Site news

SRI GOPI (911B) PK NOT DISMISSED FROM THE BBMP SERVICE DESPITE UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE AND SEVERAL NOTICES ISSUED UNDER CCA RULES

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
SRI GOPI (911B) PK NOT DISMISSED FROM THE BBMP SERVICE DESPITE UNAUTHORISED ABSENCE AND SEVERAL NOTICES ISSUED UNDER CCA RULES
by System Administrator - Wednesday, 18 January 2017, 5:37 AM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bangalore : In BBMP anything can happen. Instead of taking actions officers are wasting their time in calling me for an appeal hearing on RTI appeal .Executive engineer Mahalaxmipuram has called for hearing on 20-01-2017 It is reported that many people remain absent but BBMP officers are not taking any action on them and salaries are paid despite they are notified. One such case is reported as eye opener. I have filed several RTIs and no action is initiated to take action on unauthorized absence despite several notices were issued..But such PK is given and allotted a house despite he is an absentee..Under RTI I had asked to provide me information and his service book extracts with date of appointment and reasons for the delay in taking action as per KCSR and rules against Sri Gopi (911B) for his unauthorized absence and despite several notices were issued and few copies are provided with this application and reasons for releasing his salary July or September 2016 despite his absence. If you failed to take action against Sri Gopi (911B ) we shall initiate lokayukta complaint against all officers supporting illegal absenceof Sri Gopi (911B ).The BBMP officers had replied me that and confirmed that he indeed is an unauthorized absentee according to RTI reply given to me on 30-10-2015 .I had filed one more RTI Applcation too provide me information and reasons for the delay in to cancel the allotment made in the name of Sri Gopi Sheshadripuram house Number 11 old swar lane PK Colony sheshadripuram serial number 7 as per your per order dated 08-09-2016 as he is in unauthorized absence for several years and proofs were got and given under RTI and till today no action was taken on my application..This house was already allotted to Smt Venkatamma vide order dated B 10 IR(N&W) 27 78-79 Dtaed 25-08-1978 and since then she is staying there with her family and she is in possession and all such poura Karmikas were given possession certificates and sale deeds registered in their names and few are pending as per Government order UDD99MNG2000in respect of Sale of BMP quarters to its occupants.BBMP is the "public authority "is under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(1) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act 2005 .

According to Circular No. DPAR 30 SSR 79, dated 17th April 1979 in respect of Un-authorized absence of Government servants, Instructions regarding Quick Disposal of enquiry cases the following instruction was issued by DPAR. It was come to the notice of Government that in several cases in which Government servants have remained absent unauthorisedly, either no action has been taken against them or in some cases where action has been initiated, it is done after a lapse of considerable time. Unless timely, steps are taken in such cases effective disciplinary action cannot be taken against the erring officials and the posts held by these absentees remain vacant causing considerable dislocation of work as it would not be possible to post substitutes in their places. A Government servant does not cease to be a member of the services to which he is appointed or sever connections with the post held by him by reason of his un-authorised absence unless action is taken aganist him by the appointing authority / competent disciplinary authority under KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 and he is removed or dismissed from service after conducting an inquiry in accordance with rules 11 and 11A of these rules. Normally it should not take much time to hold an inquiry and finalise action in accoradance with rule 11 and rule 11A of the KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. If the Government servant refused to receive notices / orders of the competent authority, the procedure laid down under rule 28-A of the KCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules could be followed conveniently and if necessary, and ex-parte inquiry held aganist him and final orders passed removing or dismissing him from service if the charge of un-authorised absence is established. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments are requested to take necessary action in the matter and bring these instructions to the pointed notice of appointing authorities / disciplinary authorities under their control, and see that delays in instituting / finalising inquiries in such cases are avoided. Any delay in taking action in such cases would be viewed seriously and the concerned officer who has failed to take action or delayed taking action will be held personally responsible and disciplinary action would have to be initiated against him for the lapse.

According to No.DPAR 3 SDE 94 dated 26.2.1994 following directions were issued. The consequences of unauthorised absence are spelt out under Rule 106-A of Karnataka Civil Service Rules. Accordingly, unless leave is granted by the Competent Authority, such Government Servant who absents himself from duty without leave will not be entitled to any salary for the day/days of absence; the period of such absence shall be debited to the account as though it were half-pay leave to the extent such leave is due and as extra-ordinary leave to the extent the period of absence falls short of the half-pay leave at credit. It is also provided that such unauthorised absence will render a Government servant liable for disciplinary action for his conduct except where the Government servant establishes to the satisfaction of the authority competent to sanction leave that he was unable to join duty for reasons beyond his control. According to Rule 108 of K.C.S. Rs, unless Government, in view of the special circumstances of the case, determines otherwise, an officer who remains absent from duty without leave for a period of four months or more may be liable to be dismissed or removed from service after following the procedure laid down in the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. According to Rule 107 leave cannot be claimed as of right. Discretion is reserved to the authority empowered to grant leave to refuse or revoke leave at any time according to the exigencies of the Public Service. While considering the case of repeated absence of a Government Servant, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Narasimharaju Vs. State and another (KSLJ 821/93) has held that such absence is a good ground to consider the applicant as unsuitable for job. This judgement draws support from the judgement of Supreme Court in Samsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831. The instructions issued by Government in O.M. No. DPAR 4 SDE 89, dated 31.1.1989 that a Government Servant who returns after a spell of unauthorised absence should be taken back to duty if in the meanwhile he was not removed from service after holding an enquiry in accordance with rules are in keeping with the judgement of the K.A.T in Dr. Changoli Vs. State and others (1989 KSLJ 1063). The provision of Rules 106-A, 107,108 and 162 of KCSRs give adequate authority to deal with unauthorised absence. If prompt action is taken as contemplated in these rules, a situation where a Government Servant has to be taken back to duty even after prolonged unauthorised absence can be avoided. Government therefore, have considered it necessary to lay down the following guidelines for strictly enforcing the provisions of the Rules and to deal with cases of unautorised absence or overstayal without proper authority:

1) In all cases of unauthorised absence the competent authority should immediately invoke the provisions of Rule 106-A of KCSRs. If this is enforced there will be no occasion for a Government servant to unauthorisedly absent himself even for shorter periods. 2) Where a Government Servant absents himself without prior sanction of leave, the Disciplinary authority concerned should immediately issue a notice of recall to duty. Where the notice is not responded to and the Government Servant continues to be absent without intimation, it should be deemed that the Government Servant has absconded and the Special Procedure prescribed for dealing with such cases as under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, should be invoked. 3) In the meanwhile the authority concerned should also examine why the Government Servant should not be placed under suspension for unauthorised absence. 4) Where the unauthorised absence exceeds four months the Appointing Authority should immediately place the Government Servant under suspension. For this purpose, the head of the Office or other competent authority under whose jurisdiction, the Government Servant was working should send a report promptly. Such report should be sent in all cases where the unauthorised absence exceeds a period of 15 days. The disciplinary authority should also immediately institute proceedings under Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and consider the question of removal or dismissal of the Government Servant under Rule 108 of KCSRs. The Special procedure under Rule 14 of K.C.S (C.C.A) Rules could also be invoked where the officer concerned has absconded, or where the officer concerned does not take part in the Inquiry or where for any reasons to be recorded in writing it is impracticable to communicate to him etc. 5) In such cases where the unauthorised absence is beyond 15 days, if the Head of the Office or other authority fails to give intimation to the authority competent to take disciplinary action, such Head of the Office or other authority to give information of the unauthorised absence will be personally held responsible. Similarly, where the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority as the case may be fails to keep the Government Servant under suspension immediately after expiry of four months of unauthorised absence, the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority as the case may be shall be personally held responsible for this lapse. They would incur similar liability for failure to take suitable proceedings under Rule 108 of KCSRs for removal / dismissal of Government Servant immediately after expiry of the period of four months of unauthorised absence. The Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments should bring these guidelines to the notice of all authorities concerned and ensure prompt action in dealing with cases of unauthorised absence.