“DON’T NEGLECT” – File property returns in time. What if you don’t?

What is ‘property’ under Conduct Rules?

Movable property- Can be moved:

1. Jewellery, insurance policies where the annual premia exceeds two months basic pay
2. Shares, securities (stocks) and debentures
3. All loans (secured or unsecured both), taken or given;
4. Cars, bike, horses or any other conveyance;
5. Refrigerators, radios, television sets, etc.

Immovable property- Cannot be moved: Anything other than movable property like land, apartment, house, etc.

Declaration of assets and liabilities at first appointment:

Every employee should declare his assets and liabilities at the time of his first appointment giving full particulars regarding – (i) Immovable property; (ii) Shares, debentures, cash, bank deposits, etc.; (iii) Movable property; (iv) Debts and liabilities. This is required as per Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules. These assets/ liabilities of the employee can either be in his name or in the name of any of his family members. 

If the immovable property transaction is with a person who has official connections with the employee, then prior approval of Govt. is required.

In case of movable property, if the value exceeds two months basic pay, it shall simply be informed to Government within 30 days from the date of purchase/ acquisition.

What is an ‘annual property return’?

After the first appointment, all employees should submit an ‘annual property return’ giving full particulars of immovable property got by him, before 31st January of the coming year. Ex: The property returns for the year 2022 shall be submitted before 31st January of 2023. This time-line is announced by the Government from time to time and may change.

It is in the interest of Government to keep an eye on the employee’s assets- Why?

The Government takes the details of assets & liabilities of an employee at the time of first appointment. After joining, the source of income of the employee is his salary. If any asset is purchased by an employee, it should normally be within his income levels and should be with the Government’s knowledge.

If an employee suddenly purchases a wealthy property, a doubt naturally arises about the sources of income. An employee cannot buy a property beyond his income levels. If a purchase is made beyond his income levels, then the sources of income/ transactions may not be legitimate.

Fundamental Rule (FR) No. 11 prescribe that the whole time (24×7) of the employee is at the disposal of Government which pays him. For example, an employee may work outside his office hours, in contravention of FR and may earn additional income. Naturally, employee will not report such an income as it is not legitimate. With the desire of earning additional income, the employee may not do full justice to his employment at his fullest capacity besides his non-availability when Government requires his services beyond office hours.

Another case may be where the employee looks out for illegitimate sources of income i.e. taking bribes for performing his duties or wrongful performance of his duties. In any of such cases, the performance of the employee and interests of the Government are at compromising state.

In order to prevent such situations, the Government monitors the transactions of the employees by way of annual property returns. The purpose is to ensure that properties acquired by the employee after joining the Government service are within his income as per rules.

It is also in the interest of employee to submit timely annual returns to avoid any miscommunications on the acquisition of assets/ liabilities.

Implications of non declaration of assets or non submission of annual property returns correctly:

Non submission of property returns is a violation of Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules and the employee is liable for disciplinary action.

Further, if an employee acquires large wealth and cannot show accounts for it (disproportionate assets) from the known sources of income, it can be presumed that he is corrupt. This has received statutory recognition under the Prevention of Corruption Act and its application in a departmental inquiry against Government employee is acceptable. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Shri G.R. Mankar v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1963).