital reaction departmental action like that. But unfortunately in our legal system in India, we don't give any capital punishment for corruption. But there are certain countries in the world, when a government servant is committing a corruption, that is a capital punishment. Purity of administration requires a harsh punishment. Purity of administration always requires severe punishment. Unfortunately, our legal system does not provide for that. Our legal system always says that at the maximum, suppose I looted money or I have grabbed money or I have misappropriated money from my own office. At the maximum what can be done is I can be removed from service. Or at the maximum I can be dismissed from service. I cannot be sent to jail by the Indian authority concerned. That is one of the main weakness of service due response of India. No government servant can be sent to jail by the point in authority. At the maximum withholding of pension, removal from service and dismissal from service, maximum. And he is not restrained from, the only thing is he may be in certain cases, there may be a restriction. He may be declared as unfit to have any other government service, employment in any other government service. But normally such a restriction may not be imposed because that may not be applicable to, for example, a government servant who is removed from the central government can get an appointment in a bank or it can get an appointment in a cost institution. Sorry, public sector under taking like that, he can go for that. Nothing prevents. But countries are there where the purity of administration is maintained at the maximum level where even capital punishment is awarded to government servants. When capital punishments are awarded, you know that one just like the Gulf countries, once the punishment is strict and harsh the possibility for committing no offense will be less. That is why now in India, the last year survey actually shows that more than 23% of the government servants are correct. That's an all India evaluation report. 23% of the government servants are correct. I tell you now I am sitting in Kerala. I know that most of the, in Kerala not 23, more than 20. Or whenever all over India it is only 23. But I don't that all government servants are correct. All government servants are not correct. But even one person is causing maximum damage to the society because they are paid out of our own money. State extractor is being spent for them. They are being paid the salary from the state extractor only. And society extracts something from them. And it is only for that purpose our hard-earned money which is paid as a tax that is being distributed to them. So normally the public has high expectations. And most of the cases you know that one ordinary people for example our prime minister has that just before getting the relief in agriculture or this corona wider. People has to stand to queue for hours together because a particular village officer is very lazy. And what is everybody available to the common man? Unless and until the machinery is very pukka, unless and until the machinery is very strict, unless and until the higher level officers are very correct and very strict. The system will not function. The human tendency you know that one always to be lazy, always becoming responsible. And everybody wanted to share from their responsibilities to put in somebody's shoulder. So it is a prime concern that the top level officers who are controlling the show must have absolute dignity, absolute integrity, absolute administrative capacity. These are the three basic elements which can lead to a normal functioning of a government system, to a government machinery. Every government servant is a part of this government machinery only. Nobody is an exception. As far as executive heads are concerned you know that one, executive heads for example ministries they are not appointed. They may come and they may go. But government servants are appointed. If a person is appointed at the age of 25, he can continue his service up to the age of 60. No minister can continue up to the age of 60 if he is appointed as a minister at the age of 25. So apart from the higher ministers are concerned and apart from higher IAS or senior level officers are concerned, all the other are subjected to service control. And service control is the prime concern of every democratic country. Without a regular administrative control, without a regular evaluative control, without a performance evaluation, no government can function. And even last year Kerala, you know that one, the total number of files disposed by the Kerala government, government officials in the secretariat are less than 10% only. 90% of the files are still pending. The employment force is always evaluated by the government on every five years. What is the resources available and what is the percentage of work increased during the past five years? After taking into consideration the volume of work, the number of employees will be determined. And that is how the evaluation process of work is going on. For example five years back the total population is only less than one point or two crores. Now the population during the five years has gone to 2.5 crores, need is increasing every day. Naturally the workload will also be increasing, corresponding increase in the percentage will also be required. That is why systematic evaluation is done. And based on which the service force is also increased. Hence it is the only field where you can see that one. We call it as a white collar offense. It is the only field where you can see that one. State extracuries spend on public, state extracuries spend on these persons to discharge public functions. And that is why we call them as government employee, we call them as government servant, we call them as public servant. I think I am stopping it now. If you have anything to ask you can or it's okay. We can ask the questions to be posted on the group. Meanwhile, Soloni Gautam asks, are there any provisions such as we have company laws of whistleblowers for government officials? Are the employees of PSU's considered as government employees? No, PSU, PSU public servant taking, you know that one 51% is owned by the government only then it will come to the PSU. And in certain, if 51% is owned by the government naturally it will come under PSU then PSU government laws can be made applicable. Government laws and service laws are made applicable. Dr. Swamil Kumar, if all procedures of disciplinary proceedings are not followed by the employees, then what will be the effect on the penalty imposed on these proceedings? That may not be sustainable in the court of law because the two concepts will be exactly meant by the courts when you are challenging the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings. First one, the basic principle of natural justice that will be evaluated. Secondly, the court will see whether the rules of procedure is followed. For example, for embossing, placing a government officer under suspension rule 11 is required. And what are the parameters, the directions contained in rule 11 has to be, whether it has to be combined with. For embossing a minor penalty under rule 12, whether these are proceedings that is provided, whether the rules are followed. And for embossing major penalty rule 15. So naturally the only reason why we can challenge it in the court is only based on these two aspects alone. The principles of natural justice, I am not given, how do you see, how do you alter importance is there. I am not given an opportunity to defend my case. I am not given an opportunity to be here. These are the main defense that we can challenge disciplinary order or proceedings. And secondly, the rules of procedure is not followed. Except that simply by saying statement of facts, simply by saying that I am innocent, no court will end up here. In disciplinary matters, the courts are also very cautious. So unless you say that one, these are the legal lacuna what is committed by the disciplinary authority. These are the improperly done to me by the legal current competent authority. These are the violations of rules which is done by the competent authority, which is a principle of natural justice, basic element is violated. Then naturally the court will end up here. So once the punishment is awarded, it is not going to be the entity subjected to a judicial review. And that judicial review will be there. And for that purpose, you know that in 1985, administrative tribunal site is there. And suppose you are not satisfied with administrative tribunal site, you can come to the high court. And if you are not satisfied with the high court, you can go to the supreme court. These judicial forums are also there. So any action taken by the disciplinary authority will be subjected to judicial evaluation later on. So we have unmuted Manish Mittal. He will ask the question directly. Peace. Hello. Yes, Manish. Sir, once the government has been acquitted by the inquiry officer, is there any logic for imposing any punishment upon him by the disciplinary authority? I didn't get you. Sir, he says that let's assume he is exonerated by the inquiry officer. Can still a punishment be imposed? No. This is nothing at all. I am concerned with the service. I think what he is trying to say, probably Manish can make me stand corrected. Probably in that eventuality, you are well aware. In that eventuality, let's assume the disciplinary authority is not satisfied then in that case, he can remit the matter for further inquiry or be no inquiry is not permissible? He is not required. Further inquiry can be done. Yes, further inquiry and that inquiry officer will look into that matter. It can be. It need not be always by the same officer. By some other authority, it can also be appointed. Further inquiry will not be in no way inquiry, but still some other officer can be interested to conduct further inquiry. Because some of the cases we have come across, even the officer himself will have an opinion that this particular officer is biased. He will not render justice to me. He can request the appointed authority to change it. That would be a case wherein he says that the inquiry officer is biased. But his question Manish is that let's assume the inquiry officer is exonerated. Can the punishment be still imposed? I am saying the punishment cannot be imposed. At the most, it can be remitted back to the inquiry officer to give the report on certain aspects on that. Because once he is exonerated, then punishment cannot be imposed. No, no, no. It is always with the government. Suppose an inquiry officer is not coming to the conclusion, the logical conclusion in respect of allegation one, two, three. The government can remit that matter to the same inquiry officer. That's what I am saying. The government can direct to the same inquiry officer or some other officer to the inquiry officer. But it shall not be at the risk of the government because the government is appointing another inquiry officer and getting a report in favour of him as decided by the government. Naturally, it will create a doubt in the mind of the courts. Mandip Sajjan, in case a person is acquitted by a criminal court, can a disciplinary authority still impose the punishment? Sure. Activity in a criminal case is not a bar. Lovely. Is it compulsorily to issue a show cause notice to the employee before the employer issues? Descending note. No, to issue a dissenting note. That is in respect where... There is no question of any dissenting note or so because... Sir, probably his case is also wherein dissenting note will only come once there is an exoneration by inquiry officer. Maybe the question is not complete. No. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the finding of the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority can completely reject the inquiry officer's report. But in that case, the inquiry authority must give a speaking reason why he is disagreeing with the inquiry officer's finding. After that, if the government feels or the disciplinary authority feels that a de novo inquiry is required. Naturally, the such and such aspects are not considered. The government can refer the matter to some other office. The only thing is, the government should pass a reason. Sir, we are unmuting the lovely because he says that the question was not read the way he wanted. So we are unmuting lovely. Meanwhile, I am reading the question of Sandeep. Is Dauri declaration by a government employee mandatory during the service? If a government employee commits a crime of giving Dauri. How can such be crime reported and how does it... Dauri Prohibition Act is there. If he is doing anything illegal that he has to be considered as a punishment under the criminal law as well as if there is a reason. Both action can be initiated. Sir, Kunid. Lovely. Yes, sir. What can an employee do if an employer issue a Dyson and order without issuing any Shoko's notice? See, for issuing a Dyson order, Shoko's notice is not required because it is for the remuneration. It is always paid only for the services done by him. If the government feels that the particular person has not discharged his duties and the government makes a declaration by saying that unless you do the work, you will not get the pay for which no Shoko's notice is required. It is already settled because all Indian postal unions and employees work. They have got a Dyson for 26 days. Supreme Court said no mandatory to use it to give Shoko's notice or anything unless you work, you will get the pay. Is there any time limit to contest the Dyson and order? No order. No time limit. Every government order has to be challenged within a reasonable time. The reasonable time depends on the facts of the case. Thank you. Since there are some students also, may I request? How do you explain Dyson? Dyson means no work, no pay. I am saying on a different pedestal because all are not lawyers. Some are students also. They would like to know what is Dyson? See, a person is employed in a government service to do the duty for 30 days in a month. After 30 days, he will get a statutory all day for 7 days. Normally, it is 5 days, but it can go up to 7 days. And suppose after 7 days, a persecutor person is not coming to the office and disarming the duties. In individual cases, Dyson may not be declared. But in collective organization, suppose a group of employees are resorting to strike by saying that we will prohibit the work for 3 days. And in that, even government can take a policy decision that we will not give you the pay. Unless you work during these 3 days. That is called, in simple terms, we call it as guys' law. So it is a policy decision of the government. In certain government, for example, in Kerala, at the present ruling party, they were having a strong employees union called NGO union. And they resorted to all sides of strike during the previous regime. And there the government always declared the policy, if you go on strike, we will not give you the salary. Unless you work, how can you claim the salary? It is not a punishment. It is only a withholding of the remuneration because you don't work. We have unmuted Puneet. Puneet, ask your question. Good evening, sir. Sir, my question is, when we are dealing with the terminal use of an employee, there will be two situations that one, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to his retirement. Correct. When we retire that employee, so how do we treat his terminal use? And for example, when he retires, but we come to know about any misconduct after retirement. So, Puneet, get that. Yes, sir. The answer is very simple. Any disciplinary action can be initiated against the employee only when he is in service. If there is any pecuniary loss to the government, disciplinary proceedings can be initiated even after the retirement. In the case of pecuniary loss to the government alone. In all other cases, the disciplinary proceedings has to be initiated prior to retirement. And suppose he suffered or caused a loss to the government, that loss can be recovered from his terminal benefits. But now the latest gentleman, Supreme Court says, from DCRG, Death Crown Retirement, their activity, you cannot withhold. But his pension can be withheld. 50% of the pension can be withheld until the loss is realized to the government. But the disciplinary proceedings must be initiated prior to his retirement, unless there is monetary loss. If there is monetary loss, the disciplinary proceedings can be commenced and continued even after retirement. No, but that would be in an eventuality where there is a pension. But what about a case where there is no pension scheme? The government servants always have a pension. No, at least in our places. Sir, in PSUs, they don't have a pension. It's not a pensionable service. In that case, his terminal benefits will be for a fee. But the quantification must be done before releasing it. But it sometimes so happens that before his superannuation, the enquiry report has not been submitted, nor the punishing authority has been able to come to a conclusion. When a person is in service, everybody knows that he is greater than that. And last minute, you know that one supposed person is retiring on 30th of September 2020. And we come to notice about his illegality in September 5th or September 10th. The date of retirement can be postponed. He may not be made to retire. Sir, can we... Sir, I'm sorry sir, just one more thing. Sir, can we set off the law? Suppose the disciplinary authority prior to retirement quantifies the laws. And the terminal dues also are being prepared. So, can the disciplinary authority pass an order to set off the laws from the terminal dues? Yeah, very much. But sir, at time court says that why you are touching the Gratitude or PF of the employee? No, no, no. Gratitude is actually not considered to be. Gratitude is only an effort to permit. Gratitude cannot be... Even though we pay it at the time of retirement, Gratitude cannot be called as a payment made out of Gratitude. It is only actually that sir... Please. Sir, but at time Supreme Court says that Gratitude and these benefits are not the bounty of the employer. So, how can the employer touch the Gratitude? They say that pension is not a bounty. And that is the same reason now given to Gratitude also. That is the same reason. But suppose the loss is caused to the public sector and taken by that, governments are well. It can be definitely recovered from this terminal balance. Other than Gratitude. Thank you, sir. We have unmuted Devika. She practices in the... Devika, you can ask the question directly. Sir, very good evening. My question is, sir, in most of the cases we see that even when the delinquent employee, while he is in service and an enquiry is conducted against him, either his exonerate is absolved of the charges or a punishment is awarded to him. After, for example, let's say he has served the punishment, nowadays we see he is harassed while after he is retired, he is harassed that while you were in service and enquiry was conducted against you, so we are not releasing the retire benefits. Is it decided what can be done? No, the problem is, suppose a government servant is causing loss to the government while in service. And it becomes unnoticed by the government until his retirement. That is a simple question. After retirement, if it comes to the knowledge of the government, the government can initiate disability proceedings and government can realize the loss from him. That is why, except in the case of monetary losses, no disciplinary action can be initiated after the retirement. But in the case of monetary losses, even after retirement, the proceedings can be initiated. And it could be recovered even from his terminal benefits or withholding pension like that. Publicity undertaking, suppose there is no pension is there, before dispensing all these terminal benefits that has to be evaluated and everything has to be calculated prior to his retirement itself. So we are unmuting Varun, Varun Garg. If anybody has a question, they can post it in the chat box. Varun, meanwhile I can read the question of Varun. What is the remedy of disciplinary authority does not initiate proceedings against the deligant officer even if there is negligence or part thereof by the deligant officer? The disciplinary authority, he must be paka and he must be vigil always. It is his responsibility only to bring the administration normally. Suppose he himself is deligant or if he is careless, only God alone can save him. Sir, Raghu, Raghu, whether malpractice in appointment exams does it amount to it should be dereliction of duties of a government officer? Yes, definitely. Varun, you can ask the question directly. Good evening, sir. In 2014, the Lito-Kovary management has been delivered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. In clear words, Honourable Supreme Court said, FIR must be registered by the officer in charge of the police station. When they refused to register in FIR, then matter went to the higher officer like Deputy Commissioner of Police and DCP in the states. They still don't themselves negligent and Supreme Court clearly said that even after taking means they have to take action within the 15 days. If they do not take action within 15 days, disciplinary inquiry should be started against the adding police officer. But they refused to do disciplinary inquiry and they even refused to pass any action regarding direction to register in FIR. So what is the remedy left with the citizen? My first question is whether it is a prerogative of disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary action and second, what is the remedy left with the citizen in this situation? See, citizens are supposed to police the stored register in FIR when you make a permissible offense. It is left to the citizens to move directly to the court by filing a private complaint under section 19. And as far as the government of the police officer who refuses to register in FIR, you can move to the higher authority. For example, DIG or IG or DGP or State Police Chief. And suppose they refuse to take action against the particular officer, you can invoke the jurisdiction under section 226 before the high court. Thank you, sir. Sir, thank you. The questions will keep on pouring. One, Mandeep, Sajan, we are unmuting him. They want to ask a question directly. Mandeep, then there's another, Dr. Tanaji Rathod. Hello. Hello. Yes, sir. Dr. Tanaji Rathod. Sir, when an employee, he has been dismissed with a three increment cut. Okay. Again, he has been taken to employment. Okay. The seniority will go down or it will be maintained status quo? No. He will be, once his increment is cut and is removed from service, that increment which is already detected cannot be recovered again. Even if he is re-inducted into service. Yeah. His seniority will be maintained? Seniority will not be permitted, provided he is dismissed from service, he cannot claim or else he can claim the seniority. He has re-taken to the employment. Re-taken to the employment, first removal is actually removal from service or dismissal from service? Dismissal from service. Then he cannot. His seniority will come down? Come down. Okay. Thank you. Sir, it sometimes happens that a person is entitled to be considered for promotion, but his case was kept in a sealed cover. That procedure is followed in fundamental rules only because for every select post, department of promotion committee meeting is required. And department of promotion committee meeting consists of the head of the department, the UPSC member and all those, the prime superior authority and all those five persons will be there. It is practically impossible to hold the meeting on every occasion. When the government servant is due for promotion, he is facing some departmental action. They can conduct the claim, consider his claim and put the finding in a sealed cover. Once the departmental proceedings are over, the cover can be opened and then he can be given promotion. That is the only facility provided for that. So that I can understand that is from the KV Janki government. But eventually let's assume a minor punishment is imposed. Minor punishment does not stand in the way. Then he will get the seniority of everything from the date and he became due. The only thing is that they need not convene a new DPC. Then the sealed cover has to be opened. Right, sir. Now we are unmuting Tripti to ask the question directly. Yes, Tripti. Tripti Jeet, you can ask the question directly. No, she is not. Sir, Varun Mahajan, what if the investigating officer? Tripti, you can ask the question directly. Tripti Jeet. Azad Singh, whether illegal arresting done by an IO comes under his official capacity or not? Whether he can be prosecuted for this or not? He can be prosecuted illegally. He can be prosecuted illegally. He is not. That's my life. If an officer IO is committing an illegal arrest, he can be prosecuted. That IO can be prosecuted. Nilesh. Ten commandments of the Supreme Court in Nilesh. Okay. We are unmuting Nilesh. He is an IETN. He wants to ask a question. Nilesh. Hello. Hello. Sir, I am working in DRDO Pune. I got selected in IIT, Goa. I want to take LEAN, the two-year period. It is an autonomous government organization under MOD. They are denying me LEAN. Is it possible to approach court? No. Unless the service conditions are provided for LEAN. You cannot claim LEAN as a matter of rights. It is not my right. No. Because government services give LEAN for three purposes. For education purposes. For joining spouses. And for accepting alternate employment. But in these three cases, the LEAN will be retained. Provided government will give it a LEAN. In case of public sector undertaking, they don't have such a policy. Okay. It is autonomous organization under Ministry of Defence. And I am selected in IIT, Goa. But that is true. But they don't give you for educational loan. At the education leave, they don't sanction. Naturally, you will lose. Or you can write to the government and get sanctioned. Okay, sir. Thank you, sir. Azad Singh asks. Okay, sir. I think the question will continue. It was a wonderful session. I, on behalf of Beyond Law CLC, as well as ULS Punjabi University, Chandigarh, would like to thank you for giving insightful session. The initial hiccups and thereafter the session going well. It says that prior and prior you will succeed. And it was a clear example that we just persisted with the work. And it also gives us the motivation that even during the lockdown, sometimes the mind is locked with a negative mindset. But if we persist with the positiveness, the thought process will be positive and we will succeed. So thank you on behalf of participants. In the meanwhile, three months back I visited Chandigarh Ico. I argued a matter there, I got an honor in my favor. I applied for a company there in Chandigarh. Okay. That's a good way. It was, if you would have known then we could have got connected. But this platform shows that the boundaries and this thing are no barriers. Here we have been able to learn the entire nitty gritties of the service law, which definitely comes in the mind of anyone. But once it is being dissipated through a person who has immense knowledge, it only enhances the knowledge. And the person who was already having some knowledge, but the final nuances can always be learned by an expert which we learned today. And we are all embedded, indebted for the knowledge you have imparted. The participants who have participated, we are also thankful those who participated on the Zoom application as well as on the Facebook. Stay connected. Tomorrow we have a webinar by Justice JR Mitta, who is judgments on the motor accident claims, motor accident claims are itself path breaking. Many of his judgments and the way how to proceed further have been also not followed strictly, but those judgments have been upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court. Stay connected. One can always see that Mr. Mitta's judgments on the motor accident claims are themselves path breaking and enlightening for everyone. And he will tell us how to expedite the claims in a time-bound manner, not the structural process which we are generally following. So tomorrow at 5 p.m. on behalf of Beyond Law CLC and ULS Punjabi Ostea, we will see you all in the webinar. Thank you, sir. Stay blessed. Thank you.