Promotion Process when Disciplinary or Court Proceedings are Pending and Clarifications on Promotion Rules during Pending Disciplinary/Court Proceedings

-

 Refined Summary of Both Documents with Additional 10 Examples



1. DPAR 22 SRR 1993 (Dated 14-07-1993)

Topic: Promotion Process when Disciplinary or Court Proceedings are Pending

Refined Summary:

This document establishes the guidelines for handling promotions of government employees under disciplinary inquiries or court cases. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must evaluate an employee’s eligibility for promotion based on their service record without considering the pending proceedings. The findings of the DPC are kept in a "sealed cover" until the case is resolved. If the employee is exonerated, the sealed cover is opened, and they are promoted retrospectively from the date their junior was promoted. If found guilty or penalized, the sealed cover is discarded, and their case is reconsidered in the next DPC.

The same procedure applies when an officer is under suspension. If reinstated, the DPC must follow the sealed cover procedure until the case is concluded. The disciplinary action is deemed to have begun from the issuance of a charge sheet or court indictment.

10 Examples for DPAR 22 SRR 1993:

  1. Case of Exoneration:
    A government officer eligible for promotion in 2020 was facing a corruption inquiry. Their assessment was placed in a sealed cover. In 2022, they were cleared of all charges. The sealed cover was opened, and they were promoted retrospectively from 2020, ensuring no loss of seniority.

  2. Case of Conviction:
    An assistant engineer was under a court trial for financial mismanagement. The DPC assessed their promotion eligibility but kept it in a sealed cover. In 2023, they were found guilty and dismissed from service. The sealed cover findings were discarded, and they were denied promotion.

  3. Promotion of Junior Employees:
    A superintendent and their junior were both eligible for promotion in 2021. The superintendent’s case was put under a sealed cover due to a pending inquiry. The junior was promoted. Two years later, the superintendent was exonerated, and their promotion was granted from the same date as their junior.

  4. Officer Under Suspension:
    A deputy tahsildar was suspended in 2019 pending an inquiry. In 2021, they were reinstated. Their promotion, which was due in 2020, was placed under a sealed cover. After the inquiry cleared them, they were promoted retrospectively from 2020.

  5. Delay in Sealed Cover Opening:
    A revenue officer’s case was in a sealed cover for five years due to prolonged court proceedings. Once cleared, they were promoted. However, since they retired a year later, they received only financial benefits but not the actual promotion post.

  6. Multiple Sealed Covers:
    A section officer was due for promotion in 2018 but had a pending inquiry. In 2019 and 2020, two more promotion cycles took place. Since their case was unresolved, three sealed covers were prepared. In 2021, they were exonerated, and all three covers were opened to determine their seniority.

  7. Departmental Promotion Without Inquiry Conclusion:
    A forest officer’s disciplinary inquiry was delayed due to procedural lapses. Despite being eligible for promotion in 2022, the sealed cover rule was applied. The officer challenged the delay, and the court directed the department to expedite the inquiry.

  8. Officer Penalized with Minor Penalty:
    A police officer was found guilty of minor misconduct and given a warning. Since the penalty was not severe, their sealed cover was opened, and they were considered for promotion without delay.

  9. Retrospective Promotion and Pay Fixation:
    A government engineer’s promotion was held up due to a pending vigilance inquiry. After being cleared, they were promoted with effect from 2019. Their pay was revised accordingly, and arrears were paid.

  10. Promotion Reconsideration After Penalty:
    A senior assistant faced a disciplinary action resulting in a pay cut for three years. Their sealed cover was discarded, but after the penalty period ended, they were considered for promotion again in the next DPC.

2. DPAR 23 SRR 1998 (Dated 14-07-1999)

Topic: Clarifications on Promotion Rules during Pending Disciplinary/Court Proceedings

Refined Summary:

This document clarifies key points from the 1993 memorandum. It defines that "court proceedings" include criminal prosecutions for offenses involving moral turpitude. It also details who has the authority to place an employee under disciplinary action. If an employee is recommended for promotion but faces charges before being officially promoted, their case is treated as if under "sealed cover."

Additionally, if no Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) exists for a cadre, the same sealed cover process applies. This prevents individuals facing charges from gaining an unfair advantage while ensuring those falsely accused do not suffer undue career setbacks.

10 Examples for DPAR 23 SRR 1998:

  1. Definition of Court Proceedings:
    A forest guard was involved in a criminal case for misusing official powers. Since the case involved moral turpitude, their promotion was put under sealed cover. However, a junior officer with a contempt of court case (official duty-related) was promoted since contempt of court was explicitly excluded from the rule.

  2. Suspension and Promotion Eligibility:
    A commercial tax officer under suspension was reinstated but had a pending corruption case. Their name was assessed for promotion, but as per the sealed cover rule, it remained on hold until case resolution.

  3. Authority for Disciplinary Action:
    A district education officer was suspected of fraud. As per the clarified rule, only the competent authority (department secretary) could initiate action against them. A junior officer's disciplinary action against them was invalid, and their promotion proceeded.

  4. Promotion for Cadres Without a DPC:
    An administrative officer in a special cadre had no formal promotion committee. Their case followed the sealed cover rule, ensuring uniformity across departments.

  5. Criminal Conviction Leading to Dismissal:
    A municipal engineer was found guilty in a bribery case and sentenced to five months in prison. As per the rule, their name was removed from the promotion list.

  6. Pending Charges After Recommendation for Promotion:
    A superintendent was recommended for promotion in February. In March, a corruption case was filed against them. As per the rule, their promotion was placed in a sealed cover, preventing an ineligible officer from being promoted.

  7. Promotion on Acquittal:
    A rural development officer faced a criminal case but was acquitted after three years. Their sealed cover was opened, and they were granted promotion with full benefits.

  8. Impact of Delayed Investigations:
    A finance officer’s case was kept in a sealed cover for five years. The court criticized the delay, directing the government to conclude investigations within a reasonable time.

  9. Reconsideration After Penalty:
    A government accountant was penalized for procedural lapses. After the penalty period ended, they were considered for promotion in the next DPC.

  10. Clarification on Contempt of Court Cases:
    A legal officer faced contempt of court charges but was eligible for promotion because contempt cases (related to official duty) were excluded from the sealed cover process.

Final Thoughts:

Both documents ensure fairness in promotions while preventing officers facing disciplinary or court cases from being unduly promoted. The 1993 document outlines the sealed cover process, while the 1998 document clarifies doubts and refines definitions. These rules protect integrity while preventing unnecessary career setbacks for falsely accused employees.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

**Detailed Guide for Promotion Authorities on The Karnataka Government Servants’ Seniority Rules, 1957 – Rules, Procedures, and Practical Examples**

-
Image
Got it! The promotion authorities are responsible for maintaining and implementing seniority rules fairly. Here’s a detailed, structured explanation of the Karnataka Government Servants’ Seniority Rules, 1957 with a focus on how promotion authorities should handle seniority and promotions . The Karnataka Government Servants’ Seniority Rules, 1957 – Detailed Guide for Promotion Authorities with Practical Examples 1. Importance of Seniority in Promotion  Seniority directly affects promotions , career growth, and postings. Promotion authorities must ensure fairness in promotions. Merit vs. Seniority in Promotions: If promotion is based only on seniority , the longest-serving employee in a grade gets promoted. If promotion is based on seniority-cum-merit , promotion depends on both experience and performance . Seniority must be fixed based on rules, not on individual discretion . 📌 Example 1 : Two officers joined on the...
Read more

### **Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977: Detailed Summary with Key Provisions & 10 Practical Examples**

-
Summary of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Amended up to 2005) with 10 Key Insights & Examples The Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 , framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India , regulate the recruitment, promotion, eligibility, reservation, and appointment procedures for government employees in Karnataka. Here are the 10 most important aspects , along with practical examples for better understanding. 1. Applicability & Scope of the Rules These rules apply to all State Government posts , both temporary and permanent . They do not apply to: All India Services appointments . Industrial and casual employment . Work-charged establishments . Example: The rules apply when recruiting a Range Forest Officer (RFO) but not when hiring daily wage laborers in the Forest Department. 2. Recruitment Methods Recruitment is done through: Direct recruitment (competitive exams or interviews). Promotion (se...
Read more

What is the Role of SAA/KIC/CIC in RTI Act 2005 in India

-
  Role of State Information Commission (SIC) / Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) / Central Information Commission (CIC) in RTI Act, 2005 The State Information Commission (SIC) (including Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) ) and the Central Information Commission (CIC) play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 . They act as the final appellate authorities and watchdogs to enforce the implementation of RTI. Key Responsibilities of SIC/KIC/CIC Hearing Second Appeals – If an applicant is not satisfied with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) decision, they can file a second appeal with the SIC (for state public authorities) or CIC (for central public authorities) . Investigating RTI Violations – These commissions investigate cases where public authorities deny, delay, or manipulate information . Ordering Information Disclosure – If they find that the information was wrongly denied, they can d...
Read more