Monthly Departmental Employee Absence Report: Fill & Download for Free

If you are a Central Government employee in either Group A, B, C your leave is defined and subject to CCS Leave Rules in Class I Group A. If you fail to report back on the working day subsequent to the last day of your sanctioned leave and do not intimate your Controlling Authority either in writing or telephonically (that too will require an e mail at least) you will be marked “Unauthorisedly Absent”. For the number of days you remain absent thus, your seniority will get negatively affected due to unauthorised absence. After 15 days your Departmental Authority will send a letter to your last recorded address seeking explanation for your unauthorised absence and advising you on immediate joining. If you still dont join another similar letter will be sent after another 15 days and then again after 15 days. So three letters will go. If you haven't still joined then your Department has the option to publish a box notification in newspapers advising you to join. If not they can invoke Disciplinary Process and issue a Chargesheet. They can invoke Rule 56 (j) of the FRSR and terminate your employment. Thus within 3 to 4 months you can lose your job.

IF YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRYA. DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY SHALL CONCLUDE WITHIN 6 MONTHSCase name: PREM NATH BALI V. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF DELHIIn this case, the disciplinary proceedings, which commenced in the year 1990, continued for more than nine years. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the appellant sought revocation of suspension order but such representation made by the appellant was not considered.o The Supreme Court in the case took a strong note of the undue delay caused in disciplinary proceedings. The Court stated that due to such unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a lot as he had to survive only on suspension allowance for a long period of 9 years.Other key observations made by the Court in the case are:o That it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures.o That in cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee.o That every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit.o Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.B. DELHI HC ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACECase name: SHANTA KUMAR V. CENTRE OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ORS.In this recent ruling, the Delhi High Court was confronted with an alleged case of sexual harassment at workplace.The Court made following observations in the case:o That undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment.o That a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.o That all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.C. DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY ON VAGUE CHARGES SHALL BE VITIATEDCase name- SHRI ANANT R. KULKARNI V. Y.P. EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS.In this case, the Supreme Court made some key observations pertaining to disciplinary proceedings which enumerated below:That once court sets aside an order of punishment on the ground that enquiry was not properly conducted, Court should not preclude employer from holding the enquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the case to disciplinary authority, to conduct enquiry from the point it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law. However, resorting to such a course depends upon gravity of delinquency involved.Court/tribunal should not generally set aside departmental enquiry, and quash charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is de hors the limitation of judicial review. While setting aside a departmental enquiry, the Court must take into consideration all relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration that proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of a delay in their conclusion.Departmental Enquiry on vague and unspecified charges – In this context, the Supreme Court held that a delinquent shall not be served a charge sheet, without providing him, a clear, specific and definite description of charge against him.Departmental Enquiry against retired employee– In this case, the Court also enumerated the circumstances when departmental enquiry could be conducted against retired employee. The Court held that relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are determining factors as to whether and in what manner domestic enquiry can be held against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation. Generally, if the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent employee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but nature of punishment would change. The punishment of dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed.D. PROMOTION AVAILABLE DURING CLAIMANTS PERIOD OF EXTENSION OF SERVICE CAN’T BE GRANTED TO THE CLAIMANTCase name: H.M. SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA, (2014) 3 SCC 670This case dealt with service Law Promotion Entitlement to promotion during period of extension of service. In the case, the appellant’s claim for promotion to post of Lt. General was rejected on ground that he was on extension of service.In view of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court held that in situations wherein an officer attains the age of retirement without there being a vacancy for his consideration to a higher rank, even though he is eligible for the same, such an officer who is granted extension in service, cannot claim consideration for promotion, against a vacancy which has become available during the period of his extension in service.E. NON-SUPPLY OF INQUIRY REPORT TO THE DELINQUENT EMPLOYEE IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGSCase name: UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT V. SUKHVEER SINGHIn this case, the Supreme Court has primarily ruled on the legal principle of Non-Supply of Inquiry Report to the delinquent employee in disciplinary proceedings and the consequences that follow when the delinquent employee has not been prejudiced by non-supply of inquiry report prior to the issuance of show cause notice.Key observations by the Supreme Court are enumerated below:o That Non-supply of Inquiry Report does not automatically results in Re-instatement of Delinquent Employee- When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits.o That acts of corruption/ misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre.F. IN ABSENCE OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CHARGE SHEET BECOMES NON ESTCase name: UNION OF INDIA V. B.V. GOPINATH, (2014) 1 SCC 351In this case, the Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, clearly stated that in absence of approval of disciplinary authority, charge memo/charge-sheet becomes non est and hence is liable to be quashed.It was further held that all decisions regarding approval, modification/amendment, dropping of charge memo have to be taken by disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, disciplinary authority alone is required to exercise that power, otherwise, it would go against established maxim delegatus non potest delegare.G. JOBS SECURED ON THE BASIS OF FAKE CASTE CERTIFICATES TO BE RENDERED INVALIDCase name: MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. V. JAGDISH BALRAM BAHIRA AND ORS.Recently, the Supreme Court was confronted with a batch of petitions involving individuals who sought the benefit of public employment on the basis of a claim to belong to a beneficiary group which upon investigation was found to be invalid. In the case Supreme Court has rendered an elaborate explanation of usurpation of constitutional benefits by persons who do not genuinely belong to beneficiary groups.The crux of Apex Court’s ruling in the instant case was that when a person who does not belong to a caste, tribe or class for whom the reservation is meant, seeks to pass off as its member, such a stratagem constitutes a fraud on the Constitution. Public employment is a significant source of social mobility. Access to education opens the doors to secure futures. As a matter of principle, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, the court must weigh against an interpretation which will protect unjust claims over the just, fraud over legality and expediency over principleThe Court broadly discussed the following issues in the case:o Whether a person who has secured the benefit of public employment or admission to an educational institution on a reserved quota is entitled to retain the benefits obtained despite the invalidation of the claim to belong to the tribe or caste?o Whether there should be a retrospective application of withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false?o Whether the dishonest intent is a requisite for withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of a caste claim which has been found to be false?The Court at length discussed the proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of KAVITA VASANT SOLUNKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and SHALINI GAJANANRAO DALAL V. NEW ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION. In these case, the Court ruled that candidates who honestly and correctly claimed to belong to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe but were later on found by the relevant authority not to fall within the particular group envisaged for protected treatment would not be negated of the benefits already enjoyed by them and would continue in service. However, such candidates would be disentitled to claim any further or continuing benefit on the predication of belonging to the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.The Apex Court in the instant case overruled the aforesaid finding of the Court and stated that the principles as settled in KAVITA SOLUNKE AND SHALINI CASE were not correct and might lead to serious consequences.H. SC’S GUIDELINES FOR EMPLOYER IN CASE OF SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION BY EMPLOYEECase name: AVTAR SINGH V. UNION OF INDIAIn this case the Court considered the cleavage of opinion in various decisions on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case.The Apex Court in the case laid down the following guidelines for the employer and stated that any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: –o In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.o Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.o If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.o In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.o In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.o In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.o If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.o In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.o For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.o Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.I. COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS A MATTER OF RIGHTCase name: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. V. REVAT SINGHIn this case, the Supreme Court while relying on its decisions in the case of I.G.(Karmik) and others vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi and Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das, held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to a post for which the candidate is ineligible. It was further held in said case that even though higher post was applied for on Page 5 Page 5 of 8 compassionate ground, when a lower post offered considering qualification and eligibility as per rules was accepted by the candidate, he cannot claim higher post.The Court also noted that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the rules. The criteria laid down i.e. the death of the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of equality behind making such a scheme be taken into consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India mandate that all eligible candidates should be considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said rule. It is a concession, not a right. (SBI v. Anju Jain, (2008) 8 SCC 475)J. DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY IS NO GROUND TO DENY PENSION OR SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE TO EMPLOYEECase name: UCO BANK & ORS. V. RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLAIn the case, the Supreme Court made a scathing attack on the Appellant Bank in view of illegalities in departmental inquiry against the Respondent Employee including the fact that the Respondent employee was denied even the subsistence allowance during the pendency of the inquiry against him.In the case, the Bench considered the question of law on access to justice in a departmental inquiry. The Court opined that the Respondent was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself by denying him financial resources.The Apex Court in the case held that an employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during an inquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is starved of finances by zero payment, it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to meaningfully participate in a departmental inquiry. Access to justice is a valuable right available to every person, even to a criminal, and indeed free legal representation is provided even to a criminal. In the case of a departmental inquiry, the delinquent is at best guilty of a misconduct but that is no ground to deny access to pension or subsistence allowance.________________________________IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, THERE ARE NO RIGID RULES REGARDING APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.Effect of shortcomings on the part of the officer registering a case or THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER (I.O.) are part of the task of judge in appreciation of Evidence;It is for the judges who has to appreciate the evidence, and while doing so, assess the effect of such defects.Such defects become marginal in case where the main testimony of eyewitnesses or witnesses proving circumstantial (or basic or primary) facts inspire confidence and appears truthful.If such evidence is of a shabby nature or does not inspire confidence, such assessment of evidence is strengthened by serious defects in FIR or investigation.An accused cannot be acquitted merely the ground of such defects; such defects do not the affect the decision adversely if the evidence in the main is credit worthy.Of course, serious defects which, in the assessment of the court, have led to serious prejudice to the accused or to failure of justice stand on a different footing.To know the background in which various decisions were reached Judges would do well to study the facts of those cases since any principle laid down by a superior court has to be understood and appreciated in the light of the factual background of each case.Sections 215 and 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 indicate what trial courts and higher courts are required to consider in case of errors in charge framed by trial courts.Sections 460 and 461 of the code deal with the effect of irregularities committed by trial –magistrates. Sections 462 and 463 deal with certain irregularities committed by criminal courts.However the Code under which investigation of offences is conducted does not contain any provision to deal with irregularities committed by INVESTIGATION OFFICERS (I.O) in the course of investigation.This omission is perhaps due to belief that defects in investigation have a role to play in appreciation of evidence by courts. Of course, in appropriate circumstances, writ jurisdiction of the High Courts could be invoked.o As a general principle, it can be stated that error, illegality or defect in investigation cannot have any impact unless miscarriage of justice is brought about or serious prejudice is caused to the accused. (UNION OF INDIA VS. PRAKASH P. HINDUJA AIR 2003 SC 2612).o If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the I.O cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful. (AMAR SINGH VS. BALWINDER SINGH, AIR 2003 SC 1164, SAMBU DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM AIR 2010 SC 3300).o If direct evidence is credible, failure, defect or negligence in investigation cannot adversely affect the prosecution case, though the court should be circumspect in evaluating the evidence (RAM BIHARI YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1998 SC 1850, PARAS YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1999 SC 644, DHANRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 2004 SC 1920, RAM BALI VS. STATE OF U.P. AIR 2004 SC 2329).o If investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent of the impact of the faulty investigation; otherwise criminal trial will descend to the I.O ruling the roost. Yet if the court is convinced that the evidence of eyewitnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the I.O in the case is suspicious. (ABU THAKIR, AIR 2010 SC 2119).o An accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation; to do so would be playing into the hands of the I.O whose investigation was defective by design. (DHANAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 2004 SC 1920).o Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial. (PARAMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 2008 SC 441).o That the I.O took the eyewitnesses to the police station cannot be a reason for disbelieving them. (DHANANJAYA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AIR 2001 SC 1512).o The delay on the part of the I.O in questioning witnesses does not necessarily make the prosecution version suspect. If the I.O is not questioned on this aspect, disbelieving a prosecution witness on that score is improper. If the I.O furnishes an explanation which is unsatisfactory, Court can consider it to be one of the factors which affects the credibility of the witness who was questioned belatedly. (STATE OF U.P. VS. SATISH AIR 2005 SC 1000).o It requires courage in the face of adversity for a simple man to come forward and proclaim the truth unmindful of the consequences. Delay in questioning a young boy who saw a ghastly murder being committed has to be taken into account and the court must be reasonable and should see whether the boy could have been questioned at the dead of night. In the absence of any possibility of delay affecting his statement or of any apprehension of the witness being influenced by any other person or police, his evidence could not be thrown out, more particularly, if he had faced cross examination in an efficient manner. The usual apathy to record statements quickly can also be another factor. (MALLAPPA SIDDAPPA ALAKANUR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, AIR 2009 SC 2959).o Delay in questioning important witnesses may not necessarily lead to create doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Unless the I.O was specifically cross-examined on this aspect, defence cannot derive any advantage. In the case of delay in questioning, it is not a principle of universal application that the prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend on several factors. If during cross-examination, the I.O had offered an explanation which is plausible, there would be no reason for any suspicion. (ABUTHAGIR VS. STATE AIR 2009 SC 2797).o Where there was delay in recording CD statements of three witnesses and the IO’s explanation was that he was also in charge of maintaining law and order in the area that got vitiated after two murders in succession leading to a lot of commotion and communal strife, there would be no reason to reject the explanation as the delay was on account of reasons beyond the control of the I.O. (ABUTHAGIR VS. STATE AIR 2009 SC 2797).o It cannot be said evidence of a witness should be thrown out due to the delay in recording his statement by the I.O. The language of Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code shows that the law contemplated a situation where there might be witnesses who dispose in court whose previous statements were not recorded at all. (SIDDHARTHA VASISHT ALIAS MANU SHARMA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AIR 2010 SC 2352)o THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS DEAL WITH CERTAIN OTHER KINDS OF DEFECTS IN INVESTIGATION:-(a) That no independent witnesses were associated with recovery (discovery) under Section 27, Evidence Act is not sufficient to create doubt regarding truth of the prosecution version. (SANJAY ALIAS KAKA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AIR 2001 SC 979).(b) Rejection of the prosecution case on the basis of a site plan is illegal. (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BHAWANI AIR 2003 SC 3346).(c) If ocular evidence is reliable, defect in investigation such as not forwarding the seized gun to FSL would not matter. (AMAR SINGH VS. BALWINDER SINGH AIR 2003 SC 1164).(d) Doubtful nature of recovery of the fatal gun cannot render the ocular evidence unreliable. (MUNNA VS. STATE OF M.P. AIR 2003 SC 3346).(e) The fact that the IO didnot mention the street light in the site plan is not a ground to disbelieve the eyewitnesses where the injured eyewitnesses who were well acquainted with the assailants deposed that they could see them because there was light coming from a nearby street light. (PRITVI VS. MAM RAJ AIR 2004 SC 2729).(f) There is a no legal requirement that pellets removed from the body of the deceased during autopsy should be sent to the Ballistie expert to determine whether the pellets were fired from the exhibited gun or not. On the contrary, such recovery clearly confirms the case that the deceased died of gunshot injuries. Failure to send the pellets to an expert does not render the prosecution case unacceptable. (STATE OF H.P VS. MAST RAM AIR 2004 SC 5754).(g) Non-mention of the size of blood stains on the seized clothes in the seizure manager is of no consequence. (GURASINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 2001 SC 330).(h) Cogent evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be rejected on account of the failure of the IO to send blood stained cloth (wrapped around the wound) for chemical examination. (NIRMAL SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 2005 SC 1265).(i) In a case of killing by shooting, where the IO failed to collect bloodstained soil and empty shells from the scene, since the eye-witnesses deposed to the firing of shots resulting in death, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the default of the IO did not cause prejudice to the accused. (MAQBOOL VS. STATE OF A.P. , AIR 2011 SC 184).(j) Absence of recovery of pellets from the scene or from the body of the injured persons or of pistol or cartridge does not detract from the prosecution case. It does not in every case prejudice the accused or affect the credibility of the prosecution case. (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ARJUN SINGH, AIR 2011 SC 3380, DANDU JAGGARAJU VS. STATE OF A.P. , AIR 2011 SC 3387, RAJ KISHORE JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 2003 SC 4664).(k) Where eyewitnesses who knew the accused persons prior to the occurrence deposed that they saw the accused from close quarters with the aid of a torch (though on a moonless night) and there was no reason to otherwise doubt the truth of their testimony, the fact that the torch light was not seized by the I.O would not mean that their evidence is not credible. (HARI SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AIR 2011 SC 360).(l) Failure to forward the allegedly bloodstained shirt worn by an eyewitness to FSL is a deficiency which, however, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the prosecution case is unworthy of credit. In such a case, the court is required to be more circumspect in evaluating the evidence. (SHEO SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AIR 2011 SC 1403)(m) In a case of murder, the injured while in hospital, made a statement on the basis of which FIR was recorded. After the death of the injured, her husband reported the fact to the police and a second FIR for an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered. It was held that the SHO committed a mistake in recording a second FIR, but that would not weaken the prosecution case, especially since no prejudice had been caused to the accused by a registration of a second FIR. (CHINNA SHIVRAJ VS. STATE OF A.P. AIR 2011 SC 604, T.T. ANTONY VS. STATE OF KERALA AIR 2001 SC 2637).(n) Two witnesses who spoke about “Last seen with deceased” were strangers to the accused. Their statements were recorded under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code four months after the incident and no “test identification parade” was conducted. Another witness, claiming to be an independent witness, identified the accused for the first time in court two and a half years after the incident, it was held that their testimonies did not inspire confidence. (DANDU JAGGAARAJU VS. STATE OF A.P. AIR 2011 SC 3387).o If a Police Officer in charge of a police station, having reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, (Section 157 Crl. Pr. Code) proceeds to the spot without preparing and sending a report to the magistrate concerned, that does not mean that his proceeding to the spot was not for investigation. It is not necessary that a formal registration of a case should have been made before proceeding to the spot, in order to bring inquest proceedings within the ambit of investigation. It is enough that he has some information to afford him reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence. Any step taken by him, pursuant to such information, towards detection of the said offence, would be part of such investigation, even though the formal registration of the FIR takes place only thereafter. Than an FIR loses its’ authority if it is lodged after the inquest report is recorded is not a general proposition of universal application. The object of inquest is only to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances and if so, what the cause of death is, (SAMBU DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM AIR 2010 SC 3300, STATE OF U.P. VS. BHAGWANT KISHORE JOSHI AIR 1964 SC 221, MAHA SINGH VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) AIR 1976 SC 449).o While considering the delay in FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, Court has to bear in mind the credit worthiness of the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution and see if such ocular evidence is worthy of acceptance; the element of delay in registering FIR or sending FIR to the magistrate by itself, would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case. (BALRAM SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 2003 SC 2213).o Where the FIR contained only a brief statement of events, the delay in sending the FIR to court could not have been to concoct a false case against the accused. If the FIR had been cooked up after the inquest and autopsy were over, many more matters or details could have been incorporated in the FIR. The delay, in these circumstance, cannot, by itself, throw out the prosecution case in its’ entirely; such delay cannot be the sole reason for discarding the prosecution version as being fabricated, if reliable evidence has been produced against the accused. Delay in sending FIR to court may provide basis for suspicion that the FIR was recorded much later, to set up a distorted version. The purpose of Section 157 Crl. Pr. Code is to ensure fair trial without there being any occasion for falsification or introduction of facts belatedly. (SAHDEO VS. STATE OF UP AIR 2004 SC 3508, SUNILKUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 2005 SC 1096, SARWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1976 SC 2304, ISHWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF UP AIR 1976 SC 2423, RABINDRA MANTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AIR 2006 SC 887).o In a case where there was delay of four days in sending FIR to court, factors such as immediate holding of inquest, removal of deadbody to police premises, obtaining authorization by DMO to conduct autopsy during the same night etc were held to suggest spontaneity of FIR sufficient to reject plea of anti-timing of FIR. (PARAMJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 2008 SC 441).o Delay in sending the FIR to court would not dislodge the other evidence. (SARVESH NARAIN SHUKLA VS. DASROGA SINGH AIR 2008 SC 320).

The answer has been copied from : Problems of Working in Railways blog written on My IES Journey by User-11882833067389151638.Hello Everyone,I found a letter where an IRSE officer describes the deteriorating condition of working in railways. My intention has been to put everything available with me on the table. This article is all about the problems faced by young officers of railways in the filed. This not the whole picture, it primarily represents one department working in open line. You shouldn’t make your judgement just on the basis of one or two articles. Every jobs has its pros and cons. Today it’s the turn of presenting cons before you, after all world is not the bed of roses.Respected Sir,This letter is an effort to save Indian Railways from the misdirected policies and practices that have crept into daily operations of Railways. This is not an effort to malign the much revered institution in any way, but to highlight the shortcomings and the plight of faceless field staff, who are putting their blood into the system. Nor is it an attempt to run away from responsibilities. We are a dedicated and concerned lot who takes pride in being part of the organisation and in what we do.We will be focussing only on the spine of Indian Railways, i.e. Engineering Department, which is suffering the most amongst all the departments. That doesn’t mean other departments enjoy comfortable working as they too suffer different type of disabilities. But Engineering being one of the oldest departments and being the custodian of huge Indian Railways assets deserves to be heard first and foremost.Mostly the problems concern with the field level because it is the level where most of the Engineering Department’s activities are performed. But first, we want you to please note a few details about three main actors involved at the field level, viz, the Track Maintainer, the PWI, and the ADEN.Track Maintainer (Trackman)He goes about performing his duty starting his day at around 06:00. At times he travels 10-15 Km. to get to his place of work, to and fro. He returns by 07:00 – 08:00 in the evening. Still he’s a proud worker and loves what he does.At Group D level, a trackman does far more hard labour than any other employee among all departments. There have been many cases where a trackman has prevented some serious accidents because he is the one who is out there on track in extreme weather conditions to ensure safe running of trains but is not paid even a single extra penny for that. For him overtime allowance exists only on paper, if at all. In the current scenario when trains are running at over 120 Kmph, the job of trackmen has become more important as well as risky. Cases of trackmen being run over by train or getting severely injured are very common.Senior Section Engineer – Pway (PWI)He wakes up latest by 06:00 in the morning, prepare distribution of work for about 200 Trackmen under him by 07:30, goes on with his daily work by 08:00, work till 7, 8 sometimes 11:00 in the night. This, he has to do 7 days a week, 365 days of a year, 35 years of his service. He is directly responsible for safety of track as well any activity that happens in his section. In the age of mechanisation when workforce is getting reduced on one hand and not able to provide adequate machineries and equipment on the other, PWI is asked to increase efficiency of work with the same set of old-age and condemned equipment and scarce Pway material. His main strength is the trackman who is expected to do serious physical labour. Making his task difficult are the trackmen of today, with graduate and post graduate qualifications, having serious problem with physical labour.He hardly gets (or takes) any leave. He has to work in night soil and muck dropped all over the places. He’s the coordinator of all field activities concerning all the other departments. He also has to share his staff with other departments for their associated work; which he does without any qualms. A PWI represents all other field staff of railways. He has to work with multiple bosses, contractors, gang staff, other departments, state authorities, towards fulfilling his duty.ADENThe post of ADEN is considered to be the most charismatic post in Indian railways. Once, with staff under him numbering over 1000, what cannot be achieved if he decides? He is the creator of huge infrastructure of railways which catches anybody’s imagination. Big vintage bungalow adds to his aura. He is the leader of his team, consisting PWI’s, IOW’s and trackmen, and the sole authority on field for what is to be and not to be. An ADEN is the flag bearer of his sub-division. Other departments and HQ’s expect a lot from him. He is the man to go in case of urgency/ emergency.Today’s state is as follows. With over 30-40% vacancies, most of the specialised posts being surrendered, decaying works cadre and staff, office staff remaining a third of what it was, contractor agencies getting unduly favoured, with punitive powers gone, with the traffic and no. of activities multiplied manifolds, the ADEN has become a mere shadow of his prime. Combined with detached attitude from the HQ it is becoming increasingly difficult to carry out duties. With increased expectations, same old methods and punishment oriented approach is expected to work, not realising times have changed since they were at the field and needing different strategies. It is not our intention to revive the institution of ADEN as it was but to highlight the poor conditions which will definitely lead to disaster if timely action is not taken.***With this background we would now like to raise issues being faced by railways needing urgent attention.Detached HQIt is for your information Sir, being posted as an ADEN is the most challenging time an IRSE has to face. Unfortunately as officers go higher up they forget how work used to be carried out when they were ADEN. Please compare following facts with 15 years ago. The number of staff, the variety of staff, the number of office supervisors and draughtsman, the quantum of traffic, the frequency of trains, the number of activities one had to deal at a time, the nature of workforce, the demand from the system and the kind of discipline that existed. All of it has changed, and changed drastically. Earlier there was higher tolerance for accidents and reporting was very less. Now even a minor incident travels at lightning speed to every nook and corner of the country. Orders conveying strong message are issued in minutes. Today it is said that we have stronger track structure and you don’t need men as you now have machines. But it is a false assumption. Agreed that Track structure has improved, but so has the traffic which has become more than thrice. So has the speed. So has the number of trains. There is acute scarcity of material and machines, and blocks/ caution-orders for maintenance not available, compromising safety.Please look into how many machines are there, zone wise. Are they sufficient to meet maintenance requirements of track as per schedule? Is sufficient/proper block time is given for their working? Are proper speed restrictions being imposed as per manual? Answers would be unsatisfactory, missing the theory by miles! Day by day the responsibility for owing up to failures is being shifted upwards. ‘Hang the ADEN, which will give a strong message’. Dear Sir, what kind of a system is this which is more interested in sending a message rather than solving the problem. The unfortunate ground reality is that it will not bring an iota of change to the field staff, as they are already overburdened to have time to fear. But yes it does send a message to that field staff, that one does not have any support from the HQ. You are on your own. It’s better to not do the work, or do it on paper and relax, because there’s an equal cost to doing or not doing the work.As for the ADEN, he already has a written schedule of inspection of 45 days which he has to complete in 30 days. Add to it the multifarious activities, shrinking staff, unruly staff and supervisors, increasing interference from Unions in daily working, absence of works cadre, no authority to punish for wrongdoing, no authority to take important decisions which has been usurped by HQ’s, no assistance in office work, non-cooperative departments in a maddening race to prove their superiority over others, burden of reporting to anybody and everybody senior to you that too instantly, ever-increasing protocol duties towards seniors with whom he and his team has to accompany without a choice. In addition he has to liaison with state authorities, do variety of Surveys, prepare designs/drawings, and send reports/data in a variety of formats. In such a scenario how can one have a family life or a holiday or have time for himself?ADEN has to do his night inspections either as part of schedule or as part of surprise inspection. Such inspections are done after working for a full day. After the night inspection if he sleeps at 05:00 in the morning there is no time for rest as the phone calls invariably start by 07:00 Hrs. and a full day starts again. Despite the poor state of affairs, focus is put more on how things look rather than how efficiently trains are run. A misplaced priority please.Scarcity of FundsRailways need money. Money to build infrastructure, build capabilities, to provide quality services, to provide variety of services, to build up workforce, to maintain assets, etc. With great past record Railways is now focussing on quality. We are making our stations and coaches cleaner and services better. But we are forgetting the hands that are bringing these changes on field. They are still living in dilapidated houses and surroundings, with rudimentary water and electricity supplies. Spending on quarters and facilities is never justified. How are we supposed to bring change on ground without changing the mentality of staff and improving their living conditions?Dr. Anil Kakodkar headed High Level Safety Review Committee noted in its report that the ‘present environment on Indian Railways reveals a grim picture of inadequate performance’ largely due to poor infrastructure and resources, and lack of empowerment at the functional level. It has given several recommendations having no financial implications to empower the functional levels and to simplify processes and procedures to deal with this negative feature. IR has to be energized with a new type of work culture, it further stated.Misdirected PoliciesThrough this letter we want to help explore where the bloodline of India is heading. What is the purpose of this service? Is it social service? Is it profit making? Is it capacity building? Be an efficient and punctual mode of transport? Or for building infrastructure? Surely it is all of the above. But what are our priorities? Do we want to earn more disregarding the safety of passengers? Priorities must be decided at your level sir. At ground level it is now understood that Punctuality is inviolable, even more than Safety. We are literally forced to beg in front of Operating staff and Controllers to let us do our job. We are forced to impose emergencies due to things not getting addressed by usual channels, and rectifying the same within shortest time and unusual hours.Or is it to push ground staffs to the extent that they get all the poor lifestyle diseases or even die because of them? Sir, ask any railway doctor, he will tell you railway employees overburden. Every second person is having sugar or BP or both. This is the nature of job they have to perform, without questioning the authority. Many employees have actually died early of lifestyle diseases, especially those who have spent the bulk of their carrier on field.Railways is a discipline oriented organisation. In practical terms abuses are hurled every minute on the field. It is impossible to do job without abuses and charge sheets, bringing us to point outmisdirected policy in recruitment.The workforce is overqualified for the job. With respect to the current working, a Trackman should have 10th pass as the maximum qualification. Today we have M.Com’s, MCA’s, MBA’s, etc. as the new generation of Trackman. Many of them are here only because they need a job, not because they like the nature of job. It is hard to expect them to work in muck, and do manual labour. And of what use is the education which is used for making excuses for not doing work or to reply back to the supervisors. We’re sorry to say this Sir, but this policy is burdening the system with useless hands.Along with the overqualified staff the induction of female workers for trackman job is difficult to realise on the field as it requires hard manual labour. Most of the times they either can’t do such work or pressure is put on open line supervisors to give them office jobs. Holding nothing against female workforce, the induction of women as trackman needs to be reviewed.Third is the issue of vacancies. We have to wait for vacancy to go up to 30-40%, which when filled up never reaches 100%. Dear Sir, we are performing a job of safety. We can’t afford to have any vacancy. Vacancy is infringing with safety, and the field staff had to bear the additional burden of work for years. This is valid especially after the downsizing of the organisation and unreasonable burden put by successive Pay Commissions and Finance. A good number of overqualified new recruitees leave the organisation, or go to other departments, or remain in place with distaste for the job.Fourth, due to downsizing various specialised and critical posts vanished from the organisation. Ideally those functions should also be eliminated. Not surprisingly, it did not happen. Artisan staff is almost gone. Onus lies with the Supervisors to train available staff for the artisans job, arrange tools for them, and carry out all the functions as smoothly as it was ever used to be. Works cadre is almost destroyed, as with shortage of staff, poor recruitment of supervisors, apathy from HQ and a variety of poor contractors, contributing to its obsolescence. Finance wing being more interested in surrendering posts every year without logic, not realising the importance of a Valveman or Safaiwala in the system.Fifth is the policy of easy promotions for Supervisors. Earlier it took decades for Supervisors to reach SSE level. By putting this fact we want to convey that SSE’s in Indian Railways are equipped with immense experience and act as the storehouse of institutional memory. The whole system is pretty much dependent on this level. But now anybody and everybody is getting promoted to the SSE level, without possessing requisite technical knowledge. The problem is going to become worse in the coming years when good quality supervisors will be hard to find. It is one thing to give financial upgradation, but totally different to expect to work like an experienced supervisor. The fact is usually overlooked in practise and the burden is borne by others.Sixth, pampering Unions and not following up. Unions are becoming dominating at field level, especially on Personnel matters. It is not conducive for smooth running of administration as the impact is borne by field staff. You also loose the power to enforce discipline. They have done a good job in bringing a once a week assured rest order for supervisors. Such a rest should be there for In-charge and ADEN too. A pressure job like this needs timely rest.Seventh, with time new lines are opened, new assets created, new activities started. As if there was surplus staff available at field, they are invariably diverted or assigned additional duties without diluting current responsibilities. Sir, please acknowledge that Railways is not just like any other Govt. establishment where field staff can be diverted or responsibilities can be diluted without much loss to administration’s working. Field staff here is associated with Safety, and these staffs work day and night, with concentration and hard labour. The cost of diluting current responsibilities is very high, which can prove to be disastrous. With Zero Accident Mission in place, patrolling is now usually done throughout the year as each season has a critical effect on track behaviour. Patrolling by current staff is having the most prominent effect on the maintenance of track as the staff is not available for the same during times of patrolling.Eight, the categorisation of all Gang staff into Track Maintainer I, II, III, IV and lack of clarity on practical issues has led to disruption in the control over gang units. Due to Restructuring, TM automatically getting promoted to higher grade pay and hence refusing to take on the responsibility of Mate. Otherwise they give refusal to higher grade pay to take benefit of LARSGESS scheme. Either way proper Mate cannot be assigned to a unit and hence there is the problem of control. Also, employees coming via LARSGESS got the job without facing any competition; hence don’t know the value of their job or many times lack sincerity.Scarcity of MaterialIt flows directly from scarcity of funds. At times, conditions become so bad that we have to compromise safety. At many places you would find material have deteriorated to such an extent resulting in poor riding quality and requiring replacement soon. Yet HQ would frown upon as if it is asked for personal reasons. They mind it very much if you ask for it in writing, and further repercussions. It is hard to put speed restrictions or stop traffic. All this can be avoided if we have sufficient stock of materials. Timely replacement of assets is vital to ensure safety of trains. Most of the time replacement is sanctioned after the asset has crossed its life as per code, when a higher official notices it and ask for the replacement. In the meanwhile if something happens, the onus lies on field staff for not imposing speed restriction or stopping traffic.Scarcity of LabourShortage of departmental labour is dealt above. It is said that now there are numerous agencies available at field level. Practically, more often than not it is the same agency who has taken multiple contracts in a Division/Zone. And it is beyond their capacity to increase labour, being the costliest item in any work. Plus there are not many ways to force an agency to do exactly as it is required. High level of supervision is required to ensure quality. One can’t go on terminating private players as there are not many. It is a technical field and requires huge capital backing. Even if this point is disregarded, agencies don’t want to go beyond stations or work at odd hours. And thus we can’t rely on them in case of emergencies. For this reason we require a strong and dedicated departmental workforce, and hence is the demand.Scarcity of MachinesPoint already elaborated earlier. It can only be addressed if problem of funding is dealt with. It is not possible to do what is required with current stock and condition. Requirement wise analysis needs to be done and procurement to be done at the earliest.Situation of OfficesThe on-field offices of railway employees are in shambles. Money demanded for necessary spending is rejected-not-justified. Daily activities are asked to be carried out with meagre imprest. The number of Office Supervisors has reduced a lot. Experienced one’s are retiring, new one’s are either not interested or not able to do it all in the world of ever increasing reporting and compliances, and the quantum of work. Old ones are unable to cope with new information age of computers and smartphones. HQs don’t pay heed and the burden of reporting is borne by the field offices and officers like ADEN, ADSTE, ADEE, etc.Abusive EnvironmentUnfortunately Railways has become an organisation where if you don’t look strong you are labelled ineffective. Concepts like team building, synergy, counselling and appreciation just don’t exist. It might have been possible in the past when the Trackmen were not too much qualified and discipline was held sacrosanct, and line of command used to work perfectly. Not in today’s time, when everyone is well learned, and has options beyond a meagre paying job. They are more concerned about their rights rather than duties. It’s not bad to have learned people in your workforce, or to demand rights, but in this case it is to be analysed if it is okay to have it, and what needs to be done in the changed context. Otherwise it creates bad environment at the field level. The issue here is making policies according to the changed context.Problem of Blocks. Punctuality over Safety.Sir, as stated earlier also we face a lot of problems in getting blocks for maintenance operations. Operating Department holds the key to giving blocks. Mostly Pway staff has to chase it as if it’s his personal work. Sometimes it becomes a matter of weeks till he get a block, ‘managing’ safety at his level. Also every time he would be there with his staff, waiting at the site till the time there is hope of getting the block. What a terrible waste of resources when you have so little! Sir, why haven’t we developed a transparent mechanism where a representative from Pway side can book a block and he will be told beforehand the day when the block is expected. And the block is given no matter how on the same day, as it is a matter of safety. Same should also happen when there is an emergency. It’s left to your good judgement sir, what is more important to us, Revenue/Punctuality or Safety. To maintain the assets in good condition timely blocks are very important, no matter what. Engineering staff is forced to compromise on safety on regular basis as blocks and caution orders are not been given easily. With ever increasing traffic, pressure on pway assets is on the rise which further accelerates the wear and tear, and requires frequent attention. If existing assets are not given timely attention they have to be replaced at a much faster pace, again putting a burden on railways financial resources. Operating department gives the block and caution orders whenever it is convenient. Safety has to be given precedence otherwise results may be catastrophic.WorkloadAn ADEN is overall in charge of the subdivision. He has to take care of Pway as well as Works. He has huge workload. He has to conduct daily inspection of track, inspection of bridges and yards, monthly day and night footplates, other night inspections, filling inspections in TMS, test check of various contractual work under his jurisdiction, ensuring quality of the work being done, check every bill, manage blocks, attend blocks, ensure compliances, attend HQ meetings, chase material procurement, manage contracts and labour, liaison with state authorities, accompany higher officials on their inspection, looking after the passenger amenities, dealing with complaints of unions and staff, looking after the welfare of the staff, their allowances, their medical etc. Apart from all these he has to prepare reports, proposals, sign hundreds of papers etc. It is becoming increasingly difficult to cope up with such work pressure. Leaves are denied for some reason or the other. Continuously working under such pressure takes a toll on mind as well as body. Familial and other responsibilities becomes secondary resulting in tensions across all dimensions of life.Multifarious ActivitiesSir, activities like tree plantation, skill upgradation, holding seminars/camps, cleanliness drives, etc, are noble and essential activities. We want to be a part of all such initiatives, but despite having best of intentions we don’t get extra funds, staff, time and resources to carry out the same. Our core duty is to run trains safely, which requires immense concentration and inputs from staff and officers. Such activities asking for involvement from higher officials actually puts burden on field level only. We are unable to handle so many protocol movements, compliances, and do our job effectively. Again we want to reiterate that Railways, especially at field level, is unlike any other Govt. organisation.*******Although we spoke only about the engineering department, but problems of various kinds also exists in other departments as well. For example, Mechanical/Electrical department might use old/dysfunctional parts in locos and coaches or Operating department do not always lock hand operated points due to shortage of staff or send shunting master without proper authority, etc. Some problems are common while others unique. But engineering being the biggest and the most critical department can lead the way towards the desired change.We hope that the points highlighted above are constructive in nature, and would lead to a change for a better future. Otherwise the environment at field level is becoming demotivating. We are forced to question why we chose this service after getting the best ranks. We were warned that it will be very demanding still we took the job. But with increasing expectations and quantum of work it is becoming increasingly difficult to fulfil the duties effectively.By addressing the letter to you Sir, we don’t imply that the Railway Board is failing in its duty. There are some issues which may have been overlooked or needs attention as per field requirement. It is a technical organisation and technical persons are the best judge to decide the future course. And a railway man is always an able administrator for the job.We feel we should have to focus on our core responsibilities, not be swayed by populist demands or cosmetic changes and work more transparently so as to develop faith.Anonymous