Disciplinary action is being
taken against the erring official as per the rules framed in this
behalf. We have witness many an officer/officer has been suspended on
the date of retirement on superannuation and their pensionary benefits
are subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The issue
to be discussed in this article is whether a Government servant after
his retirement be initiated with
disciplinary action by the Government.The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the issue of charge sheet after the retirement. The CAT allowed the application of the Officer and set aside the charge sheet issued to him. Against the order of the CAT the Department filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
The Department contended before the High Court that the respondent is deemed to have been in duty till the midnight of 31.03.2013 and therefore, the department was justified in serving Articles of charge in between 10.00 p.m., and 11.00 p.m., on 31.03.2013. The same is deemed to be issued while the respondent was in service.
The High Court did not accept the contentions of the Department. The High Court analyzed the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The said rule requires that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the Articles of Charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article or charge is proposed to be sustained. Thus Rule 14(4) makes it clear that the disciplinary authority can serve a copy of the Articles of charge only the Government Servant and no one else.
The High Court from the records confirmed that the respondent Officer has attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013. He was relieved from all official duties in the forenoon of 31.03.2013. The Commissioner has certified that the respondent, who was working as Additional Commissioner, is relieved of his duties from the Head Quarters, Mysore Commissionerate, Mysore in the afternoon of 31.03.2013. The Articles of Charge were served on the respondent in the night of 31.03.2013 which has not been disputed by the Department i.e., after the respondent was relieved from his official duties. The High Court held that the respondent was not supposed to perform his duties as an Additional Commissioner any more till mid night as argued by the Department. Once the respondent was relieved from his official duty he will not continue as a Government Servant. Therefore it is clear that the Articles of Charge etc., were not served on the Government servant.
The High Court further held that Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 makes it clear that the departmental proceedings should have been initiated against the Government servant while he was in service. Rule 9(2)(b) provides that the Departmental proceedings can be initiated against the retired Government Servant under certain contingencies that too with the sanction of the President. In this case the sanction of the President or his delegate has not been obtained by the Department while initiating the Departmental action against the respondent, after his retirement from duties. The High Court, therefore, did not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order the Tribunal since the Tribunal is justified in concluding that the Articles of Charge were served on the respondent only after he was relieved from the duties. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Department.
Thus
it is clear that the Government official/Officer could not be charge
sheeted after he retires on superannuation since he is no more
Government servant. However in exceptional circumstances it is required
to initiate action against the retired Government Servant the sanction
of the President or the Officer duly authorized in this behalf by the
President.
Audit
firms’ systems for monitoring the quality of the audits they carry out
are not up to scratch, according to the Financial Reporting Council
As a result,
the regulator says in its report on the principal findings of the first
thematic review on audit quality monitoring, most firms only identify a
relatively small proportion of audits requiring significant improvement
compared to the number that the FRC’s inspectors come up with.
“Where we are able
to make direct comparisons, we do find instances where our monitoring
has identified required improvements that have not been identified by
the firm’s reviews or have been treated as less significant,” it says.
Part of the problem
is that while firms allocate substantial resources to their monitoring
of the quality of audits, they don’t spend the same on their monitoring
of those quality controls that support the consistency of quality of
audit work performed across the firm.
The findings are
based on visits by the FRC to nine of the UK’s top 20 firms – including
BDO, Crowe Clark Whitehill, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, KPMG, Mazars,
PwC and RSM UK.
The FRC reveals that
it selected six specific areas to assess to what extent monitoring of
the firms’ quality controls had been monitored. Out of the nine firms,
only three had tested all of them.
Of the others, three
took a rotational approach so that some of the areas were not tested in
a year while the remaining three had not tested one or more of the
quality control areas.
The variations arose
because the firms interpreted the audit regulation requirements
differently. However, the FRC’s view was that they should review whether
their annual monitoring is “appropriate” to meet regulatory
requirements.
There were also significant variations in sample sizes used to test the firms’ quality controls.
The FRC also found
in five firms, that staff undertaking the monitoring of the quality
controls were given inadequate training and guidance. In some cases,
monitoring of the controls was actually carried out by the individuals
responsible for operating them.
Other criticisms
included a procedural checklist approach to reviewing audits,
predictability in audit selection so individuals knew when their work
would be monitored, firms interpreting weaknesses as less important than
they should have been, and less than robust challenging when weaknesses
were uncovered.
Commenting on the
thematic review’s findings, FRC executive director of conduct Paul
George said, “We welcome audit firms’ commitment to audit quality and
ensuring that their quality control systems for audit are effective.
“Given the
importance of these control systems to deliver high quality audits, we
would expect firms to challenge individual audit engagement teams more
rigorously and apply a consistently equivalent level of resources to
monitoring the effectiveness of the firms’ overall controls.”
The FRC believes
that audit committees play an “essential role” in reviewing and
monitoring the effectiveness of the audit process.
It suggests that, in
order to enhance their oversight, they should ask their auditors on an
annual basis for the latest results of the firm’s monitoring, and
discuss whether their audit was reviewed, the findings and any remedial
action taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment