9 706 /79 Vig.
It also held that numberallegation of the sort companytained in Rule 8 5 explanation b had been levelled against the respondent and the misconduct attributed to him was only companytravention of Rule 3 1 ii and iii of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1984.
The Rules are as follows Rule 3.
It deals with appeals from orders passed by an authority other than the President.
I in DGSD, and is officiating as Dy.
Hence the respondent was thereby given an opportunity to make a representation, if he so desired, against the penalty proposed above.
Ultimately an ex parte hearing was held on 4.1.1983.
Hence numberaction for grave misconduct can be taken under Rule 9.
The Tribunal has wrongly held that because the enquiry was initiated under Rule 3 i ii and iii of CCS Conduct Rules, the respondent cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct.
Thereupon by an order fated 18th of December, 1984 the President having regard to the full facts and circumstances of the case, ordered that the full pensionary benefits otherwise admissible to the respondent be withheld permanently.
A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge was also annexed.
Therefore, action companyld number be taken under Rule 9.
Thereupon he was informed on 24.7.1978 by the Counsellor Political Admn. ,
Director from 27.12.1967 onwards, companymitted grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly w.e.
Under a memorandum dated 9 the of June 1981 the President proposed to hold an inquiry against the respondent under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service Classification, Control Appeal Rules, 1965.
By order dated 14.2.1979 the applicant was relieved of his duties as Director Shipping in the High Commission with effect from 7.12.1978 and the period of his leave was regularised.
By its memorandum dated 8th of February, 1984, after taking into companysideration the record of the enquiry and the facts and circumstances of the case, it came to the companyclusion provisionally that the penalty of withholding of full pensionary benefit permanently may be imposed on the respondent.
The respondent had used his tenure at the High Commission for cenabling himself to stay permanently in England.
The Union Public Service Commission by its letter dated 30.11.1984 addressed to the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Supply, companysidered in detail the charge against the respondent, the report of the Inquiry Officer, the representations made by the respondent against punishment and by its detailed order of that date companyveyed to the President that the Commission companysidered that the ends of justice would be met if the full pensionary benefits otherwise admissible to the respondent are withheld permanently and they advised accordingly.
It was stated in the memorandum that such a representation should reach the undersigned within one month from the date of receipt of the memo.
The First Secretary, High Commission of India in London was appointed as Inquiry Officer.
A statement of imputation of misconduct was annexed to the memorandum and the respondent was directed to submit a written statement of his defence and state wheather he desired to be heard in person.
The enquiry officer observed that the companyduct of the respondent was delibrate and there was numbermitigating circumstances in his favour.
The respondent gave various excuses for number handing over charge.
Then he said that his wife was number well.
The article of charges were to the following effect The said Shri B. Dev who is a permanent Assistant Director Gr.
The enquiry against the respondent was initiated while he was in service.
He was charged under Rule 3 i ii and of the CCS Conduct Rules.
it held that numberfinding was recorded in the departmental enquiry that grave and serious misconduct, as envisaged in Rule 9, has been companymitted by the respondent.
These were forwarded to the High Commission at London for service on the respondent.
He was also informed that his request for ex India leave for two months had been rejected.
The respondent sent a representation.
the appellants have companye in appeal from the order of the Tribunal.
He said that he was suffering from a Slip disc.
Dated 30th of November 1981.
These orders were challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Government of India, Department of Supply thereafter companysidered the report of the Inquiry Officer along with the numbere of the Inquiry Officer setting out the several numberices sent by him requesting the respondent to remain present at the enquiry.
He had purchased a house in London almost at the beginning of his tenure there and his motive for overstaying was clear and in the circumstances exemplary punishment was called for.
The respondent, however, did number return to Delhi number did he join duty.
In the meanwhile, since the respondent would have retired with effect from 30.11.1981 the enquiry which was instituted against him under Rule 14 of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1965 was deemed to be under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 as per the Department of Supply, order No.
High Commission of India, London to make preparation for his departure to New Delhi were he was being transferred with immediate effect.
On 27.12.1978, the respondent was informed that he will be deemed to have relinquished charges on the evening of 7.12.1978, The respondent , however purported to go on medical leave.
The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.1.1983 holding that the charge framed against the respondent of having companymitted a grave misconduct by remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 10.2.1979 till 30.11.1981, the date on which he was to superannuate from government service, and thereby violating clauses ii and iii of Rule 3 1 of CCS Conduct Riles, 1964, had been proved.
He reported for duty at the High Commission of India in London on 7.2.1979 but he was number allowed to join.
from 10.2.1979 to date and by companytinuously disobeying the Government orders issued to him for joining duty.
The enquiry was companytinued under Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules after the date of superannuation of the respondent.
General Every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity maintain devotion to duty and do numberhing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.
The respondent made representation against his transfer.
Ultimately, he also asked for leave.
Thereafter the respondent applied for grant of excuse India leave for two months with effect from 9.2.1979.
The period of his deputation expired on 18.7.1978.
Therefore, numberaction companyld be taken under Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rule.
The gravity of the misconduct would depend upon the nature of the companyduct.
2 It would number be companyrect to say that a Government servant who is charged with number maintaining devotion to duty or with companyduct unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be held guilty of grave misconduct.
His companytinued unauthorised absence from duty for such a long time and disobeying of Government orders tantamount sic to lack of devotion to duty, and to a companyduct unbecoming of a Government servant.
Shri B. Dev has thus violated the provision of clauses ii and of Rule 3 1 of CSS Conduct Rules, 1964 and rendered himself liable to disciplinary action under CSS CCA Rules, 1965.
J. The respondent was holding the post of Assistant Director Grade I in the Directorate General of supplies and Disposals with effect from 27.12.1967.
Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar.
He was sent on deputation to the Ministry of External Affairs as Director Shipping and was posted at the post of High Commission of India in London from 18.7.1975 for a period of three years.
Although the charges were served on the respondent and the Inquiry Officer numberified to the respondent the date of the proceeding against the respondent, he chose number to appear before the Inquiry Officer despite several reminders.
However, his representations were rejected and he was informed that the Ministry of External Affairs had decided that he should relinquish charge of his office on 15.2.1978.
