CIRCULAR NO.

10 /2013

16.02.2013

TO ALL CEC MEMBERS

SUGGESTIONS ON ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY AND DAC

In the recent Centre Working Committee (CWC) meeting held on 07.10.2012 at Mumbai, seven
member committee on Accountability and DAC matters was formed with Shri V S Vyas as
convener. The committee submitted its recommendations, which was placed before Central
Executive Committee (CEC) meeting held on 18th & 19th January 2013 at Raipur. CEC empowered
General Secretary to submit our suggestions to the management with modifications wherever
required. Accordingly, we had addressed a letter to CMD our suggestions on the above issues
vide our letter dated 15.02.2013. The same is reproduced here under which is self explanatory.
With regards,

(Dilip Saha)
GENERAL SECRETARY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AIPNBOA/70

15.02.2013

The Chairman & Managing Director

Punjab National Bank
Head Office
New Delhi
Sir,
Reg: Suggestions on Accountability Policy and DAC
We have already informed you vide our letter dated 6th December 2012 the level of increase of
Disciplinary action cases and unreasonable level of punishment in the recent past. We find that there is no
abating on the issue. It is felt that the genesis of the problem starts with 1) framing of the accountability
policy document itself which is of 47 pages, 2) implementation of the accountability policy by various level
of officials, 3) violation of the exiting accountability policy by officials at Inspection as well as those
responsible of fixing accountability, 4) lack of experience amongst officials handling special investigation,
5) lack of experience amongst officials handling Staff accountability and DAC 6) DAs not being independent
7) wrong understanding of vigilance overtone coupled with lack of transparency and finally 8) equating
anticipating loss to the bank with value of punishment in terms of monetary loss to the employee instead
of treating accountability to create a sense of guilt and resultant repentance so that such mistakes do not
occur again.
Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

The present accountability policy contained in Inspection & Audit Division Circular No. 46 dated
15.05.2012 with further Circular No. IAD/SAC/69/2012 dated 31.12.2012 to identify erring officials under
staff accountability policy are itself not in sync with operational risk management, credit risk and market
risk management.
The accountability policy pursued in our Bank has created a feeling among officers that there should be
no room for error in ones own work.
The Bank is a commercial organization and not a regulatory body. An advance can go bad due to a
number of factors. External factors like change in Government policy, market conditions, economic
situation in other countries with whom the business is carried out, inefficient management of borrowing
concern, willful default by borrower etc., can be cause of an account becoming NPA. All these factors are
beyond the control of the bank or its officials. While examining staff accountability these factors are never
commented upon nor any remedial measures ever suggested. Records of all such staff accountability cases
are testimony.
It is often seen that inconsequent procedural lapses have been highlighted in Inspection Report or Special
Investigation Report and accountability fixed. The very exercise of staff accountability is to safeguard the
larger interest of the Bank and to meet that, the first step should be taken to identify areas where rules
and procedures are difficult to follow and necessary corrective steps by way of strengthening any
knowledge gap or by way of augmenting the resources or any other action to create an environment
which should be conducive for better observances of rules and procedures. Punishing an officer becomes
the primary objective of the accountability policy overriding the need to take such corrective steps.
Otherwise the increase of DAC cases & higher punishment should have reduced level of NPA in our bank.
Bank branches / offices and its business are subject to various audits throughout the year like, Revenue
Audit, Concurrent Audit, Annual Inspection, RBI Annual Inspection, RBI inspection for Government
Business & Pension, Statutory Audit, CARD Audit, MARD Audit, Stock Audit, Space Audit, Security Audit,
System Audit (IT) and Senior Officials Visit etc. All activities as well as business parameters are monitored
on daily real time basis by various authorities.
In the light of the above, there is no necessity of a Special Report and Special Investigation for other
than NPA account and NPA account respectively. This procedure of special report and special
investigation was introduced in our Bank in the year 2004 as at that time most of the operations were
still on manual system and free flow of information as well as day to day monitoring was not as
effective as is today. Whenever an inspecting official is assigned to submit a special report or special
investigation report, the very nomenclature suggests that he should find someone accountable as he
has been given a special assignment and he needs to justify it.
There is enough accountability detection mechanism available from where accountability can be identified
namely,

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)

Inspection Report of branches / controlling offices.

Internal / External concurrent audit, statutory audit, RBI Inspection.
Branch visits, Review meetings of NPA, periodical returns, access to CBS from other offices.
Genuine Complaints
Whistle blowing etc.

In most of the public sector banks viz., Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, IOB, Bank of India, IDBI Bank etc.,
there is no policy of Special Investigation or any other investigation by any inspecting official from
Inspection Division. They capture data mainly from existing available source for the purpose of
accountability. A few banks gets a preliminary enquiry done in select cases, if need be, to gather more
information through Branch / Circle / Zonal Office officials by means of a simple format.
In most banks there is a cooling period of two subsequent quarters to the quarter in which the account
become NPA in order to ascertain if the aberration in the account becoming NPA is technical or only a
temporary development, leaving scope for immediate up-gradation in the two succeeding quarters.
In the accountability policy circulated vide Inspection & Audit Division Circular No. 46 dated 15.05.2012,
there are certain provisions which prohibits fixing of accountability but most violation is taking place on
those provisions by the inspecting official and in the absence of any corrective mechanism or escalating
violation of circular to any higher official / arbitrator, the DAC department is acting on such report in
initiating not only staff side case but in many cases with vigilance angle. The clauses, which give
protection but ignored to initiate action, are at Sl. No. 4.2.7 (i) & (ii), Sl. No. 9.2 (i) of the circular.
Similarly, Sl. No. 5.2.4.5 deals in categorization of lapses into internal and external reasons and sub-divided
into recovery and non recovery prospects whereas it should have been sub-divided into procedural and
non-procedural lapses. Since recovery depends on various tangible as well as intangible aspects, legal
positions to be tested only in a court and the art of recovery pursued by different officials, it would be
premature to attempt to ascertain position of recovery at such early stage when inspection is taking place
and investigation officials cannot be judgmental about such matters. The pragmatic approach should be to
ascertain whether lapses are attributable to the account becoming NPA or not.
As if the above accountability policy which is totally loaded towards finding fault was not enough, an
exhaustive chart / list is devised to find out each aspect of lapse, which is nothing but a directive to the
inspecting official to somehow find fault in one item or the other. Further, one more Circular No.
IAD/SAC/69/2012 dated 31.12.2012 is issued to identify erring officials under staff accountability policy.
This circular mostly targets a few designated officials at the branch level for most of the lapses and
reinforces the fear factor among officers that there should be no room for error in ones own work and.
Since to err is human it is better not to take decision so as not to err is the signal given to sincere officers.
After receiving a Status Report it is send to GM, Recovery Division, HO or to a committee of 3 GMs for
ascertaining whether special investigation is required or not. However, a report is also sent to Inspection
Division as well as to the Vigilance Department. It has been seen in many cases that Vigilance Department
has over ridden the decisions of even the 3 GMs committee recommendations. Similarly, once
Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

accountability is established all cases go to the IAC for identification of vigilance angle and here again their
collective decision has been overturned. It is strange that why a particular lapse is perceived as having
vigilance tone is not even communicated to the Circle Offices leave alone to the officer concerned. In
many PSU Banks such reporting and vetting is not being done to/by vigilance department.
We have already communicated earlier that the level of punishment has become unreasonable and
unprecedentedly high in the recent past. NPA is not the phenomenon of only last 2 years. A chart should
be prepared with comparative level of punishments between the two periods mentioned below will aptly
bring out the truth:
Punishment Level

No. of cases in 2 years period

From 01.04.2009 to
From 01.04.2011 to
31.03.2011
31.01.2013

5+ increments cut
8+ Increments cut
12+ Increments cut
15+ Increments cut
Downgrade to lower scale
Downgrade to 2 lower scales
Downgrade to lower scale plus reduction of pay
Number of CRS
No. of Dismissal
No. of Invocation of Sec. 20 (3)
We are sure the result will be an eye opener. The punishment level is equated with financial loss to the
employee on account of the punishment with amount of NPA.
The fear and negativity in the rank and file due to such harsh punishments is further compounded by
adopting a seal cover procedure in variance with Government guidelines. We have already clarified our
position vide our letter dated 18.10.2012 & 08.11.2012. Similarly, the CVC guidelines on anonymous,
pseudonymous complaints and complaints under whistle blower policy are not implemented in letter &
spirit. Please refer our letter dated 14.02.2013 on this issue.
The present state of affairs prevailing in the Bank due to charge sheets and punishments is having a
negative impact affecting business growth of the Bank. You have been making sincere efforts to correct
the situation to motivate the rank and file and encouraged by your positive approach, we are submitting
herewith our suggestions on accountability as well as changes require in the processes of DAC matters as
per Annexure I and hope to get your support for accepting those changes.
Accountability policy of Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Bank of India etc.,
may also be looked into.

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

We have immense confidence that given a fair treatment, the same set of officers who are responsible for
taking our bank to greater heights shall deliver much better under your able leadership.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,

(Dilip Saha)
GENERAL SECRETARY

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

ANNEXURE I
SUGGESTIONS ON ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY AND DAC MATTERS
The system of data collecting through Special Report & Special Investigation Report should be completely
done away with and instead accountability should be determined from Inspection Report of branches /
controlling offices, Internal / External concurrent audit, statutory audit, RBI Inspection, Branch visits,
Review meetings of NPA, periodical returns, access to CBS, genuine Complaints, Whistle blowing etc.
ZAOs and IAD should only be assigned regular concurrent audit, annual audit, revenue audit etc., and
should be restricted to these assignments. Since all types of audit & Inspection have failed to prevent an
account becoming NPA, their role identifying lapses afresh on NPA accounts amounts to covering for
their earlier work. Further NPA or Recovery has nothing to do with inspection and audit. Therefore IAD
division and its officials should be out of the authority to examine staff accountability or preparation of
any report required to examine staff accountability as otherwise it becomes a conflict of interest.
It is imperative that the accountability policy is restricted to policy direction which will have a wider scope
and not make it into a bulky instruction manual as is presently devised. All employees are duty bound to
follow prescribed rules so as to reduce operational, credit as well as market risks but it is equally
important that those implementing such rules through an accountability policy does not violate provisions
of the policy. In order to safe guard the abuse of the provisions by any official of authority, the process of
escalating such cases is suggested as a check and balance method.
All data should be collected from existing available sources and wherever required to collect any
additional information, a simple format be devised (the penchant for lengthy policy and lengthy format
should be done away with) and information be collected limit-wise / outstanding-wise by officials from
the office of the authority as under:
Jurisdiction for examination of staff
accountability

Amount of limit or
Outstanding
whichever is lower
All advances accounts sanctioned Rs.400 lacs
under BM Power up to Scale IV
branch.
All advances accounts sanctioned Rs.2000 lacs
under Branch power of ELB headed by
Scale V and by Circle Level Committee.
All advances accounts sanctioned Rs.3500 lacs
under FGM Office & sanctioned under
HO level committee.

Authority

Circle level committee and

collection of data through officials
from Circle office
FGM level committee and
collection of data through officials
from FGM office
HO level committee and collection
of data through officials from
Recovery Division, HO.

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

Sl.No.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Suggestions on information collection and / or report on accountability

No accountability related report should be prepared in the matter of sub-standard assets.
The definition of Non Performing Asset can be found in Section 2 (o) of SARFEASI Act. It means
an asset or account of a borrower which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as
sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset. Before proceeding to recovery procedures under
SARFEASI Act an account of the borrower has to be classified as a doubtful asset or Non
Performing Asset (NPA). Thus, the cause of preparing a report, if required, should arise only in
case of NPA accounts.
A cooling period of two quarters subsequent to the quarter when the account has become NPA
should be allowed before any staff accountability angle is to be determined. This will help to
ascertain if the aberration in the account becoming NPA is technical or only a temporary
development, leaving scope for immediate up-gradation in the two succeeding quarters and
shall be beneficial to the bank as scope for up-gradation increases manifold.
There are instances where DP is available but no credit continuously for 90 days as on the date
of balance sheet or credit are not sufficient to cover the interest debited during the same
period and account turns NPA but scope of up-gradation is immense. Thus cooling period
helps up-gradation of account and at the same time spares officials from undue stress because
of hanging sword of accountability which affects future performance.
Two basic principles should be the guiding factors for any information collecting format:
a. To establish whether the loans sanctioned is as per the loan policy of the bank.
b. To establish whether all the terms and conditions has been fulfilled while disbursing
the loan.
A simple format be devised with the following main heading:
1. Procedural lapses not responsible for account becoming NPA.
2. Lapses directly responsible for account becoming NPA.
1. Under procedural lapses not responsible for account becoming NPA there can be sub
heads:
a. Lapses at pre-sanction level at sanctioning authority level.
b. Terms and conditions of sanction not in sync with prevalent practice, nor applicable for
particular state, contradictory conditions or which could not be fulfilled under Law.
c. Lapses in documentation level not affecting recovery.
2. Lapses directly responsible for account becoming NPA:
a. Willful default of borrower not within control of bank officials.
b. External factors like change in policy of Government, economic situation in India or
other country with whom the business is carried out, Natural calamities.
c. Policy changes by Central / State Government.
d. Change in environmental norms, sudden imposition of pollution control norms, strike
in transport or dockyard, natural calamities, non release of Government subsidy /
grant, takeover of land by Government agencies, public litigation.
e. Due to incompetency or change in Management, dispute within the management of
borrower firm / company. Death of key man of the firm / company, imprisonment of
borrower due to any other criminality.
Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

Sl.No.
6.

7.

8.

9.
10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

Suggestions on information collection and / or report on accountability

Once Banks approved advocate has given title report and documents obtained as per report,
any perceived defect in title should not be attributed as lapse on the part of officers. (Already
in existing policy but with lot of conditionality)
Once valuation certificate is given by Banks approved valuer, any subsequent valuation
quoting lower value should not be attributed as lapse on the part of officers. (Already in
existing policy but with lot of conditionality)
Once vetting of loan documents and mortgage documents is done by Banks approved
advocate without any qualification, no defects should be brought out afresh and should not be
attributed as lapse on the part of officers.
Other than visit report of BM / other branch officials, no valuation report should be sought
from bank officials.
In case of suspected fraud it should be categorized as under:
a. Fraud committed by borrower or customer.
b. Fraud attributable to bank officials.
In case of multiple finances against the same property, detection of fraud should not be based
on claim of other banks but should be examined through a bank approved advocate before
determining existence of fraud. In case our mortgage is valid and prior to mortgage creation by
others, it should not be termed as fraud at our end. If found fraud it is to be attributed to
borrower and protection to officer be given under Sl. No. 6 and 8 above.
In case any other fraud by borrower or customer protection to be given to officer as given
under Sl. No. 6 & 8 above. (Already in existing policy but is not followed in practice)
Once 4 years have lapsed and / or 2 Annual Inspection carried out, whichever condition is
fulfilled, since loan is sanctioned / renewed / reviewed / enhanced, no official should be
responsible and accountability, if any, to be looked in to from the period beyond such period
and no officer be held responsible of that period. In case fraud is committed by borrower or
customer, the 4 year / 2 years norms shall be applicable for protection to the officers. (Already
in existing policy but is not followed in practice)
Once a limit is renewed or enhanced no perceived lapse should be commented upon on earlier
sanctions / renewals / enhancements. All data collection on alleged lapses should start from
the latest renewal / enhancement.
In case of fraud committed by bank official then there shall not be any time line. Similarly,
fraud committed by borrower or customer in collusion with bank official there should not be
any time line.
A total of 101 cases have been referred to CDR in the first 9 months up to September in
calendar year 2012 involving a collective amount of Rs.64,000 crore. This suggests that there is
recession or shrunk of the economy. In such a situation where big ticket borrowers are facing
problems can small borrowers withstand the downturn of the economy? Therefore,
accountability aspect be determined on all advances up to Rs. 40 lacs only through available
sources of Information / purely based on available data.
Accounts where amount of sacrifice permitted under OTS to various levels of officials without
any revenue loss should be outside the perview of fixing staff accountability.

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

Sl.No.
Suggestions on information collection and / or report on accountability
18. Need for collection of additional data to be decided by the above committees under authorities
up to the category and amount suggested above.
19. Officer require to collect such data should be deputed from the respective offices under whose
authority the category and amount falls.
20. Officer deputed to collect data should have experience as branch incumbent of minimum 4 to 7
years with adequate knowledge on credit, forex and related area.
21. Officer deputed to collect data should not be junior to the officer heading the branch where
account has become NPA.
22. Staff strength of the branch at the relevant period and other infrastructure available at the
branch viz-a-viz the business figure should be commented upon in the report to be prepared so
as to bring out whether quality of work could be maintained viz-a-viz work load. This is more
applicable where mass loans are sanctioned, large number of instruments processed in RCC
etc., without adequate manpower to monitor and maintain quality.
23. A tolerance level for error of judgment should be introduced by preparing an exhaustive chart
showing performance of the concerned officer in the entire carrier as also in the immediate
past. This report should be prepared and submitted along with report on data collection to
enable authorities to arrive at accountability.
24. In case of perceived fraud in cheque payment or cloning of cheque an outside expert opinion
as to possibility of detection of defect in instrument is possible through naked eye or not
should be part of any such report.
Sl.No. Suggestions on examination of accountability and vigilance angle
25. All efforts should be made to collect information from the existing channels without resorting
to deputing any official from the respective offices as per jurisdiction for amount of advances
as suggested above. Only in select cases wherever adequate information is not available,
additional information be collected through simple format to capture cause of NPA as per
decision of the respective committees.
26. The officer so deputed should have the following experience:
a. Deputed by Circle Office should have experience of branch incumbency of 4 to 5 years
with adequate knowledge on credit, forex or related area on which data to be
collected.
b. Deputed by FGM Office should have experience of branch incumbency of 5 to 6 years
with adequate knowledge on credit, forex or related area on which data to be
collected.
c. Deputed by Head Office should have experience of branch incumbency of 6 to 7 years
with adequate knowledge on credit, forex or related area on which data to be
collected.
27. Once a report received from such official or collected through regular channel, the same
should be examined in terms of following:
a. Whether the information put up confirms to the laid down guidelines and within the
parameters fixed.
Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

Sl.No.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Suggestions on examination of accountability and vigilance angle

b. Whether clauses as suggested at Sl. No. 3 to 8, 10 to 14, 22 to 24 above have been
commented upon / adhered to.
In case accountability is fixed in violation of Sl. No. 27 b. above, the affected officer should
have the right to report to a committee to be formed at HO as Arbitration Committee. The
finding of this committee shall be binding on both parties. (Without a system of escalating the
issue where norms are violated to fix accountability the system does not improve and
presently violations are taking place with reference to existing provisions in accountability
policy as also mentioned at Sl. No. 6, 7, 12 & 13 above).
Attempt should be made to examine the lapses of routine nature/ procedural nature and if
these can be corrected at the branch level then those items should be taken up with branch
incumbent for rectification, if necessary with the help of concerned officer through a
communication in general terms and not by fixing accountability.
After exhausting above avenue comments be called from alleged erring officials with a time
bound period and such official should be permitted to visit place of the event for 1 to 3 days
depending on distance, amount and nature of facilities.
On receiving reply the same should be examined. Based on available data and / or with
additional data and taking in to account the reply a status report be prepared and put up to a
different committee in the same office for identification of vigilance angle. Reason for
identifying vigilance angle should be recorded with full details.
The committee to be constituted at Circle level should be headed by CH + 2 AGMs / CM (HRD)
& (Credit), for FGM level GM + 2 DGMs from HRD & Credit and for HO level committee of 3
GMs for identifying vigilance angle.
Wherever vigilance angle identified or not a report shall be sent to vigilance department. In
case of difference of opinion it should be referred to a select committee at HO headed by ED
and their opinion should be binding to all.
The office of CVO must give a decision within 10 days of receipt of communication from the DA
and if no reply is received a reminder be sent on expiry of 10 days giving another 10 days time.
In case no reply is received It should be presumed that there is no vigilance angle and
communication be sent to the DAC for framing charge sheet.
After all clearances identified items shall be sent to the DAC department for framing of charge
sheet.

Sl.No. Role of officers at DAC at Circle, FGM and HO Level.

36. DA up to Scale IV officers posted in the FGMO area should be FGM or Zonal Manager by
implementing 4 tier system and officers up to Scale IV posted at HO, DA should be GM , PAD.
In all such cases ED should be Appellate Authority and CMD as Reviewing Authority.
For officers of Scale V and above, ED looking after HRD should be DA and CMD as Appellate
Authority with Board as Reviewing Authority.
Thus for officers cadre the role of officials at Circle Office should be Nil and an appropriate
department be created at FGM Office.

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

Sl.No. Role of officers at DAC at Circle, FGM and HO Level.

37. The officials handling DAC at FGM office should be minimum Scale IV and should have branch
incumbency experience of 5 to 7 years.
38. Decision should be taken within 7 days as to charge sheet should be under minor or major
penalty.
39. In case of non-vigilance cases the DA should proceed with issuing of charge sheet of his own
within 15 days.
40. For vigilance cases First stage advise be sought from vigilance department at HO within 10 days
and charge sheet be issued within 25 days from the date the matter was referred to them. In
case no reply is received within 10 days from vigilance department a reminder be sent and still
not getting reply in next 10 days, the DA should proceed with issuance of charge sheet.
41. While issuing charge sheet all documents on which charges are relied upon must compulsorily
be attached with the charge sheet. Statement of witness from management side must be
enclosed with the charge sheet.
42. Whether charge sheet is under vigilance or non vigilance should be mentioned in the charge
sheet as is the present practice.
43. First stage advice of CVO must be communicated to the charged officer as per CVC guidelines
and Supreme Court judgments on the principle that nothing should be done at the back of the
charged person / accused.
44. Erring officer should be given 15 to 20 days to reply the charge sheet depending upon
verification of documents at same center or different center from where he is posted.
45. In all cases of suspensions it should be reviewed every six months and on issue of charge sheet
should be compulsorily reinstated as all investigations are over and there is no possibility of
tempering with any evidence. It is like giving bail to an accused once charge sheet is framed in
the court of law.
46. Upon receipt of reply from charged officer the enquiry body should be constituted like
appointment of EO and PO within 7 days in case of major penalty proceedings or DA to finalize
order in case of minor penalty charge sheet (non-vigilance) within 10 days.
47. EOs, POs and Defence Representative should be trained in training centers to dispense justice
in free and fair manner.
48. Present policy of appointment of retiree officers as EO should be discontinued as they lose
touch with changing policies in computerized environment and tend to rely on past knowledge.
49. The EOs and POs appointed should have knowledge of specific fields and should be among
those having minimum incumbency of 4 to 5 years.
50. The entire enquiry proceedings leading up to submission of final brief by Charged Officer
should be completed within 60 days and enquiry officers report to DA should be submitted
within 75 days from date of appointment of EO.
51. No one should assist DA in examining the findings of EO and DA himself as to complete the
process and thereafter send a copy of the finding to the Charged Officer for his comment.
52. In case DA differs with EOs finding elaborate reasons must be given. However, in case DA
differs on findings in more than one charge or on a single charge that may attract capital
punishment, an opportunity must be given to the Charged Officer to add additional documents
or witness by constituting a separate enquiry on the entire charge sheet.
Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979

Sl.No. Role of officers at DAC at Circle, FGM and HO Level.

53. Second stage advice proposing punishment, wherever applicable be sought after analyzing
reply of charged officer on the findings of enquiry officer within 7 days of receiving such reply
from Charged Officer.
54. In case of difference of opinion with CVO and even in cases where DA agrees to change his
original decision to higher punishment, all such cases must compulsorily be put up to
committee headed by CMD for adjudication and the finding shall be binding to all parties.
55. The final order of the DA should be issued within 10 days of receipt of Second stage advice.
56. Along with the order of DA the Second stage advice of vigilance department be communicated
to the charged officer.
57. Presently, appeals are also taking a lot of time. The appeal should be disposed of within 20 to
30 days. Additional documents, circulars as material evidence discovered later should be
permitted to be introduced with appeal in order to give a fair chance to the charged officer.
58. The present system of taking opinion of the DA in appeal cases should be discontinued as an
independent view has to be taken on the appeal. The officials handling appeal should be a
different set of officials than those handled DAC.
59. It is observed that in most of the review cases it takes years and many a times remain
unanswered. The officials handling Review Petition should be a different set of officials
assisting the Reviewing Authority than those handled DAC and appeals. Review petition should
be disposed of within 20 to 30 days from the date of receipt.

(Dilip Saha)
GENERAL SECRETARY

Central Office: 306, Kirti Mahal, 19, Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008 Fax: 011-25735979