We are conducting Departmental Inquiries in nationalized banks since the year 1977. Here I do not want to comment or involve in a value analysis, as to how it is being conducted, but attempt to suggest how best it can be conducted. As a concept, conducting Inquiries against Public Servants dates back to the year 1850, when The Public Servants Inquiries Act was passed with stated objective "to regulate the behaviour of Public Servants". But the quasi-judicial system of Departmentally-conducted Disciplinary Inquiry Proceedings came into vogue for Central Government Employees only in 1930, when for the first time the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules popularly called as CCS (CCA) Rules were formulated. Discipline management from this time onwards was delegated to the controlling administrative departments, for decentralised handling. These were amended and updated incorporating the essence of relevant provisions (Article 309, & 311) of the Indian Constitution dealing with Central Services in the year 1957. Giving implementation to Article 312 of the Constitution the All India Services (IAS & IPS) were created as per All India Services Act, 195l. The All India (Discipline & Appeal) Rules were formulated in 1955 four years later. Subsequently incorporating the comprehensive recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1964) popularly referred as the Santhanam Committee, the two set of Rules were amended and updated again as under-

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

2. All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969

These are in force even today. Modeled on these two Rules nationalized banks have formulated their Discipline and Appeal Regulations with prior permission of the Government of India and after due consultation with Reserve Bank of India, as provided under Section 19 of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, which delegated the power to make these Rules to the respective Board of Directors of the nationalized banks. Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 came into force in this manner. In substance and approach it is not different from CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 or The All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969.

The procedure for conducting inquiries and several attendant matters for Central Service Personnel are made more transparent, lucid and clear by means of a large number of administrative guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms of the Cabinet Secretariat. These instructions have a direct relevance to Inquiries conducted by nationalized banks, where such guidelines are totally absent. It is therefore considered appropriate that while dealing with the subject of Disciplinary Proceedings or Departmental Inquiries, special attention will be given to the provisions of CCS (CCA)Rules 1965 and the various guidelines given by the Government of India further clarifying these provisions.

CCS (CCA) 1965 Rules as also PNB Officer Employees (Discipline &Appeal) Regulations 1977 are referred as Procedural Legislation. They describe as to how to initiate action and punish misconduct by public servants/Bank employees. The term 'procedural law' has been described as under-

"The law governing the machinery of courts and the methodology by which both the State and the individual enforce their rights. It prescribed the means of enforcing rights or providing redressal of wrongs and comprises rules, relative to jurisdiction, pleading and practice, evidences etc."

On the other hand a substantive law is defined as under:

"Law which establishes principles and creates and defines rights, limitations under which society is governed as distinguished by procedural law which sets the rules and methods employed to obtain one's rights, in particular, how the Courts are conducted"

The Indian Penal Code, which defines the different crimes and prescribes the punishment therefor is an example of substantive law, while The Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with procedures for criminal investigation, prosecution, bail and trial of offences, as also The Indian Evidence Act, which describes how to present evidences in the Courts, are examples of procedural laws.

Substantive laws define DO's and DON'Ts, i.e. what should be done and what should not be done. If one does things prohibited or fails to do things prescribed by any substantive law he violates the law. He is said to have committed an offence and is punishable under the law. Procedural laws on the other hand define procedures to be followed in getting legal remedies in judicial courts. Violations of procedural laws will not constitute an offence, but it will result in our not getting the legal remedies/protection provided thereunder. Thus if a delinquent officer fails to submit his defence statement or defence brief, prescribed in our DA Regulation during an inquiry, no punishment will be given to him for the violation, but the charge-sheet case against him will suffer to his disadvantage.

It may be asked that if CCS (CCA) 1965 and PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations are procedural legislation, what are the supporting substantive legislation connected thereto? The two legislation deals with the procedure for initiating and finalising action for misconduct committed by Government/Bank employees. Misconduct is the antonym for good conduct and conduct regulations governing these employees are dealt with in-

• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964

• PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1965

These two are the substantive legislation. Any violation of the Rules in these two legislation respectively will result in action being initiated under the corresponding Discipline & Appeal legislation. While CCS (CCA) Rules were first introduced only in the year 1930, Conduct Rules for employees of the civil services of Government of India came into vogue much earlier. In 1860 The Indian Penal Code was enacted. Chapter IX of the Code deals with offences by Public Servants. Sections 281 to 285 and 285A of that chapter dealt with offences relating to bribery and illegal gratification by public servants. Following this Government also evolved conduct rules for its employees to ensure that they stay in the true and right path by imposing restrictions on their conduct through several measures as under-

• Lending and borrowing by gazetted officers in 1860 and non-gazetted officers in 1869.

• On accepting gifts - 1876

• Buying and selling houses and other valuable property -1881

• Market Investment other than those in immovable property and speculation -1885

• Promoting and managing companies, engaging in private trade and employment -1885

• Raising subscriptions by Public Servants -1885

• Being habitually indebted or insolvent-1885 and

• Accepting commercial employment after retirement-1920.

After attaining independence and the People of India giving a Constitution for themselves, a new responsibility to define Conduct and other Service rules were enjoined on the Government of India in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution, titled "Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State". The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules were formulated in 1955 and these were updated and amended after Santhanam Committee (1964) Recommendations resulting in the current Rules "CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

At this stage it is important to discuss two more salient articles under the Constitution dealing with Central Services, i.e. article 310 and article 311.

Article 310 deals with the tenure of persons serving the Union or the States. This article is referred as the pleasure doctrine. Sub section (1) of this article reads as under:

Except as expressly provided under this Constitution, every person, who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union, or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President, and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.

Article 310 confers absolute power to the Government. But however this power is regulated by Article 311 of the Constitution which by its wording while recognizing the right of the Government under Pleasure Doctrine (Articled 310), imposed certain restrictions and prescribed a procedure by which such dismissal can be effected. These restrictions are imposed to protect and safeguard the interests of the Government servants. Article 311 is titled "Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State"

Article 311 reads as under:

1. No person who is a member of the civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or the State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

2. No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
   Provided that where it is proposed after such an inquiry, to impose on him any such penalty, such penalty shall be imposed on the basis of evidence adduced during such inquiry, it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

1. where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

2. where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that some for reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practical to hold such an inquiry; or

3. where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry.

4. If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.

These terms have not been defined anywhere. The true test of defining the status of the employee with reference to article 311 of the Constitution, is whether he is a member of a Civil Service or holds a Civil Post under a State. The expression 'Civil Post under a State' means that the post is under the control of the State i.e. that the State can abolish the post, if it so desires, or the State can regulate the conditions to which the post is or will be held.

The use of the words 'reasonable opportunity' in this section confers specific rights on Government Servants identical to those described under principles of natural justice.

Employees of statutory corporations and nationalized banks are not holding civil posts, but the benefits of article 311 of the Constitution is extended to these officers by specific provisions in the statute creating the Corporation/Nationalized Bank. In our case it is extended by Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970.

This explains the background of enacting CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964. Parallel legislation for nationalized bank officers is PNB Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. It is obvious that the provision of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations can be invoked and action initiated thereunder by issuing a charge sheet, only if there is an allegation of violation of any Rules under PNB Officer Employees (Conduct) Rules 1977.

To discharge their duties diligently and to avail the protections and safeguards available to them, it is necessary that every Bank officer is well aware of the provisions of the Conduct Regulations and the DA Regulations. For more information on conduct regulations and about misconduct by public servants, please refer to my literature 'Integrity in Public life & Services'

The inquiries under the DA Regulations have to be conducted keeping in observance the legal requirements and the ethical requirements implicit as, between employer and employees of a progressive organization. These are discussed in the ensuing chapters.