Rule 14 (i) (ii) (iii)

Rule 14 (i) (ii) (iii)

Rule 14 - As per Article 311 (2) of the constitution under which no Govt. employee can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him & given a reasonable opportunity to defend him self but Rule 14 is only exceptional situations listed. That the requirement of holding an inquiry may be dispensed with. 

14 (i) where any penalty is imposed on a Railway servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or 

The first pre-requisite is that the disciplinary authority should be aware that a Govt. servant has been convicted on a criminal charge. In considering the matter, the disciplinary authority will have to take into account the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration & other extenuating circumstances. Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the Govt. servant’s conduct was blameworthy & punishable, it must decide upon the penalty that should be imposed on the Govt. servant. After the competent authority passes the requisite orders a govt. servant who is aggrieved by it can agitate in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be. 

14 (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or

If situation exist which makes the holding of an inquriy contemplated by Article 311(2) is not reasonable practicable than the disciplinary authority should record in writing the reason or reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311(2). This is a constitutional obligation & if the reasons are not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry & the order of penalty following it would be void & unconstitutional.

The decision of the competent authority cannot be questioned in appeal, revision or review. The finally given to the decision of the competent authority is, however, not binding on a Court. Any employee effected by such orders can claim in appeal or revision that an inquiry should be held with respect to the charges. In such case hearing of the appeal or revision applican can be postponed for a reasonable length of time for the sitution to return to normal. 

14 (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; 

This rule though not very frequently used, but when used assumes grant importance certain points which may be kept in view abucet this rule are ;- (1) The rule is to be used only when security of state is in question (2) The satisfaction to dispense with the inquiry is to be of the President /Governor and not of the disciplinary authority

The disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: 

Provided that the Railway servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case falling under clause (i) above: 

Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.