Where the charge sheet is issued under procedure for minor penalties, an oral inquiry is not compulsory, but may still be ordered, if the issues warrant and so decided by the disciplinary authority. But in any case where the disciplinary authority proceeds to award the penalty after issue of the charge sheet without conducting a regular inquiry, he can only award the delinquent officer a minor penalty. If a major penalty is to be inflicted, conducting an oral inquiry is a must.

1. The charge sheet will contain only a statement of imputations without any articles of charge

2. It will be specified in the memorandum covering the charge sheet, that the charge sheet is issued quoting the specific DA regulation, which is intended for imposing minor penalty. In respect of CCS(CCA) Rules it is Rule No.16 and Regulation No.8 of PNB DA Regulations.

3. Extension of natural justice to the delinquent officer to visit the branch/place, to which the allegations pertain and verify the relevant records for the purpose of submitting his reply. However it is held in judicial decisions, that the delinquent officer is not entitled to principles of natural justice in respect of an inquiry where a minor penalty of "censure" is awarded.

4. The expression of the imputations should be clear and easily understandable by the charged officer, on the basis of what material he has been deemed as having committed the alleged misconduct. Normally it will be advisable to enclose a list of documents with the charge sheet, as it would be possible for the delinquent officer to verify these documents at the source, i.e. the branch where the transaction(s) took place. In other words it should be possible for the charged officer in case he denies the allegations, to know the totality of material relied by the disciplinary authority in respect of the allegations leveled against him. Otherwise it will lead to a situation where the delinquent officer is being punished based on undisclosed material. Equally important it is for the delinquent officer to be provided all facilities to seek and discover material relevant for his defence.

5. Reasonable time for the delinquent officer, who is not only to deny the charges, but has also to explain his position in totality, as no further inquiry will be conducted thereafter. It will be advisable to allow the delinquent officer 10 to 15 days time for his reply.

6. Objective consideration of the reply submitted by the delinquent officer to the charge sheet, after its receipt and

7. a speaking order clearly indicating that the reply submitted by the charged officer is properly considered and giving the particulars of misconduct established as per the charge sheet and as per the consideration of the reply of the delinquent officer. The disciplinary authority cannot award a summary a summary punishment stating that the reply of the delinquent officer was considered and found unsatisfactory.

The minor penalties are

1. Censure

2. Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect

3. withholding of promotion, and

4. Recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the employer by negligence or breach of orders

1. When any of the major penalties (i.e. reduction, compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal) may have to be awarded, in the fitness of things, if the allegations against the delinquent officer were to be proved.

2. When the evidence against delinquent employee can only be established conclusively through oral testimony of management witnesses.

3. When the delinquent officer in his written reply to the charge sheet after denying the charges specifically seeks for an oral inquiry with justification. For example he raises pertinent questions seeking supplementary information on the imputations, and keeps his reply partly in reserve and submit list of oral witness to establish his defence. However when a oral inquiry is held, observing strictly the procedure set for conducting a major penalty inquiry, and if the findings so warrant, the disciplinary authority has the option to impose a major penalty, not withstanding the fact that the charge sheet was originally issued under minor penalty procedure.

4. In case the disciplinary authority finds that the reply of the delinquent officer is partly or totally satisfactory, he may still decide to proceed with the oral inquiry and allow the delinquent officer to pass through this forum and come out clean and thereafter drop the charges. It is to be reckoned that on oral inquiry is a test and not a punishment.

Relevant guidelines of the CVC for conducting oral inquiry, even when charge sheet under minor penalties is issued, are reproduced as under. References of CCS (CCA) may be read suitably with reference to parallel provisions in DA Regulations of your Bank.

"Under Rule 16(1) (b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the disciplinary authority may, if it thinks fit, in the circumstances of any particular case, decide that an inquiry should be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. The implication of this rule is that on receipt of representation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour communicated to him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. It may be remembered that Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules deal with the procedure for minor penalty-inquiry, whereas Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules refer to the detailed procedure for major-penalty Inquiries. In a case where a delinquent Government servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request solely on the ground that an inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that, notwithstanding the points urged by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority could after due consideration, come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary, it should say so in writing indicating its reasons, instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry summarily without any indication that it has applied its mind to the request, as such an action could be construed as denial of natural justice. In cases in which it is decided to hold an inquiry, all the formalities beginning with the framing of articles of charge, statement of imputation etc, will have to be gone through. The procedure to be followed will be the same as prescribed for an inquiry into a case in which a major penalty is proposed to be imposed. "

1. When the gravity of the imputation is not severe and the number of imputation is restricted to one or two. The procedure is more simple, less time consuming, consequently less expensive. It is a disposal of the case entirely at the level of the disciplinary authority, without appointing additionally Inquiry and presenting officers. It calls for limited provision of natural justice. In fact it is held that the employee cannot claim such right, if the punishment awarded is only "censure".

2. When the evidence for the imputation is explicit and needs no lengthy arguments in briefs or through oral evidence

The minor penalty provides that the existing benefits accruing to the charged officer are not reduced or withdrawn, and action is taken withdrawing or suspending, if any, only of the benefits to accrue to him at a future point of time, like future increments and future promotions etc. He incurs no immediate loss.

In this context the penalty of censure is deemed as the mildest form of punishment. However generally a charge sheet is never issued for the sole purpose of 'censuring' a public servant. In fact administrative steps like pulling up the public servant for his questionable acts in a review meeting in the presence of his colleagues, or issuing an administrative warning or caution may have better effect than censuring an employee. In fact when the charge sheet is served, the public servant comes to feel the gravity of the situation, but when the disciplinary case is closed with a 'censure', it results in an anti-climax. The public servant and the society of his immediate colleagues feel that the delinquent officer has come out of the ordeal and do not feel that he has been punished. There is no pecuniary loss, and the intended stigma of the 'censure' is not felt.

As earlier stated a justified rebuke or adverse comment on performance made by a competent senior officer in a review meeting in the presence of his colleagues is more effective. It is in fact an interactive process. If the officer concerned is really not at fault, he will muster courage and explain his position. Otherwise he will meekly submit, and if demanded will also give a commitment that he will not only not repeat the mistake, but improve himself to the required standards. The commitments that an employees gives in the presence of a group becomes more binding on him and he develops a moral fear for going against his own undertaking. At least he will not get the spontaneous sympathy or support of his own colleagues, in case he fails again. Periodical review meetings are in fact the best forums to deal with under performers and non-performers. But then what for is censure provided, and when this penalty is to be awarded?