Vigilance Compedium - CCL

Case Study -06
Lapses in conduction of DPC proceedings
One employee of CCL was awarded six months Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 147 IPC, Six
months Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 323, six months Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 504 IPC and
further awarded 15 days simple Imprisonment u/s 341 IPC and the same was brought to the
notice of CMD, CCL. Subsequently through GM (P&IR) it was endorsed to SO (P&A) of the
concerned Area. S.O (P&A) of the Area, on receipt of the complaint through Headquarter,
Ranchi, sent the same to the Project Officer of the Project, where the employee so convicted
was posted, asking him to get the matter enquired and send an ATR.
As per clause 26.8 of Standing Orders applicable to CCL, conviction in any court of law for
any criminal offence involving moral turpitude amounts to misconduct.
Hon’ble Court, while passing the judgment, granted the above said convicted employee Bail
to enable him to appeal in the higher courts. Employee concerned did not inform the
Management about his conviction. However, when Area sought clarification on the above
issue, he submitted a copy of the above said judgment to the Project Officer.
Project Officer, Personnel Manager of the unit and SO (P), of the Area discussed the matter
among themselves and arrived at a consensus that the Area Management is not liable to
proceed further to take disciplinary action as no formal order is received from the Hon’ble
court by the Area Management with regard to conviction of the employee and as the
employee concerned had not been arrested even for a single day after his conviction and
further that he had been granted bail on the same day.
Meanwhile, one DPC proceeding was going on at Area level wherein the employee so
convicted was also one of the aspirants. He, explaining his stand on the issue of conviction,
produced proof of Bail granted to him. Area Management accepted his plea and instead of
initiating disciplinary proceedings as per the above mentioned clause of Standing order went
ahead with the DPC proceedings. The candidature of the said employee was eventually
accepted by the DPC and he got promotion.
In course of Investigation, it was established that stand of Management in the above issue
was not proper and the convicted employee was not eligible for promotion till he was
exonerated/acquitted of the charges. DPC was eventually cancelled and all three executives,
Staff Officer of the Area concerned, Project Officer and Personnel Manager were suitably
penalized for their lapses.