ALL INDIA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF AIACEGEO AT NAGPUR ON 31.01.2020

ACTION TAKEN REPORT OF THE SG AS APPROVED BY THE AIEC, NAGPUR

ON 31.01.2020

Dear friends and Comrades,

           

The period after the Kolkata Convention has been eventful.

Our first priority was to strengthen our organisation.  In that process, we were able to bring into our fold the Delhi Unit.  Though we had been discussing with the Unit Office Bearers of Delhi ever since they had been elected, they had their own doubts regarding the strength of membership on two sides of the faction.  After they attended the Kolkata Convention and there after the parallel meeting hosted by the rival camp at Jodhpur, they got convinced that our side had unquestionable majority and hence they decided to join us formally. The joining of Delhi unit was done in the Associate Committee Meeting held at Delhi which was hosted by them on 20.10.2019.  The Delhi unit was offered the post of Working President or Liaison Secretary to enable the AIA to be able to have a better coordination in Delhi.  The President of Delhi Unit proposed the GS Shri. PranaveShekar as our Working President which was accepted by the Associate Committee and he came to be co-opted to that post.  In the said Associate Committee Meeting, we also adopted the revised Constitution for our Association, as mandated by the Kolkata Convention.  The bonding with the Delhi Unit has become firmer after the entire committee after the elections have reiterated their commitment to remain with us.

The very next day, as a delegation, we met with the DG, DGHRM and ADG, DGHRM, and discussed about the Cadre Restructuring.  We came to know that our demand for Group ‘B’ Service was being accommodated in recommendations.  We insisted that the Group B Service was sought by us for setting right the intra cadre and inter cadre disparities in the CR and improve the promotional avenues from Group B upwards.  We cited the disparities between zones within Central Excise/GST and between Central Excise/GST and Customs and between Central GST and State GSTS. 

We also met with the Commissioner (Co-ordination) and the Member (Admn) Shri. A.K.Pandey. We took up the matter of renewal of recognition with both of them.  We stated to the Commissioner Co-ordination that we had come to know that some reference had been made to CBDT as per the demand of the other claimant in this issue to find out the status of ITGOA in allowing persons promoted to continue in the Association.  We stated that the question in this issue was whether there was an amendment to our Constitution and whether it was approved by the Government, in the matter of this Association.  Hence, we felt that any reference to CBDT regarding the status in ITGOA was not relevant and hence our request be processed based on records produced by us.  He said that we cannot speak about what other claimants said.  When we pointed out that it had been clearly held by the Chairman that the so called amendment had not been approved and thus the other claim had become invalid and therefore when only our claim was there, it may be processed, he first stated that no such clarification was issued by the Board. Upon being shown the clarification dated 08.08.2019, he said that Chairman was not competent to decide these things.  When we took up the matter with the Member Shri. A. K. Pandey, he telephonically spoke to the Commissioner Co-ordination and after hearing something from the other end, said, ‘quickly get the reply from CBDT and put up’. 

During our meeting with the Member (Admn) as well as with the DG, DGHRM and ADG, DGHRM we discussed the matter relating to the court cases and DPC.  We pointed out that with the dismissal of the SLP filed by the Department in the BarathanCase, the stand of this Association had been vindicated.  We requested for early action to redraft the seniority lists according to Parmarand quickly conduct DPCs.  We stated that in many Zones the drafts were ready and only instructions from the Board were required to complete the process and recasting of the AISL.  We also pointed out that in any case AISL from 1.1.2007 was not yet issued.  In the matter of other three cases, one at Chennai, one at Ahmedabad and another at Jabalpur related to Own merit issue, we said that the department should either get any adverse orders quashed by the higher forums or implement them.  If that is not possible, as a third option we suggested that if in any case a stay is granted, we may plead that we could reserve as many number of posts as the petitioners are in such cases, from among the more than 1000 regular AC posts lying vacant, so that the judicial forums will be convinced that the petitioners can get the benefit, if found eligible by the end of the proceedings and therefore there will be no necessity to hold up the proceedings of the entire DPC.  But the administration did not respond favourably to the third option.  The Member insisted that all the petitioners should be asked to withdraw from the cases if DPC should be held.  During the above said meetings, we had pointed out that Association can only interact, but cannot stop anyone from exercising their legal rights.  We also pointed out that it was the judicial forum which decided upon either admitting petitions or ordering stayetc, depending upon merits of each case and since all parties in the disputes are our members, we do not want to sit in judgment on the merits of the case.  We insisted that only the enormous stagnation on one hand and non- application of interpretations or circulars/instructions uniformly in all zones within the CBIC, where different zonal seniorities get integrated at the AISLwas creating grounds for cases on seniority matters.

Since we found that there was no progress in the matters taken up during our meetings, even after almost one month, we addressed letters on 18.11.2019, to the Board with copy to the DOPT, stating that non-renewal of recognition was adversely affecting the right of the cadre to be represented by an Association actually really representing the cadre.  We also demanded that the CR Proposals under the consideration of the Board be made available to us for comments.

The very next day, the Board issued the draft CR Proposals for comments.

The CR Committee of our Association met at Chennai on 02.12.2019.

The following resolution was passed unanimously after a thorough discussion on the CR Proposals in CBIC circulated by the Board for suggestions of the Association and also the points received from individuals and Units of the Association:

“The AIACEGEO welcomes the proposed introduction of the Branch ‘B’ Service in the department, as was demanded by this Association, but it falls short of the expectations and aspirations of the acutely stagnated cadre of Superintendent of Central Excise for the following reasons:

 It starts from the AC level instead of Inspector level.

The number of posts being proposed in various cadres in the Branch ‘B’ Service does not cater to the requirement of providing at least 5 promotions for the Group B Services from the cadre of Inspectors, for which purpose the very proposal had been placed by us.

The ratio between the posts in the Branch ‘B’ Services for the posts from AC onwards appears to be very much lower than the ratio between the posts in the Group ‘A’ Service.

Though the CR proposal discusses about stagnation, the stagnation in the cadre of Superintendents of Central Excise where stagnation is the highest, with those who were recruited as Inspectors of Central Excise having got only one promotion in their entire career, has not been addressed.

Though the CR Proposal starts by stating that the duties and responsibilities have to be redefined and though we have demanded that clear duty list be issued for each cadre to justify creation or retention of posts in each cadre, the same has not been done, even though this Association had submitted the duty list of CBDT as required by the DGHRM during the discussions in 2018.

Though the CR Proposals have started by stating that there is a requirement to staff the Central GST on par with the State GST, the actual recommendations for CR has not re-structured the field formations and posts on par with the State GSTs.  Though the CR Proposal has accepted our request for recruitment of Drivers, there is no recommendation for having other supporting staff in the field, as is available in the SGST which had been exhaustively submitted by this Association in its final proposals for CR.

The (CR) proposals have failed to take into consideration the workload in the CGST (refer Para 2.2., Chapter 4) for recommendation of posts in separate cadres.

The ratio between the CGST, Customs and Directorates as per the CR Proposals viz. 45: 40: 15, is seen only to increase supervisory organisations, hampering the GST field activities.

The CR Proposals have not mentioned the draft Rules for the proposed Branch ‘B’ Service.

The proposal in the CR to merge the post of CAO with the ACs is not justifiable based on the difference in nature and level of responsibilities between the two and that the persons from lower posts like LDCs itself are occupying CAO Posts while even Inspectors who joined/were promoted before them are still only Superintendents.

Hence, it is unanimously resolved to request the CBIC to:

To issue the draft Rules for the Branch ‘B’ Services;

The Branch B service to start from the Gr. B cadre of Inspector;

To have the total number of Sanction Strength as on date which are to fall under the above said Branch ‘B’ Service, viz., Inspectors, Superintendents, Promotee ACs and DCs as the total strength of the said Service;

To create posts upto the level of JCs in such a manner as to accommodate the requirement of 5 promotions within that Branch ‘B’ Service;

To integrate the Branch ‘B’ service with IRS at the level of ADC;

To define or redefine the duties and responsibilities for each post in the field formations of the CGST as per the above requirements in such a manner that the services of the Officers who are getting salary equivalent to promotional posts are utilised at higher levels of responsibilities, which will also be expenditure neutral;

To reorganise the field formations in CGST in such a manner as to align with the assesse base and work load;

If required, to move out some of the senior level posts in the Group ‘A’ to other areas/departments so that their services are better utilised and their morale also does not get affected;

To ensure that there will not be any discrimination between the Officers in the same cadres, whether from IRS or Branch ‘B’, in matters of postings and transfers;

To ensure that a separate class is not created within a class in respect of Directorates, free flow of movement of Officers between Directorates and other formations of the CBIC should be mandatory;

Not to merge CAO posts with the ACs;

To have jurisdictional allocations and formations in consultation with the local Associations and local administration in such a manner that there will be uniformity in respect of jurisdiction, Headquarters and work load;

To reduce the number of Directorates and keep them at reasonable levels with functional justifications;

If the merger of cadres of Central Excise and Customs as Branch ‘B’, is not carried out, the entire CR Proposals has to be reviewed and this Association should be heard on the revised proposals.”

The next day, on 03.12.2019, the NF Council also had their meeting at Chennai on the CR and passed the following resolution:

“The National Federation of CGST Executive Officers welcomes the proposed introduction of the Branch ‘B’ Service in the department and the proposed merger at the Inspector level, but feels that some clarifications are required to put to rest certain doubts and apprehensions among members. Therefore, the following points are placed:-

The draft Rules for the Branch ‘B’ Services require to be issued for further discussions to ensure addressing the actual stagnation and that every officer gets at least 5 promotions from entry grade in the Branch B.

The presently proposed number of posts at the level of AC, DC and JC in the CR Proposals are not commensurate to the actual duties and responsibilities required in these posts in CGST.  Therefore, reorganisation of the field formations in CGST have to be done on par with the staff pattern of SGST and so as to align with the assesse base and work load, taking into consideration the Value, instead of tax revenue (as done in the case of Customs), Number of documents handled, assesse base and number of reports sent from the field formations and accordingly the posts of AC, DC and JC be revised upwards.

Merger of Branch B Service with IRS may be done at ADC level and therefore there will not be any justification for having exclusive ADCs and Commissioners in Branch B Service.

The duties and responsibilities for each post in the field formations of the CGST as well as in the Customs require to be redefined to justify the posts proposed in the Proposal.

Any merger of Cadres from outside the present Executive Cadres into the Executive Cadre (Branch B Service) could be done only subject to the condition that the rules to fix inter se seniority between these two are as per the DOPT instructions regarding inter se seniority between persons recruited to different levels of cadres and through different examinations.”

After communicating the above Resolutions to the Board, we specifically sought the Draft RRs of the Branch B Service proposed in the CR and also the duty list based on which the posts were being proposed.

Since we did not get any of the above details, we followed up the demand with a detailed letter on 26.12.2019 addressed to the Board as well as to the Hon’ble FM, MOS in Revenue as well as the MOS of Personnel, regarding why we thought the above two are significant for the CR and our Cadre interests as well as proper functioning of the department on par with the State GSTs. We also pointed out in the letter why we thought that the CR Proposals have not taken into consideration vital parameters for the proper functioning of GST in the CBIC.  We are happy to learn that the MOS (PP) has directed the CBIC to consider our representation.  I would also like to put on record that earlier, vide our letter dated 30.10.2019, we had sent a detailed profile of our Service to the DOPT.

In the meeting we had with the Chairman and Member (Admn) on 28.01.2020, we could feel that they realise the magnitude of the stagnation faced by our cadre and are now open for discussion on ways to mitigate it.  We have been assured to be heard in detail after the Budget 2020.  

In the meanwhile, the DOPT referring to our letter dated 18.11.2019, directed that the Ministry should take a decision on the matter of renewal of recognition.  The Board vide a letter issued on 16.01.2019 took a U turn in the matter of renewal of recognition by asking the two factions to settle within themselves or to come as two associations.  We have again pointed out the infirmity of the letter stating that the Board was taking cognisance of a letter of a person whom the Board itself has held as not being eligible to be a member or Secretary General of this Association after his promotion.  In the meeting with the Chairman and new Member (Admn) Shri.Ajit Kumar, we have explained the injustice done to the real representatives of the cadre.  They have assured to look into the matter afresh.

We have discussed the matter of DPC for the cadre of AC with the new Chairman and new Member (Admn) who have also stated the plan of action they have in mind to get the DPC conducted within 31.03.2020 at least.  Both of them stated that they were aware that our cadre alone could not be given any promotions.  They also requested us to inform our members that while they were within their rights to get judicial remedy on service matters, they may refrain from getting any stay over the DPCs so that the process of promotions does not get affected.

We also took up with the Member (Admn) the requirement of issue of Mobile for office work.  He stated that he was aware of the issue would do the needful at the earliest.  At this juncture, I would place on record that we had demanded laptops, mobile phones and proper vehicle availability for office work in field formations.  Our cadre was amazed to find a proposal for sanction of two wheelers instead.

During the above period under Report, we had the unfortunate event of some of our colleagues being sent out of the department and service under Rule 56J on Compulsory Retirement.

We submitted our Resolution on the matter to our Hon’ble Prime Minister stating interalia as below:

Though FR 56 j had been there on the Statute, it had been used only sparingly for reasons of best practices in Good Governance and adherence to Principles of Natural Justice as bedrock of the Rule of Law, which have evolved over a period of time in Independent India.

Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, writing the judgment in the case of Baldev Raj Chadha vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 August, 1980 cautioned as below about resorting to the provisions of Rule 56 j:

“The Fundamental Rules govern the Central Civil Services and ensure the career security which is the sine qua non of contended service. But potential compulsory retirement under F. R. 56 (j)  (i) haunting  the afternoon  of official life injects an  awesome uncertainty which makes even the honest afraid, the efficient tremble and almost everyone genuflect, and is not a happy prospect for a Civil Servant too young to sit idle and too old to get a new job….

Security of tenure is the condition of efficiency of service. The Administration, to be competent, must have servants who are not plagued by uncertainty about tomorrow.  At the age of 50, your experience, accomplishment and fulness of fitness become an asset to the Administration, if any only if you are not harried or worried. These considerations become all the more important in departments where functional independence, fearless scrutiny, and freedom to expose evil or error in high places is the task…..

Under the guise of public interest if unlimited discretion is regarded acceptable for making an order of premature retirement, it will be the surest menace of public interest and must fail for unreasonableness, arbitrariness and disguised dismissal.”

Ever since some Group A Officers were retired prematurely under the provisions of Rule 56 j of the FRSR, it had been expected that the exercise would be carried out in respect of Group B Officers also.  Hence the premature retirement of Group B officers of this department across the country, last week, has NOT come as a surprise to this Association.

In the present exercise, prima facie, the following infirmities are observed:

1)    Premature retirement under 56 j is held not to be punishment.  But the list of reasons published in these cases clearly indicates that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against these individuals, for one reason or the other. Hence invoking the provisions of Rule 56 j without bringing the disciplinary proceedings to their logical and legal conclusion, as per clear guidelines issued from time to time, cannot be in public interest. 

2)    It is reported that even in cases where the charged officers themselves had requested for completion of disciplinary proceedings, instead, they have been prematurely retired under 56 j.  The onus of completing disciplinary proceedings within prescribed time lines is well within the ambit of the administration and for any delay in the process, the provisions of 56 j could not have been used as a short cut. The provision appears to have been used as a tool to deny the fundamental right of the charged officers from defending themselves as per the Principles of Natural Justice under the CCS (CCA) Rules and also to camouflage the inefficacy of the disciplinary apparatus. 

3)    There are also reported instances where the persons concerned had been made co-noticees in proceedings for evasion of duty in the very cases cited and though the said proceedings had been dropped by the very same authority as adjudicating authority, these persons had been prematurely retired under 56 j.  There are also instances reported wherein individuals have been presumed to have played an active part, but disciplinary proceedings and departmental circulars itself proved otherwise and yet they have been victimized using 56 j.  These instances point to non application of mind in the proceedings culminating in the 56 j orders issued.

4)    Protracted disciplinary proceedings themselves are a cause for social stigma and mental agony for charged individuals. The said agony and shame have been further intensified by making public the reasons for premature retirement of such individuals.  Thus, though held not as a punishment, this has caused more harm than an internal departmental proceeding and punishment itself could have done, not only to the esteem of the individuals concerned but also to the members of their family.

5)    There are also allegations that discriminatory yardsticks have been applied in identification of persons to be pre maturely retired.  These will again point to violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.

6)    It appears that the APARs of the past 5 years, as stipulated in the prescribed procedures, had not been taken into consideration.  No adverse entries including about the integrity of the Officers are relied upon as reasons for the decision to retire them pre maturely.  Even persons who have been promoted within the last 5 years have been victimized. 

7)    Even assuming but not admitting that someone was found incompetent to continue in the existing post, on grounds of inefficiency, the Rule permits the Government to offer them the post below that they are currently occupying and from which they had been promoted.  Only if the individual rejects that offer, premature retirement has to be contemplated on grounds of inefficiency.

Hence, it is felt that the above exercise has to be reviewed urgently and wherever individual officers are found to be dead wood, the authorities concerned have to be required to prove it by relying on the previous APARs of the individuals and in cases of doubtful integrity, disciplinary proceedings should be initiated and completed within stipulated time frame.  Otherwise, such exercises of using Rule 56 j will be seen as lacking in transparency and will de-motivate and demoralise the cadres.  More importantly, it will lead to sycophancy, thereby defeating the very intention of the Government to end corruption and on the contrary lead to increase in systematic and organized corruption, with impunity.

Hence this Association unanimously resolves to request the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and the Hon’ble Finance Minister of India to urgently intervene in the matter and direct the authorities concerned to immediately revoke the premature retirements of Group B Officers in CBIC issued under 56 j last week AND order that  and all disciplinary cases should to be completed forthwith, as per the prescribed time frames, so that the basic concept of working without fear or favour is not disturbed in the department.

The above resolution of our Association has been forwarded by the PMO to the DOPT.

During the period under report, I and the President have attended the General Body and Open House at Bhubaneswar.  I have attended the Open House and General Body at Raipur. The President visited Lucknow and addressed the members there in an attempt to bring the unit to our fold.  I have attended the Biannual General Body Meeting of the ITGOA at Kolkata in my capacity as SG of AIACEGEO and the Vice Chairman of the CCGGOO.  During the even had interaction with Office Bearers of ITGOA and ITEF who wanted revitalisation of the COC of Revenue.  I also attended the meeting of Kolkata Unit along with the newly elected GS of Delhi Com. Bajaj. I attended the Meeting of Members of the Delhi Unit also as per the request of Com. Bajaj.  

During the above period, Com. Abhishek Kamal has been nominated as the Liaison Secretary of AIACEGEO.

Almost all our units participated in the One day protest by holding lunch hour meetings or demonstrations on 08.01.2020 in support of a 20 point Charter, showing solidarity with the call of the CCGGOO.

Though units at various points of time have expressed their desire to go on a strong mode of action to show the resentment of the membership, no practical methods could be arrived at so far.  Our cadre has all along been plagued with the one step forward and two steps back, attitude.  Unless we are able to exhibit our anguish in perceptible terms, it will only mean that it does not exist.  Words which are not backed by conviction have no meaning.  The conviction should be evident from our behaviour. This meeting I hope will take concrete decisions in the matter, if the present opportunity should be properly made use of, for this most neglected cadre.

With my sincere thanks to all Office Bearers and members of the Association who extended their co-operation for our activities, and also the Delhi Unit and Nagpur Unit for hosting the Associate Committee Meeting and this AIEC respectively, I commend this report to the House.

R. Manimohan

Secretary General