324
(ii) In the Ministry of Home Affairs letter No/ 7/4/59—AIS(II) of the 20
th
March,
1959, it is stated that there may be occasions when a superior officer may
find it necessary to criticise adversely the work of an officer working under
him, and he may feel that while the matter is not serious enough to justify
the imposition of a formal punishment, it calls for some informal action such
as communication of a written warning, admonition or reprimand. It has now
been decided that where such a warning/displeasure/reprimand is issued, it
should be placed in the personal file of the officer concerned. At the end of
the year (or period of report), the reporting authority while writing the
confidential report of the officer, may decide not make a reference in the
confidential report to the warning/displeasure/reprimand, if in the opinion of
that authority, the performance of the officer reported upon after the issue of
the warning or displeasure or reprimand, as the case may be, has improved
and has been found satisfactory. If, however, the reporting authority comes
to the conclusion that despite the warning/displeasure/reprimand the officer
has not improved, it may make appropriate mention of such
warning/displeasure/reprimand, as the case may be, in the relevant column
in Part II of the ACR form prescribed under the All India Services
(Confidential Rolls) Rules, and in that case a copy of the
warning/displeasure/reprimand referred to in the Confidential Report should
be placed in the ACR dossier as an annexure to the Confidential Report for
the relevant period. The adverse remarks should also be conveyed to the
officer and his representation, if any, against the same disposed of in
accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules.
(DP&AR letter No. 11018/5/79—AIS(III) dt. 3.4.1981)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S ORDERS UNDER RULE 8
1. Whenever a member desires to be heard in person, a Board of Inquiry or an
Inquiry Officer will have to be appointed: - The hearing in person, referred to in sub-
rule (3), is really in the course of the inquiry to follow. Member of the Service has the
option to say that the inquiry may proceed on the strength of the written statement filed
by him and he does not wish to participate in person in the inquiry.
2. It is not necessary to hear the member concerned in person before the inquiry starts.
It is sufficient if an opportunity of personal hearing is given to him in the course of the
inquiry. If, however, the Government propose to inquire into the charges in such manner
as they deem fit (and not by a Board of an Inquiry or Inquiry Officer) and the member
desires to be heard in person, Government will have to appoint an inquiring authority as
required by sub-rule (6). In other words, whenever a member desires to be heard in
person, a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiry Officer will have to be appointed. Government
can inquire into charges in such manner as they deem fit, only in cases where the
member does not wish to be heard in person.
[G.I., M.H.A. letter No. 7/7/59—AIS (III), dated 11-5-1959]
2. The mention of more than one punishment in the show cause notice, does not
violate the provisions of article 311(2) of the Constitution: - The Supreme Court has
held in an appeal filed before them that the mention of more than one punishment in the
show cause notice, does not violate the provisions of article 311(2) of the Constitution.
On the contrary, it gives the Government servant a better opportunity to show cause
against each of the punishments, proposed to be inflicted on him, which he would not