15.

DISCIPLINE
I. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Recoveries on alleged grounds of so-called contributory negligence are increasing day by day. Subordinate Officers
follow only one Rule-the inhuman Rule of recovering the entire losses sustained by Government from the innocent employees
foisting on the unfortunates some charge or other. The charge is usually that the employee did not adhere to this or that rule in
the discharge of duties. The rules are quoted only when a loss occurs. The dishonest element more often, goes scot-free. Many of
the subordinate officers did not care about whether the working conditions provided by them permitted the employee concerned
to observe the rules. The shortage of staff and overburden of work are not taken in to account. The extenuating factors are not at
all considered while ordering the recovery. There are also some officers who conspire to shield the real culprit and punish the
innocents. In short 'Pardoning the guilty and prosecuting the innocents' is the order of the day in deciding such cases.
We reproduce below some orders of Government, which sympathizes with the innocents. They may be carefully
studied.

1) Contributory negligence
"The nature and magnitude of the offence on the part of each official determine the penalty prima-facie justified.
Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority should, before initiating departmental proceedings, determine whether action should be taken
under Rule 15 or Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. If only one of the minor
penalties is called for, action should normally be taken under Rule 16 ibid so that the proceedings are not delayed unnecessarily."
While it is important that every official responsible for mis-conduct or negligence should be suitably dealt with it is of equal
importance that the concept of contributory negligence' should be correctly understood by the Disciplinary' Authorities and there
should not be any attempt to somehow or other effect recovery of the entire loss sustained by the Department by imposing
punishments on official who are guilty of only minor omissions. In the interest of expeditious action it is important that
'contributory negligence' should be correctly assessed in a realistic manner and while determining any omissions or lapses on the
part of an official, the bearing of such lapses on the loss considered and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were
performed shall be given due weight. For instance in the case of burglary in a post office, if normal precautions are taken in the
locking of the office or safe, holding an official responsible for contributory negligence for the simple reason that on certain previous
occasions he had allowed the office safe to be opened in his presence by a Class IV official would be a far-fetched hypothesis in
regard to contributory negligence and would cause undue hardship to officials and delay in the finalisation of disciplinary
proceedings.
(DG P&T Memo No. 6/8/59-DISC dated 09.07.1959)

2) Contributory negligence
In this office Memo No, 6/20/58-Disc dated 18.3.58,a form for the charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services
(classification, Control and Appeal) Rules had been prescribed. Cases still occur where neither the prescribed form is used nor there
is any indication in the charge sheet that action was contemplated for or indicate in the charge sheet that action was proposed under
Rule 16 of the C. C. S (C.C.A) Rules, 1957, or that it was proposed to impose a particular penalty, the proceedings become liable to be
halted.
One of the penalties prescribed in Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 is
recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt. This penalty can be imposed, only when it has been
established that the Govt. Servant concerned was negligent in the performance of his duties or was responsible for breach of rules or
orders and that the loss was caused by such negligence or breach. It has come to notice, that in quite a few cases punishment orders
do not contain a finding on these two important issues in clear and precise terms. In some, the relation between the negligence or
breach of orders or rules and the loss is left out while in some this relation is so loosely described as would be capable of a
construction other than that intended. As such punishment orders are liable to be successfully challenged. It is necessary that the
disciplinary authorities word these orders carefully and in conformity with the language of the rule. In other words, they must
contain a clear finding on the following points:-
I. That the Govt. servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and
II. That such negligence and/or breach of orders or rules caused the loss.

It is of course necessary that the punishment order should discuss the case fully so as to clearly bring out that the
finding/findings have been arrived at after the punishing authority has applied his mind thereto.
(DG P&T Memo No. 25/49/60-DISC dated 30.11.1960)
3). Contributory negligence
Penalty of recovery can be awarded only if the lapses on the part of the Government Servant either led to the commission
of fraud or misappropriation or frustrated the enquiries as a result of which it has not been possible to locate the real culprit.
Therefore the charge sheet should be elaborate and should not only indicate the modus operandi of the frauds and their
particulars and how it can be alleged that but for the lapses on the part of the official, the fraud of misappropriation should be
avoided or that the successful enquiries could be made to locate the stage at which the particular fraud had been committed by a
particular person. This will enable the accused not only to submit defence against the allegation brought against him but also to
explain how the lapses had not contributed to the loss in any manner.
The disciplinary authority is also required to give a clear finding in the punishment order on both these points. If it is not

1
 done, the order awarding the penalty of recovery will be liable to be set aside.
(Instruction No 23 (b) Rule 11 CCS (CCA) Rules)

4). A Judgment on recovery

In the case of Station Master, AIR Ranchi where he has been given direction to deposit a sum of Rs.13,222 which had been
looted away from his custody by unknown culprit and ordered for recovery under contributory factors, the CAT, Patna in its
judgment dt. 01.05.2000 has held as follows: -
"There was a regular police investigation in this case and the police arrived at a definite conclusion that the occurrence of
looting. i.e., a case of constituting an offence under section 379 of IPC did occur but, culprit could not be located. There was no
civil/criminal involvement on the part of the applicant as per police investigation. We find sufficient meant in this case of the
applicant. The impugned order is not sustainable in law. OA is allowed."

5). Minor mistakes in the discharge of duties

I am directed to refer to your letter No. P/25-1(A) dated 28.08.63 and to state that disciplinary authorities take all factors in
to account before they intimate formal disciplinary proceedings. No authority would take an official to task on the basis of purely
clerical mistakes if it had happened due to rush of work. In cases where the mistakes exhibit a gross negligence which could have
been avoided, the competent authorities will have to take due notice. An under charge of a telegram is a negligence and before
disciplinary proceedings are initiated for recovery of the amount under charged, the official is always given a chance to make good
the loss without the necessity for disciplinary proceedings. All the handicaps are duly taken into account before disciplinary
proceedings are initiated. Wherever possible, preliminary explanations are invariably obtained before the question of initiating
disciplinary proceedings are initiated.
(DG (P) No. 20/21/63-Discdated 08.10.1963)
6). Promotion effect of punishment and monetary recovery
Promotion of the official can be given effect to during the currency of the punishment of monetary recovery. In this
connection your kind attention is invited to the instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and A.
R under Memo No. 22011/1/68-Estt. (A) dt. 16.02.79 there statinginteralia that the punishment of censure, recovery and pecuniary
loss and stopping of increment do not constitute a bar to promotion of the official provided on the basis of overall assessment of his
record of service, the DPC recommends his promotion to the next higher grade.
(DG(P&T) No. 35/9/84-SPB-II dated 19.05.1984)

7). Fixing up contributory negligence

The responsibility of a Departmental or an Extra-Departmental official in the matter of loss of Govt. money and property is
stated in Rules 204 and 204 A of P&T Manual Vol.III (1972 Edition). These rules are derived from general guidance in Appendix II of
Compilations of General Financial Rules, Vol. II. However, the Director General has had occasions to observe that recoveries for loss
are being effected even from officials remotely guilty of contributory negligence. This creates a feeling of frustration and insecurity
and instead of aiming at efficient and proper service; the staff are prone to adopt a defensive posture of work.

It is felt that instructions contained in the above rules are adequate but are not being implemented in the spirit of these
rules. In dealing with a fraud case the primary consideration of some disciplinary authorities appears to be the question of recovery
of the loss in fraud and sometimes supervisory officials who can only be remotely connected with the case are punished with
recovery solely for this purpose. This need not be the case. The default or lapses of each official should be judged carefully to see if
this offence merits recovery and or any other punishment.
Pecuniary responsibility need not be fixed for mere routine at petty lapses. For effecting recovery, negligency should be
such as has been the direct or prominent cause of the loss to the Govt. and loss sustained was a probable consequence of that lapse.
(DG (P) No. 15-9/74-INV dated 10.02.1975)

8). Condition of Recovery

1. In the case of proceedings relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Government by negligence, or breach of orders
by a Govt. Servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is established that the Govt. Servant was responsible
for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and that such negligence or breach caused the loss.
2. In the case of loss to the Govt. the competent disciplinary authority should correctly assess in a realistic manner the
contributory negligency on the part of and officer and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an office, the
bearing of such lapses on the loss consider on the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the officer,
shall be given due weight.
3. The maximum amount which may be recovered from a delinquent officer on account of the loss caused to the Department
through his negligence should be 1/3rd of his pay spread over a period of 3 years. For this purpose, only basic pay should be
taken into account. In addition to the penalty of recovery, technically there is no bar to impose any statutory penalty, if the
circumstances of the case justify it. The punishing authority should however bear in mind that when more than one penalty is
imposed, one of which is recovery of pay of the whole or a part of the loss caused to Govt. it should not be of such severity so to
make impossible for him, to bear the strain.
(Rule 106, 107 & 108 of P&T Manual Vol-II)
9). Recovery from retired officials
Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against a retired official in the manner provided in Articles 351-A of CSR for the
purpose of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it either permanently or for a specific period, and also for ordering
recovery from pension and or DCRG of the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss sustained by Govt.

2
 An enquiry under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 has to be held for recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the Govt. by
negligence, on breach of orders by a retired official. The recovery of any amount from his pension or DCRG the date of retirement
cannot be made under any circumstances without the express order of the President.
(Rule 137 of P&T Manual Vol. III)

10). Realisation of loss from subsidiary offenders' instructions for regulating the enforcement of responsibility for losses, etc
1. The cardinal principle governing the assessment of responsibility is that every public officer should exercise the same
vigilance in respect of expenditure from public fund generally as person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of the
expenditure and the custody of his own money. While, therefore, the competent authority may, in special cases condone an officer's
honest errors of judgment involving financial loss, if the officer can show that he has acted in good faith and done his best up to the
limits of his ability and experience, personal liability shall be strictly enforced against all officers who are dishonest, careless or
negligent in the duties entrusted to them.

2. In cases where loss is due to delinquencies of subordinate officials and where it appears that this has been facilitated by
laxity of supervision on the part of a superior officer, the later should also be called strictly to account and his personal liability in the
matter carefully assessed.

3. (a) The question of enforcing pecuniary liability should always be considered as well as the question of other forms of
disciplinary action. In deciding the degree of the officer's pecuniary liability it will be necessary to look not only to the circumstance
of the case but also the financial circumstances of the officer, since it should be recognised that the penalty should not be such as to
impair the Govt. servants' future efficiency.
(b)In particular, if the loss has occurred through fraud, every endeavour should be made to recover the whole amount lost
from the guilty person and if laxity of supervision has facilitated the fraud, the supervising officer at fault may properly be penalised
either directly by requiring him to make good in money a sufficient proportion of the loss or indirectly by reduction or stoppage of
his increments of pay.
(c) It should always be considered whether the depreciated value of Government property or equipment lost, damaged or
destroyed by the carelessness of individuals entrusted with their care (e.g. bicycles, calculators, a policeman's rifle, a touring officer's
tent, a factory motor lorry, an engineer's instruments, etc.) should not be recovered from the delinquent official. The depreciated
value of the stores may be calculated by applying the 20% depreciation in the case of vehicles, including cycles, and 15% in the case
of calculating machines, on the reduced balance every year. The amount to be recovered may be limited to the Government servant
capacity to pay.
(d) When a pensionable Government servant is concerned in any irregularity or loss, the authority investigating the case
shall bear in mind the provisions contained in Rules 9 and 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, as amended from time to time and
immediately inform the Audit officer or Accounts Officer as the case may be responsible for reporting on his title to pension or
retirement gratuity and the authority competent to sanction pension or retirement gratuity and it will be the duty of the later to
make a note of the information and see that in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972
gratuity / or death-cum-retirement gratuity is not paid before a conclusion is arrived at as regards the Government servant's
culpability and final orders are issued thereon.
(e) The fact that the Government servants who were guilty of frauds or irregularities have been demobilized or have retired
and have thus escaped punishment, should not be made a justification for absolving those who are also guilty but who still remain in
service.
(f) It is of the greatest importance to avoid delay in the investigation of any loss due to fraud, negligence, financial
irregularity, etc., should be the administrative authority require the assistance of the Audit Officer and / or the Accounts Officer, as
the case may be, in pursuing the investigation, he may call on that officer for all vouchers and other documents that may be relevant
to the investigation; and if the investigation is complex and he needs the assistance of an expert Audit Officer / Accounts Officer to
unravel it, he should apply forthwith for that assistance to Government which will then negotiate with the Audit Officer and / or the
Accounts Officer concerned for the services of an investigating staff. Thereafter the administrative authority and the Audit /
Accounts Authority shall be personally responsible within their respective spheres, for the expeditious conduct of the enquiry. In any
case in which it appears that recourse to judicial proceedings is likely, the Special Police Establishment or the State Police should be
associated with the investigation.
(g) Depending upon the results of the inquiry, departmental proceedings and or prosecution shall be instituted at the earliest
moment against the delinquent officials concerned and conducted with strict adherence to the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, and other instructions prescribed in this regard by the Government.
(Appendix 4 of the FHB Vol. I)

11). Responsibility and recovery from principal offenders

Where owing to the negligence of a departmental employee or its agent including an EDA or through the omission on his
part to observe any rule as provided in the different volumes of the Postal Manuals, or other books like the Post Office Guide, the
Department either by reasons of the enquiry being impeded or frustrated directly or indirectly or for any other reason, is put to loss
of Govt. money or property or has to make good the loss of any money or property or where the departmental losses money by
embezzlement or fraud by any of its employees etc., any members of the staff or any agent who by his negligence default or
disregard of the rules, has caused the loss or has contributed to its occurrence either by reasons of the enquiry being impeded or
frustrated directly or indirectly or for any other reasons, may be required to make good the loss either in whole or in part as the
competent authority may decide provided that there is clear finding that (i) the departmental employee/EDA is held responsible for a
particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and (ii) that such acts of negligence and or breach of orders or rules

3
caused the loss or contributed to its occurrence by reasons of enquiry being impeded or frustrated directly or indirectly or for any
other reasons. Detailed instructions for regulating the enforcement of rules are given in Rule 204 of Vol-3
(Rule 103 Volume III)

12). Recovery of pecuniary loss caused by a Govt. servant clarifications - regarding

References are being received in this Department seeking clarification whether the instructions contained in DG P&T letter
No. 3/313/70-Disc-I dated 17-8-1971 are applicable to Govt. servants serving in other Ministries/departments also.
The DG P&Ts instructions mentioned above provide that recovery from the pay of a Govt. servant as a punishment for any
pecuniary loss caused by him to the Govt. by negligence or breach of orders, should not exceed 1/3rd of his basis pay (i.e. excluding
dearness pay or any other allowances) and should not be spread over a period of more than three years. However, no such limits
have been prescribed in the statutory rules i.e. in Rule 11 (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law. It was observed that the DGP&T instructions
prescribed the procedure to effect the recovery of the amount levied as penalty in terms of Rule 11 (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and
these procedural instructions cannot amend, supersede, or modify the substantive provisions of Rule 11 (iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
While it is expected that in imposing the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss the disciplinary authority should not display such
severity that a Govt. servant suffers hardship disproportionate to his negligence/misconduct that led to the loss, it is not necessary to
fix a rigid limit for the purpose of such recovery. The DGP&T instructions would, therefore, be treated as unwarranted. Therefore,
the implication of this OM is to recover the entire loss from the delinquent official but the recovery may be spread over till entire
loss is recovered.
(DG (P) No.C 11011/5/2000-VP dated 29.11.2000)

13). Recovery be made in case of fraud

If the loss has occurred through fraud, every endeavour should be made to recover the whole amount lost from the guilty
persons, and if laxity of supervision has facilitated the fraud, the supervising officer at fault may properly be penalised either directly
by requiring him to make good in money a sufficient proportion of the loss or indirectly by reduction or stopping of his increment of
pay.
(Rule 204-A (4) Postal Man. Vol. III)

14). Identification of offenders in Fraud cases and subsequent disciplinary action against such officials - reg.
This is regarding the identification of offenders in fraud cases and subsequent disciplinary action against such officials. One of
the Service Unions has raised an issue that whenever any fraud takes place, the mail overseers and Postal Assistants are made
responsible for the fraud, while the other authorities like IPOs, ASPOs and Divisional Heads etc. who may also be responsible are
allowed to go Scot free.
2. In this matter, I am directed to reiterate that the identification of offenders in a fraud case should be done with due care in a
just and equitable manner. All the officials who are responsible should be identified as offenders keeping in view their
responsibility/role in the case and no one should be allowed to go Scot-frees.
3. As regard disciplinary action subsidiary offenders, your attention is invited to DOP&T OM No. 11012/1/2000 Estt/(A) dated
06.09.2000, where necessary guidelines regarding attention to be paid for recovery aspect while punishing the officials were issued.
While issuing punishment orders, it should be kept in mind that the punishment awarded should be commensurate with the gravity
of charges keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and equity. Many times, due to misplaced compassion, the punishment
awarded is either reduced or the punishment awarded may not commensurate with the gravity of the charges because an overview
of the entire case is not kept in mind.
4. It is therefore, reiterated that all the disciplinary/appellant/revisionary authority should have an overview of the entire case
before deciding the case, so that the punishment awarded/recovery ordered are proportionate/Commensurate with gravity of
charges.
(DG (P) No. 17-3/2006-INV dated 08.09.2006)

15). Fixing contributory negligence / responsibilities

I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that the penalty of recovery under Rule 11 (iii) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1972 can be imposed on a Government servant only when it is established that the Government servant is directly responsible
for the act of negligence or breach of orders causing the financial loss. Rule 106, 107 & 111 of P&T Manual vol. III and Government
of India Instructions No. 23 below Rule 11 are relevant in this regard.
2. The guiding principles for imposition of penalty of recovery as contained in the Government of India Instruction No. 23 below Rule
11 ibid are reiterated in the following:
"In the case of loss caused to the Government, the competent disciplinary authority should correctly assess in a realistic
manner the contributory negligence on the part of an officer and while determining any omission or lapses on the part of an officer,
the bearing of such lapses on the loss considered and the extenuating circumstances in which the duties were performed by the
officer, shall be given due weight."
The above-mentioned instructions may be kept in view by the concerned authorities, while deciding cases relating to
imposition of penalty of recovery.
(DG (P)No. C-32016/07/2006-VP dated 14.11.2006)

16). Penalty of recovery

The amount of recovery of loss ordered as a measure of penalty can be reduced by the punishing authority at any later
stage if it is found that the amount of loss sustained by the Government is less than that originally calculated. If, however, the loss is

4
subsequently found to be nil, the case has to be reviewed by the competent authority for imposing an appropriate penalty. That
authority will not, however, be competent to impose a penalty higher than that of recovery.
(Rules 111 of P&T Man. Vol. III)

17). Honest errors can be condoned

The cardinal principle governing the assessment of responsibility is that every public officer should exert the same vigilance
in respect of public expenditure and public funds generally as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in respect of the
expenditure and the custody of his own money. While therefore the competent authority may in special cases, condone an
offender's honest error of judgment involving financial loss if the officer can show that he has acted in good faith and done his best
up to the limits of his ability and experience, personal liability must be strictly enforced against all officers who are dishonest,
careless or negligent in the duties entrusted to them.
(Rule 204 A (1) Vol. III)

18). Penal recoveries from departmental officials in case of losses and frauds
1) If a supervising officer finds a deficiency in the case or stamp balance of a Post Office or a record office, the Post Master or
Treasurer or both in the case of PO or the Record clerk in case of Record Office should be called upon to produce the money or
stamps. If the official or officials cannot do so and are unable to give a satisfactory explanation an inventory of the cash and stamps
actually found should be drawn up and got signed by two independent witness and action should be taken as prescribed in the rules
on the subject of criminal offences in Chapter IV P & T Man. Vol. II
(Rule 217 of Vol-V)
2) Pecuniary recovery from DCRG is not a statutory penalty. In cases where a Govt. servant is due to retire shortly any amount
of loss caused by him could not be recovered in full because of his pending retirement, final punishment order should be passed and
the case referred to the Directorate for initiation of action under Rule 9 of CCS (pension) rules 1972.
(DG (P&T) NO. 6/10/67-Disc dated 14.4.1969)
3) Penal interest in the amount defrauded by departmental official should be recovered at the rate of 2.5% per annum
(compound) over and above the rate of interest fixed from time to time for the various types of accounts and savings certificates for
the period during which the amount was defrauded.
(DG (P&T) NO. 1-19/75-SB dated 15.10.1975)

19). Losses being suffered by the Department due to negligence of individuals - Instruductions reg.
This is regarding losses being suffered by the Department on account of lack of awareness of rules and instructions and / or
negligence on the part of individual officials in various matters.
2. A number of cases have come to the notice of this Directorate where the department has been put to huge losses due to lack
of awareness and / or negligence on the part of individual officers/officials Negligence on the part of individual officers / officials is
not only causing financial losses to the Department, but also leading to grievances, litigation and embarrassment to the department
by inviting untoward remarks from the nodal ministries / departments/ courts A few examples of such type of cases seen in the
recent past are given hereunder,-
i) In one case, the duty hours of GDS delivery establishment were calculated on the basis of the norms fixed for 'foot beats'
instead of 'cycle beats', without going into details of the relevant instructions carefully. This resulted in calculation of more than
justified work hours and thereby fixation of higher TRCA of the GDS concerned, By the time the mistake was noticed and corrected,
overpayments to the tune of Rs. 10.20 Lakh had already been made. On receipt of the orders effecting recoveries of the overpaid
amount, the GDS concerned approached Hon'ble CAT, which ordered that the recoveries be immediately stopped and amounts
already recovered be refunded to the GDS concerned, since the error was not on the part of the GDS . The Department could not
find relief up to the Supreme Court and had to implement the Order of the CAT.
ii) In another case, while implementing the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1.1.1996, and up
gradation of the pay scale of postmen w.e.f 1.10.1997, the pay of a number of postmen in several Circles was fixed allowing two
advance increments at each time of fixation, thereby causing heavy losses to the Exchequer. Here also the Government could not
find relief up to the Apex Court for the same reason that the mistake had been committed by the Department and not by the
Government servants concerned. The loss could not be recovered.
iii) Due to wrong interpretation of the extant instructions, a Hindi Translator (Group 'C' official) was allowed to avail LTC to North-
Eastern Region by air from her Headquarter itself, by treating her as 'Group B' employee She was allowed LTC advance accordingly,
Before passing the bill, the matter was brought to the notice of this Directorate, at which stage the position was clarified, The
affected official approached CAT and the matter is still under litigation.
iv) A particular field unit started payment of Transport Allowance at higher rates than those admissible to its staff for no apparent
reasons and without any instructions/orders on the subject. This caused huge financial loss to the Department The matter was
brought to the notice of the Directorate by the DA(P) concerned, whereupon the position was clarified and the unit was ordered to
make payments of the Transport Allowance to its staff at the applicable rates. The affected employees went to CAT, the Orders have
been stayed and the matter's still under litigation.
3. The above few examples are illustrative in nature. There are many more such cases in which had the officials concerned gone
through Orders carefully, the instances of loss to the Exchequer could have been avoided Such negligence on the part of the
Department and its employees does also not find favour with Courts. As such, the department has lost a number of cases where the
Courts have ruled in favour of the individuals on the grounds that they were not at fault for overpayments etc.
4. It is, therefore, enjoined upon all concerned to ensure that the officers/officials posted to perform various functions are well
aware of rules and instructions pertaining to the subject and that they should perform their duties with due diligence. Negligence on

5
the part of the employees should be viewed seriously. Responsibility for the lapses should invariably be fixed and the amount of
losses recovered from the employees at fault.
5. These instructions may please be brought to the notice of all concerned.
(DG (P) F.No. 14-01/2012-PAP dated: 18.10.2012)

20). Meeting of the Departmental Council (JCM) in. the Department of Posts. (Contributory Negligence)
It has been brought to the notice of the Directorate that staff is being harassed on contributory factors for simple and
flimsy reasons by misusing the provisions of unbecoming of Govt. servant deviating the ruling contained in the various Departmental
volumes and huge recoveries are being ordered by the Disciplinary Authorities in contravention of the provisions of the rules.
2. In this context it is reiterated that acts and conduct which amount to misconduct have already been prescribed in GOI's
decision (23) and case of trivial nature should be eliminated vide GOI's decision (24) below Rule 3 C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. 1964.
3. So far as imposition of the penalty or recovery is concerned, the instructions already exist in DGP&T order No. (12) below
Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which stipulates that proceeding relating to recovery of pecuniary losses caused to the
Government by negligence or breach of orders by a Government Servant, the penalty of recovery can be imposed only when it is
established that the Government Servant was responsible for particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and the
such negligence or breach caused the loss.
4. All concerned are requested that the orders issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs the Department of
Personnel & Administrative Reforms as well as DG(Posts) from time to time on the subject should be scrupulously adhered to.
(DG (P) No. 8-4/2005-Inv. dated15.5.2008)

21). Recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014 wherein
certain instructions have been issued to deal with the issue of recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants
in view of the law declared by Courts, particularly, in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand And Ors.,
2012 AIR SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417. Para 3(iv) of the OM inter-alia provides that recovery should be made in all cases of
overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships.
2. The issue has subsequently come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab &
Orsvs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) wherein Hon'ble Court on
18.12.2014 decided a bunch of cases in which monetary benefits were given to employees in excess of their entitlement due to
unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned competent authorities, in determining the emoluments payable to them, and
the employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information / misrepresentation / fraud, which had led the concerned
competent authorities to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The employees were as innocent as
their employers in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18 th
December, 2014 ibid has, inter-alia, observed as under:
"7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer
seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery
would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other
words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to
ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this
Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was
iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court."
"10. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of
this country, has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be
in order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more
improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such
time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given
situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose the
parameters of the realm of an action of recovery of an excess amount paid to an employee which would breach the obligations of the
State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India."
3. The issue that was required to be adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether all the private respondents, against
whom an order-of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the
same to the employer. For the applicability of the instant order, and the conclusions recorded by them thereinafter, the ingredients
depicted in paras 2&3 of the judgment are essentially indispensable.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern
employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement has
summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid
accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

6
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
5. The matter has, consequently, been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of
Legal Affairs. The Ministries / Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful / excess payments made to Government
servants in accordance with above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of
2012) in State of Punjab and others etcvs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. However, wherever the waiver of recovery in the above-
mentioned situations is considered, the same may be allowed with the express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of
this Department's OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014.
6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are issued with the
concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
(DG (P) .No.18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 2.03.2016)

22. Recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014 wherein certain
instructions have been issued to deal with the issue of recovery of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants in view
of the law declared by Courts, particularly, in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand And Ors., 2012 AIR
SCW 4742, (2012) 8 SCC 417. Para 3(iv) of the OM inter-alia provides that recovery should be made in all cases of overpayment
barring few exceptions of extreme hardships.
2. The issue has subsequently come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Orsvs
Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) wherein Hon’ble Court on
18.12.2014 decided a bunch of cases in which monetary benefits were given to employees in excess of their entitlement due to
unintentional mistakes committed by the concerned competent authorities, in determining the emoluments payable to them, and
the employees were not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information / misrepresentation / fraud, which had led the concerned
competent authorities to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The employees were as innocent as
their employers in the wrongful determination of their inflated emoluments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 18 th
December, 2014 ibid has, inter-alia, observed as under:
“7. Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking
recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would
result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover. In other words,
interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain
the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court
exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated
exercise of such power, “for doing complete justice in any cause” would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous,
and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.”
“10. In view of the afore-stated constitutional mandate, equity and good conscience, in the matter of livelihood of the people of this
country, has to be the basis of all governmental actions. An action of the State, ordering a recovery from an employee, would be in
order, so long as it is not rendered iniquitous to the extent, that the action of recovery would be more unfair, more wrongful, more
improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer, to recover the amount. Or in other words, till such
time as the recovery would have a harsh and arbitrary effect on the employee, it would be permissible in law. Orders passed in given
situations repeatedly, even in exercise of the power vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, will disclose
the parameters of the realm of an action of recovery (of an excess amount paid to an employee) which would breach the obligations
of the State, to citizens of this country, and render the action arbitrary, and therefore, violative of the mandate contained in Article
14 of the Constitution of India.”
3. The issue that was required to be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether all the private respondents, against
whom an order-of recovery (of the excess amount) has been made, should be exempted in law, from the reimbursement of the
same to the employer. For the applicability of the instant order, and the conclusions recorded by them thereinafter, the ingredients
depicted in paras 2&3 of the judgment are essentially indispensable.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while observing that it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern
employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement has
summarized the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:-
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of
recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid
accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or
harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.
5. The matter has, consequently, been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal
Affairs. The Ministries / Departments are advised to deal with the issue of wrongful / excess payments made to Government servants
in accordance with above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.11527 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.11684 of 2012) in
State of Punjab and others etcvs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. However, wherever the waiver of recovery in the above-
mentioned situations is considered, the same may be allowed with the express approval of Department of Expenditure in terms of
this Department’s OM No.18/26/2011-Estt (Pay-I) dated 6th February, 2014.

7
6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are issued with the
concurrence of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
(DOPT OM No.18/03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 02.03.2016)

23. Revision of the monetary limits for handling cases of loss/fraud for conducting the investigation at Divisional/ Regional and
Circle level
I am directed to say that the monetary limits for conducting Divisional Level and Circle Level inquiries in the fraud/ loss cases
were last revised vide Directorate letter No.8-3/2002-INV, dated 29.07.2004. The revision of these monetary limits and the powers
for review of the cases has been under consideration in this office.

2. It has now been decided to revise the present monetary limits for handling of loss and fraud cases for conducting the
investigation as under:-

S. Designation Present Limit Revised Limit

No.
1. Inspector (Posts)/Asstt. / superintendent Upto Rs. 20,000/- Upto Rs. 50,000/-
(Posts)
2. Divisional Superintendent/ Senior or Chief Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. Rs. 50,001/- to Rs.
postmaster/ Dy. Directory Mumbai/ Kolkata 50,000/- 1,00,000/-
GPOs
3. Assistant Director/ APMG in the Circle Office Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. Rs. 1,00,001/- to Rs.
1,00,000/- 2,00,000/-
4. Director Postal Services/ Directors Kolkata/ Above Rs. 1 lakh Above Rs. 2 lakh
Mumbai/ New Delhi GPOs/ Any other
Director/PMG/Chief PMG

3. It has also been decided to revise the limit for cases of loss and fraud required to be reported to the Directorate. Present limit of
Rs. 2 lakhs in loss and fraud cases to be mandatorily reported to Directorate is being increased to Rs. 5 lakhs. These enhanced limits
are exclusive of normal and penal interest. Temporary misappropriations, however, will continue to be included in the revised limits.

4. Though cases of loss and fraud involving above Rs. 5 lakhs will henceforth be reported to and reviewed by Directorate, cases of
complex nature or with special features irrespective of the amount involved, may also be reviewed by the Directorate. However,
investigations or review by the Directorate will not in any way substitute the investigations by the Circles which will continue to be
primarily their responsibility.

5. Following procedure for review of cases in the Divisions/Circles may be followed:-

(a) Cases investigated by Inspector Posts/ASPOs upto Rs. 50,000/- will be reviewed by the Divisional Supdt./sr. or Chief
postmaster/Dy. Directory of Mumbai Kolkata GPO, as the case may be. These cases will have to be reported to RO/CO followed by
detailed enquiry report and follow up action on the inquiry report.
(b) Cases investigated upto Rs.1,00,000/- by the Divisional Supdt./Sr. or Chief Postmaster will be reviewed in Circle/Region Office by
the ADPS/APMG and submitted to the Director Postal Services for information and orders. In respect of the cases investigated Dy.
Director/Assistant Director of Mumbai/Kolkata/New Delhi GPO, the review may be carried out by the Director Mumbai/Kolkata/New
Delhi GPO and submitted to PMG/ Chief PMG.

(c) Cases investigated by the ADPS/ APMG of the Circle/Regional office upto Rs. 2 lakh will be reviewed by the Directory Postal
Services and put up to PMG/Chief PMG for information and orders.

6. The investigation in the cases involving amount above Rs. 2 lakh will be carried out by the Director or by the PMG/Chief PMG.
Enquiries by PMG or Chief PMG, in addition to the enquiries made at Director level, may be ordered by the Directorate where
considered necessary or conducted at the discretion of Chief PMG/PMG himself.

7. The office of Director of Accounts (Postal) is also expected to detect and prevent frauds through the mechanism of cross
checking of account and documents received from the Post Offices. Wherever investigations into fraud case relate to the work and
the responsibilities of the office of Director of Accounts (Postal), the Chief PMsG/Regional PMsG should communicate various acts of
omission of commission on the part of the staff of Postal Accounts office and call for the comments of the Director of Accounts
(Postal)/GM (Finance). Wherever considered necessary, further investigations can be made either by deputing a senior officer from
the Circle/Region or themselves (Chief PMG/PMG) at their discretion.

8. In every case where the loss exceeds Rs. 5 lkhs, an intimation should be sent in the first instance to ADG (Investigation).

9. All cases of loss/fraud involving an amount of Rs. 5000/- and above should be reported to police as per P&T Manual Volume V.

10. All cases of loss/fraud involving outsiders and insiders and/or having inter circle ramifications, complex in modus operandi, or
involving large amounts, should be reported to CBI.

8
11. Heads of Circle will continue to maintain necessary statistical data in respect of loss/fraud cases pertaining to different
Regions in the Circle.

12. The revised limits will be applicable for cases detected on or after 01.04.2014. Earlier limits will be applicable in respect of all
investigations pending on 31.03.2014.
(DG (P) No.8-03/2012-INVdated 24.03.2014)

24. Revision of Financial power to Heads of circles In the Department of Posts.

A reference is invited to this Department OM No.6-1/2005-PC (Post) dated 06th June 2016 and No.6-1/2005-PC (Post) dated
29th July on the subject cited above.
2. In this regard, some Circles have sought for clarification with reference to OM No.6-1/2005-PC (Post) dated 06th June 2016
and OM No.6-1/2005-PC (Post) dated 29th July 2005.
3. The issue is clarification as under:
Schedule II of schedule of Financial Powers of the Heads of Circle
Serial No. of Item of Expenditure Existing Revised Financial Powers
Schedule -II Financial Powers

1. 2. 3. 4.
14. Write off: Rs.10,000/- subject to the No Change.
(a) Cash: same conditions as
Write off of the irrecoverable losses applicable to DG at present.
of cash or stamps by accident, fraud,
robbery, negligence or other causes. (As per Order dated
26.03.2001) (As per Order dated
26.03.2001)
14 (b) Stores: Rs.50,000/- for loss of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of
(i) Irrecoverable losses by fraud, stores not due to theft, fraud stores not due to theft, fraud
theft or negligence. or negligence. In other or negligence. In other
causes the power should causes the power should
only be Rs.20,000/-. only be Rs.20,000/-.

(As per Order dated (As per Order dated

29.07.2005) 06.06.2016)

Rs.25,000/- in each case. Rs.50,000/- in each case.

(ii) Irrecoverable losses in other (As per Order dated (As per Order dated
cases. 26.03.2001) 06.06.2016)

4. All other conditions shall remain same.

(DG (P) No. 6-1/2005-PC (Post) dated 31.8.2016)

25. Recovery of public money involved in loss and fraud cases.

Directorate has issued several instructions regarding recovery of public money lost in fraud cases and reiterated the same from time
to time for ensuring maximum recovery of loss along with normal interest and penal interest. This aspect is also pointed out in
individual cases on reviewing CLI reports and half yearly reports. Still, it is observed that recovery of defrauded amount is meager as
compared to amount involved in loss and fraud cases due, to non-compliance/non adherence to extant
rules/regulations/instructions issued by Directorate.

2. It is, therefore, once again requested that all possible efforts be caused well in time for optimal recovery of loss under different
statutes/rules/instructions some of which are mentioned here as under.

2.1 PAD Act, 1850 which stipulates that all movable and immovable properties of the persons who collect money from the public for
depositing with Govt. and their family members be identified through departmental sources and intimated to revenue authorities to
stop their alienation and recovery of loss.

Above definition of persons collecting money from public for depositing with Govt. encompasses both postal employees and
agents.
As such PAD Act, 1850 is also applicable to agents as well as prime offenders/co-offenders.

2.2. Judgment dated 18.02.2005 of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing SLP No. 7111/2004 filed by Shri Shyam Surat Singh, PA, Patti
SO, Pratapgarh Division, UP against the judgment dated 17.06.2003 on Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, and Order
dated 23.07.2001 of Hon’ble CAT Lucknow Bench of OA No. 73/93 circulated vide this office letter No. 4-109/UP-80/Inv, dated
30.11.2007, upheld the validity of PAD Act, 1850.

In above case Hon’ble High Court has also observed that civil liability and criminal liability are different.

9
2.3. Judgment dated 09.08.2012 of Hon’ble High Court Allahabad dismissing WP No. 33207/2006 filed by Shri D. S. Rawal, prime
offender in a SB/TD accounts fraud in Aligarh Dn. against RC issued under PAD Act against his wife circulated vide Directorate letter
No. 4-26/UP-04/2008-Inv dated 25.03.2013 envisaged recovery of loss from properties of dependents of prime offenders.

As such PAD Act. 1850 in conjunction with instructions contained in above judgments be invoked for recovery of loss from
properties of agents/prime offenders/co-offenders and their dependents.
2.4 As a parallel action to recover the defrauded amount, action be taken, in consultation with police and CBI, to file suit under
section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance 1944 to attach and forfeit the properties of persons who have committed the
frauds.

2.5 Revenue Recovery Act. 1890 envisages recovery of loss from the immovable properties of persons involved in frauds.

3.1 Directorate letter No. 7-5/CVC/2005-Vig. Dated 31.10.2007 stipulates that disciplinary action against the offenders be
initiated before their superannuation.

3.2 DDG (Vig) letter No. 8-3/2003-Inv dated 25.02.2003 enjoins upon disciplinary authority to ensure punishments which are
commensurate with lapses on their part and loss sustained by the Govt. Further, it should be ensured that loss involved in the fraud
etc. is fully recovered distributing the total loss over all the offenders in a suitable proportion depending upon the proportion of
gravity of each of the offenders involved in the case.

3.3 DOP&T instructions issued vice OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt (A) dated 06.09.2000 as mentioned in Director (Vigilance) Do
letter No. 17-3/2006-Inv dated 08.09.2006 require that the punishments should be commensurate with the gravity of charges
keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and equity. The letter further says, to quote, “Many times due to misplaced
compassion the punishment awarded is either reduced or the punishment awarded may not be commensurate with the gravity of
charges because in overview of the entire case is not kept in mind.”

4. Rule 14 of P&T Manual Vol. II requires moving of an application in the Court for transfer of money recovered through fine imposed
by the Court on the offenders to Department of Posts.

It is requested that above rules/regulations/Judgments be properly invoked for effecting optimal recovery of loss of public money
involved in fraud cases and wherever necessary punishments awarded to offenders to be considered for review in case of
inadequate recovery.

This issues with the approval of Sr. DDG (Vig)/CVO.

(DG (P) No. 4-66/TN-16/2009-Inv.dated 19.03.2015)

26. Recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants.

The undersigned is directed to say that the issue of recovery of wrongful/excess payments made to Government servants has
been examined in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and the Department of Legal Affairs in the light of the recent
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal And Orsvs State of Uttarakhand And Ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742 (2012)
8 SCC 417, decided on 17th August, 2012. The Hon'ble Court has observed as under :
15. We are not convinced that this Court in various judgments referred to hereinbefore has laid down any proposition of law that
only if the State or its officials establish that there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the recipients of the excess pay,
then only the amount paid could be recovered. On the other hand, most of the cases referred to hereinbefore turned on the peculiar
facts and circumstances of those cases either because the recipients had retired or on the verge of retirement or were occupying
lower posts in the administrative hierarchy.
16. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money” which belongs
neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or
misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be
due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government officers may be due to various
reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer of the
payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being
effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any
authority of law. Any amount paid / received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme
hardship but not as a matter of right in such situations law implies as obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would
amount to unjust enrichment.
2. Hon'ble Supreme Court also distinguished the cases like Shyam Babu Verma v UOI, 1994 SCR(1) 700, 1994 SCC (2) 52, Syed
Abdul Qadir and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Ors, (2009) 3 SCC 475, Sahib Ram V. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 18 etc. where it
had not allowed recovery of excess payment in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases so as to avoid extreme
hardship to the concerned employees, for example, where the employees concerned were mostly junior employees, or they had
retired or were on verge of retirement, the employees were not at fault, and recovery which was ordered after a gap of many years
would have caused extreme hardship..
3. In view of the law declared by Courts and recently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited case, Chandi
Prasad Uniyal And OrsVs Uttarakhand State and ors, 2012 AIR SCW 4742(2012) 8 SCC 417, the of Ministries/Departments are advised
to deal with the issue of wrongful/excess payments as follows :

10
i. In all cases where the excess payments on account of wrong pay fixation, grant of scale without due approvals, promotions
without following the procedure, or in excess of entitlements etc come to notice, immediate corrective action must be taken.
ii. In a case like this where the authorities decide to rectify an incorrect order, a show-cause notice may be issued to the
concerned employee informing him of the decision to rectify the order which has resulted in the overpayment, and intention to
recover such excess payments. Reasons for the decision should be clearly conveyed to enable the employee to represent against the
same. Speaking orders may thereafter be passed after consideration of the representations, if any, made by the employee.
iii. Whenever any excess payment has been made on account of fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, favouritism, negligence or,
carelessness, etc., roles of those responsible for overpayments in such cases, and the employees who benefitted from such actions
should be identified, and departmental/criminal action should be considered in appropriate cases.
iv. Recovery should be made in all cases of overpayment barring few exceptions of extreme hardships. No waiver of recovery may
be allowed without the approval of Department of Expenditure.
v. While ordering recovery, all the circumstances of the case should be taken into account. In appropriate cases, the concerned
employee may be allowed to refund the money in suitable installments with the approval of Secretary in the Ministry, in consultation
with the FA.
vi. Wherever the relevant rules provide for payment of interest on amounts retained by the employee beyond the stipulated
period etc as in the case of TA, interest would continue to be recovered from the employee as heretofore.
(DOPT OM No 18/26/2011 – Estt (Pay I) dated 06.02.2014)

II. CCS (CONDUCT) RULES 1964 A GIST

27. CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964

The Conduct expected of a Government servants are defined in CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Any conduct contrary to the provisions of
this Rule is construed as Misconduct. The conduct expected of a Government servant is defined in CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.

Every Government Servant shall all times maintain

(i) Absolute integrity
(ii) devotion to duty
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant.
Supervisors should ensure the integrity and devotion of duty of all his subordinates. (Rule 3 (i))
➢ Maintain impartiality. (GID under Rule 3)
➢ Maintain standard conduct in private life (GID under Rule 3)
➢ Maintain proper decorum working and lunch hours (GID under Rule 3)
➢ Any conduct contrary to the provisions of this rule is construed as Misconduct
➢ (1) He should not act otherwise than in his best judgment in the exercise of powers conferred on him except when he is
acting under the direction of his official superior.
➢ (a) such directions shall be in writing as far as possible.
➢ (b) Confirmation of oral instructions shall be issued/obtained in writing.
➢ 2) Government Servants shall not act in a discourteous manner in the performance of official duties and shall not adopt
dilatory tactics or cause willful delays in his official dealings.
➢ (3) Governments Servants shall not indulge in any act of sexual harassment to any woman at her work place and those in
charge of a workplace shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any woman at such work place.
Restrictions on Government Servants
➢ Employment of near relatives in companies or firms
➢ Maintaining connections with press or media
➢ Criticism of the Government
➢ Giving evidence before any Committee or any other authority
➢ Communications of official information
➢ Raising funds or collections
➢ Accepting gifts
➢ Engaging in private trade or employment
➢ Investments lending and borrowing
➢ Acquiring and disposing movable, immovable and valuable properties.
➢ Vindication of acts as Government servant and his character
➢ Marriage.
➢ Consumption of intoxicating drinks etc.
➢ Supervisory officers to ensure integrity of officials under their control.
Prohibitions on Government Servants
➢ Taking part in politics and elections
➢ Joining associations - the objects or activities of which are prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India or public order or morality.
➢ Giving or taking or about the giving or taking dowry and even demanding dowry directly or indirectly from the parent or
guardian of a bride/bride groom.
➢ Canvassing of non-official or other outside influence to further his interest in respect of his service matters.
➢ Employment of Children below 14 years of age.
11
 ➢ Habitual indebtedness or insolvency (Rule 17)
➢ Should not lease or otherwise allow occupation by any other person of Government accommodation allotted to him. (Rule
15 A)
➢
Examples of unbecoming conduct
➢ Suppression of information regarding arrest or conviction.
➢ Participation in proselytizing activities.
➢ Bidding at auctions conducted by one’s own dept.
➢ Neglect of family
➢ Practicing untouchability
➢ Submission of joint representations.
➢ Lack of decorum during lunch hours.
➢ Sub-letting Govt. accommodation.
➢ Refusal to accept a charge sheet.
➢ Disobeying an order of suspension.
➢ Assault on another Government servant.
➢ Possession of disproportionate assets.
Activities requiring permission
➢ To join educational institution (Rule 15)
➢ To join Home Guards (Rule 3)
➢ To join foreign language class. (Rule 5)
➢ To participate in the editing or management (Rule 8)
➢ To give evidence in any enquiry (Rule 10)
➢ To ask for or accept contributions.(Rules 12)
➢ To accept gifts when value exceeds limit (Rule 13)
➢ To engage in any trade or business (Rules 15)
➢ To acquire or dispose any immovable property (Rule 18)
➢ To enter in to transactions in movable property exceeds limits (Rule 18)
Limits for Acceptance of Gifts
 Group A –Rs. 7000
 Group B –Rs. 4000
 Group C –Rs. 2000
 Group D –Rs. 1000
Gifts includes
 Free transport
 Free boarding, lodging or
 Any other pecuniary advantage
For Contravention of conduct rules
➢ 3(1) (i) to be quoted when integrity is suspected.
➢ 3(1) (ii) to be quoted when devotion to duty is suspected.
➢ 3(1) (iii) to be quoted when the unbecoming of Govt. servant is alleged.
➢ 3(2) (i) is to be used when the supervisor fails to ensure integrity and devotion duty of his subordinates.
➢ The following clauses to Rule (3) has been inserted after 3 (iii) wef 27.11.2014 to widen the scope.
➢ (iv) commit himself to and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic values;
➢ (v) defend and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of State, public order, decency and morality;
➢ (vi) maintain high ethical standards and honesty;
➢ (vii) maintain political neutrality;
➢ (viii) promote the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties;
➢ (ix) maintain accountability and transparency;
➢ (x) maintain responsiveness to the public, particularly to the weaker section;
➢ (xi) maintain courtesy and good behaviour with the public;
➢ (xii) take decisions solely in public interest and use or cause to use public resources efficiently, effectively and
economically;
➢ (xiii) declare any private interests relating to his public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts in a way that protects
the public interest.
➢ (xiv) not place himself under any financial or other obligations to any individual or organisation which may influence him in
his official duties;
➢ xv) not misuse his position as civil servant and not take decisions in order to derive financial or material benefits for
himself, his family or his friends;
➢ (xvi) make choices, take decisions and make recommendations on merit alone.
➢ (xvii) act with fairness and impartiality and not discriminate against anyone, particularly the poor and the under privileged
sections of society;
➢ (xviii) refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices;
➢ (xix) maintain discipline in the discharge of his duties and be liable to implement the lawful orders duly communicated to
him;

12
 ➢ (xx) maintain confidentiality in the performance of his official duties as required by any laws for the time being in force,
particularly with regard to information, disclosure of which may prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the state, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, friendly relation with foreign countries or
lead to incitement of an offence or illegal or unlawful gain to any person
➢ (xxi) perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities.

III. CCS (CCA) RULES 1965 – A GIST

28. CCS (CCA) Rules 1965

i) Principle of Natural Justice
The procedure for Departmental Inquiries is based on the principles of Natural Justice. The principles of natural justice
have been evolved by courts of law through judicial pronouncements.
They are: -
(i) No one shall be condemned unheard.
(ii) No one shall be a judge in his own cause.
(ii) Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly appear to have been done.
(iv) A clear speaking order.

ii). Essence of Government Service:

The essence of Government service is the sense of Discipline to which all Government employees are subjected and the
privileges to which they are entitled. The Government has evolved two sets of rules covering these two aspects, which mainly related
to the employees 'Code of Conduct' and 'Discipline'. These are the "CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, as far as
Gramin Dak Sevak's are concerned "The Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement)' Rules 2011, substituted
for both the above said two set of rules. This superseded the P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.

iii). Constitutional Safe Guards

Article 311 (1) Provides the protection that nobody subordinate to the appointing authority can dismiss or remove and
employee from service.
Article 311 (2) Provides protection that no employee 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.
With a view to ensuring strict adherence to these constitutional safeguards specific rules and procedure have been framed
by the Government in the Form of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, no procedural defects in dealing with disciplinary cases is therefore
expected from the different authorities while acting under these rules.

iv). Suspension
(1) Suspension is a temporary deprivation of office. When a Government Servant is suspended he is ordered not to perform
the duties of his office for the period he remains suspended. During the period of suspension he draws admissible subsistence
allowance. Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulates when and by whom a Government servant may be placed under
suspension, what is deemed suspension; extension of the period of suspension after review, payment of subsistence allowance,
revoking the order of suspension and reinstating the suspended official into service, regularizing the period of suspension etc.
Suspension is not a punishment. But it causes lasting damage to the reputation of the affected official and its stigma is not easily
washed away.
(2) An order of suspension is appealable as per Rule 23 (i) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
(3) Put-off Duty: Placing GDS employees under suspension is termed as Put off Duty as per Rule - 12 of GDS Rules - 2011.
(4) The power of suspension is vested only with disciplinary authorities even though they are subordinate officer to the appointing
authority. Such subordinate authority has to report forthwith to the appointing authority about the circumstances in which the order
was made as required under proviso to Rule 10 sub rule (1) clause (2).
(5) In order to prevent abuse of power the suspending authorities should be required to report the facts of each case immediately to
the next higher authority and all such orders of suspension should become abinitio void unless confirmed by the reviewing authority
within a period of one month from the date of issue of orders.”
(6) A review committee has been prescribed under Rule 10 (7) to review the suspension cases before the expiry of 90 days.
Accordingly, the same review committee must review and not allow any unjustified suspension. During the first 90 days, all the
suspension orders should be brought to the review committee for review 15 days before the expiry of 90 days from the date of
suspension. It is not valid after 90 days in case if it is not extended after the review for the further period before the expiry of 90
days.
(7) The department has prescribed time limit for issue of charge memo after suspension. Accordingly the total period of suspension
both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily exceed six months.
(8) According to Rule 10 (2), a Govt servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing
authority. (a) With effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on criminal charge or otherwise, for a
period exceeding 48 hours.
(9) The important point in the Rule 10 (3) is that a Govt servant should have been placed under suspension at the time of dismissal
and then only it shall be deemed to have been continued from the date of dismissal. If he had been on duty on the date of dismissal,
Rule 10 (3) cannot be applied. This is also a protection ensured in the rules to the Govt servant.

13
(10) Where a penalty of dismissal etc. from service imposed upon a Govt servant is set aside by a decision of the court of law (on
technical grounds) and the disciplinary authority decides to hold further inquiry, the GS shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal under Rule 10 (4).
(11) Where an official was placed under suspension as a result of his detention in Police custody for more than 48 hours and though
convicted first by the trial court was acquitted further by Appellate court, the Govt servant is entitled to be reinstated into service
with effect from the date of acquittal.
(12) According to Rule 10 (5) (a) order of suspension shall continue to remain in force until it is revoked by the competent authority.
Suspension once revoked cannot be reviewed.
(13) Rule 10(6) provides that Review Committee constituted for this purpose can pass orders either extending or revoking suspension
and in case of extension of suspension, it shall not be for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.
(14) In Para (e) of DG P & T’s letter No.201/43/76 Disc II dt 15.7.1976, it was prescribed that charge memo should be served within 3
months from the date of suspension. When this time limit is not followed, the Govt servant should submit an appeal for revocation
of suspension. If the review committee decided to extend the suspension without considering the DG P & T’s orders dated 15.7.1976,
it should be a matter for appeal by Govt servant.
(15) Rule 10 (7) prescribes that suspension order will not be valid if it is not extended before the expiry of period of first ninety days.
As Rule 10 (5) (a) prescribes that the suspension order shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked. As such, the
invalid suspension order shall be treated as null & void automatically.
(16) The period of suspension should be treated as duty and the suspended official is entitled for full pay and allowances if the
disciplinary proceedings end with minor penalty. According to Rule 54 B of F.R, the suspension is not justified if the disciplinary
proceeding ends with minor penalty.
(17) The right of appeal against the suspension is available under Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The appeal should be submitted
within 45 days from the date on which reasons for suspension are communicated vide GOIMHA Dept per & trg OM No 35014/1/85
Estt (A) dt.9.11.1982.
(18) suspension should not be extended beyond 90 days if within this period charge sheet is not served on the employee.
(OM No. 11012/17/2013-Estt (A) dated 03.07.2015)
(19) A charge sheet must be issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension.
(OM No. 11012/04/2016-Estt (A) dated 23.08.2016)
(20) Recoveries to be made from subsistence allowance.
(a) Compulsory deductions:
(i) Income Tax, provided the employee's yearly income calculated with reference to subsistence allowance is taxable;
(ii) House rent and allied charges like water, electricity, furniture etc.;
(i) Repayment of loans and advances taken from Government at such rates fixed by the Head of the Department:
(ii) CGHS contribution; and
(iii) Subscription to Central Government Employee's Group Insurance Scheme, 1980
(b) Optional recoveries:
The following recoveries can be made at the written request of the employee
(i) Premium due on the PLI policies
(ii) Amounts due to co-operative stores/co-operative credit societies,
(iii) Refund of advances taken G.P. Fund
(c) Recoveries not permissible
(i) Subscription to G. P. Fund
(ii) Court attachment
(iii) Recovery of loss for which the Government employee is responsible
(d) Recovery of overpayment:
Recovery not exceeding one-third of the subsistence allowance only (i.e., excluding DA/HRA/CCA) may be effected at the
discretion of the Competent Administrative Authority.
(M. F. O.Ms No. 15(5) E.IV/57, dated 18.09.1959&20.11.1961)
(21) Opportunity to the suspended employee to appeal against the suspension
If the reasons could not be ascertained from the order itself, the appeal can be preferred within a period of forty-five days
from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet or communication intimating the reasons for suspension, whichever is earlier.
Note: - The appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.
(i) Suspension/deemed suspension can be modified or revoked by the suspending authority or his superiors - Rule 10(5)(C)
Before suspension, it should be considered whether the purpose can be served by transferring the employee.
(DG P&T Letter dated 15.03.1976)
(22) The suspended employee will not be required to vacate the licence fee-free accommodation unless the accommodation is
specifically attached to any particular post.
(23) Eligibility to function as Defence counsel
If the services of an employee under suspension are required by an accused to function as his defence counsel in disciplinary
proceedings, the employee may be allowed to do so.
(DG P&T No. 201/45/75-Disc.II dated 03.07.1975)

v). PENALTIES
i) Minor Penalties
(i) Censure

14
(ii) Withholding of promotion.
(iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by the employee to the Government by negligence or
breach of orders;
Note: - The entire monetary loss is to be recovered from the delinquent official but the recovery may be spread over till entire loss is
recovered.

iii) (a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time - scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect
and not adversely affecting his pension;
Note: - An order reducing to lower stage must indicate (a) the period of reduction with date of effect; (b) the stage to which reduced;
and (c) the extent to which the period of reduction will postpone future increments.
(iv) Withholding of future increments of pay.
ii) Major Penalties
(i) Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay (other than that mentioned in Clause (iii) (a) supra) for a specified period
with further directions as to whether or not the employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and
whether on expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.
Note: - The order must specify (i) the period of reduction (which may be even permanent of indefinite), and whether the
employee regain his original seniority.
(ii) Reduction to a lower time - scale of pay, grade or service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a
bar to the promotion of the government employee during such specified to the time - scale of pay, grade, post or service from which
he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period -
(a) The period of reduction to the time - scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his
pay, and if so, to what extent;
(b) The government employee shall regain the original seniority in the higher time - scale of pay, grade, post or service.
Note: - An employee cannot be reduced to a lower grade or post which he had never held earlier.
(iii) Compulsory retirement;
(iv) Removal from service (which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in Government);
(v) Dismissal from service (which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment in Government).

Note :-
(1) In case disciplinary proceedings have been held under the relevant disciplinary rules. "Warning should not be issued as a result
of such proceedings. If it is found, that some blame is attached to the Government employee, at least penalty of 'Censure' should be
awarded, if official to be penalized.
(OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated 14.9.1992)
(2) If in the reporting officer's opinion despite the warning etc; the official concerned has not improved, he may make appropriate
mention against relevant column in the APAR. This will constitute an adverse entry and requires to be communicated.
(OM No. 21011/1/81-Estt (A) dated 5.6.1981)
(3) To impose any major penalty, inquiry is mandatory. Similarly if it is proposed to withhold increment exceeding three years with
cumulative effect or will adversely affect pension, under Minor Penalty proceeding inquiry is compulsory.
(4) The charged official has a right to inspect the documents referred and to engage defence Assistance to assist him.
(5) If the disciplinary authority who initiated case is competent only to award minor penalties, but desired to impose major
penalties, he should send entire records and findings without recording any opinion to the competent authority for passing orders as
deemed fits.
(6) The representations submitted by the charged official should be considered before passing final orders.
(7) Disciplinary authority should take final decision on the enquiry report within three months.

vi). Appeal - Various aspects

(i) No appeal shall lie against -
(a) Any order made by the President
(b) Any order of an interlocutory nature other than suspension order, and
(c) Any order passed by of an Inquiry Authority in the course of an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965
(Rule 22)
(ii) Appealable orders -
Appeal can be made against
(a) an order of suspension,
(b) an order imposing any of the major/minor penalty.
(c) an order enhancing any penalty.
(d) an order that denies/adversely affects pay and allowances and conditions of service.
(e) an order interpreting rules to the disadvantage of the employee.
(f) an order reverting an employee officiating in higher post to a lower post, otherwise than as a penalty.
(g) an order reducing or withholding pension,
(h) an order determining the subsistence allowance and other allowances during suspension and order determining pay and
allowances for the period.
(Rule 23)
(iii) To whom appeal lies

15
(a) An appeal lies to the Appellate Authority, who is usually the next higher authority to whom the Disciplinary Authority is
subordinate. The appeal should contain all material statements and arguments on which the appellant rules and should be complete
in itself. If should not be disrespectful or improper language.
(b) A copy of the appeal should be sent to the authority who passed the order, who has to forward the same along with complete
records and his comments to the Appellate Authority without any avoidable delay and without waiting for any direction from the
appellate Authority. He has no power to withhold the appeal on any ground whatsoever.

(iv) Period of limitation of appeal-

(a) An appeal should be made within forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to
the appellant.
(b) Delay with justified reasons may be condoned by the Appellate Authority.

(v) Appeal-Selective gists

(i) An appeal should be made by a single person in his own name, addressed to the Appellate Authority.
(ii) The Appellate Authority is required to consider and pass a speaking order.
(iii) Personal hearing in major penalty cases - In an appeal against major penalty, if the appellant specifically requests for a
personal hearing, the Appellate Authority may after considering all relevant circumstances of the case, allow the appellant, at its
discretion, the personal hearing. He may be allowed to take the assistance of a Defence Assistant also; if a request is made to that
effect.
(iv) (a) If the Appellate Authority proposes to enhance the penalty, it can do so only after holding an inquiry, if one is required to
be held but not held earlier and after the issue of a show-cause notice.
(b) In case where an enquiry has already been held, the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity of making
representations against the proposed enhanced penalty.
(v) In respect of an appeal against any other order, the Appellate Authority may pass such order as it deems just and equitable
considering the facts and circumstances of the case

vii). Review (Rule 29 A)

➢ The President can on his own or otherwise review any order, when any new material evidence, which could not be produced or
was not available when the order was passed and which changes the entire nature of the case has come or is brought to his
notice.
➢ If on review punishment is proposed or proposed to be enhanced, the charged officer should be given a reasonable opportunity
to represent and if major penalty is proposed, inquiry should be conducted, if not already done.

viii). Promotion after completion of Disciplinary Proceedings

(i) If penalty is imposed on an employee on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the findings of DPC Kept in sealed cover in
respect of that employee shall not be acted upon.
(ii) If the employee is exonerated or charges are dropped, the DPC finding kept in sealed cover shall be acted upon. The sealed
cover will be opened and the employee shall be promoted from the date of promotion of his junior with reference to the position
assigned by the DPC.
(iii) Such cases should be reviewed every six months. The review should also cover the progress made in the disciplinary
proceedings/criminal prosecution and further measures to be taken to expedite their completion.
(iv) In prolonged cases of disciplinary proceedings not concluded even after two years from the date of meeting of the first DPC,
the appointing authority may consider for giving him ad hoc promotion, if -
(a) The employee is not under suspension,
(b) Public interest is not hampered,
(c) Charges are not grave.
(d) Proceedings are unlikely to be concluded soon,
(e) delay in conclusion of proceedings is not because of the employee, and
(f) given ad-hoc promotion, it is unlikely that the employee may misuse his official position to adversely affect the proceedings.
Later, if the employee is exonerated, ad hoc promotion will be treated as regular promotion with due seniority and notional benefits,
if any. If he is not exonerated fully, the ad hoc appointment will end.
(v) Where a junior employee is promoted earlier than a senior, whose case is placed in the sealed cover, the junior officer
should not, as far as possible, be made the immediate superior to that senior

IV. PROMOTION TO HIGHER POSTS, SENIORITY & SEALED COVER ETC.

29. Promotion of employees on whom any penalty has been imposed - consideration for
The undersigned is directed to state that the Staff Side of the National Council, at its meeting held on the 27th and 28th
January 1971 raised the following points:-
(i) 'Censure' should not be a bar to eligibility to sit for a departmental / promotional examination or for promotion;
(ii) Where the responsibility of an employee for any loss is indirect, he should not be debarred from being considered for
promotion during the period or recovery of the loss; and
(iii) A distinction should be made between stoppage of increments and reduction to a lower stage of the pay scale and in the
former type of cases, the employees should not be debarred from being considered for promotion.

16
2. As regards the first point, under the existing instructions, every person eligible for promotion and in the field of choice has to be
considered for promotion. Attention in this connection is also invited to Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 1/9/58-RPS dated 16th
May 1959 and OM No. 1/4/55-RPS dated 16th May1957. The fact of the imposition of the minor penalty of censure on a Government
servant does not itself stand against the consideration of such person for promotion as his fitness for the promotion has to be
judged, in the case of promotion by seniority, on the basis of an overall assessment of his service record, and in the case of
promotion by section on merit, on the basis of his merit categorization which is again based upon an overall assessment of his
service record (vide Para 2 of MHA O.M. No. 1/3/68-Ests. (D) datedthe 18-03-1968). So far as the eligibility of a Government servant
who has been awarded the penalty of censure, to appear at a departmental / promotional examination is concerned, the same
principles would apply viz. that they cannot, merely because of the penalty of censure, be debarred from appearing at such an
examination. In case, however, the rules of such an examination lay down that only those eligible persons can be allowed to appear
at the examination who are considered to be fit for the purpose, the fitness of an eligible candidate, who has been awarded the
penalty of censure, to appear at the examination has to be considered on the basis of an overall assessment on his service record
and not merely on the basis of the penalty of censure.

3. As regard the other two points mentioned in paragraph 1 above, while it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules in this
regard, and it is for the competent authority to take a decision in each case having regard to its facts and circumstances, it is
considered necessary to reiterate the existing instructions of the subject. Recovery from the pay of the Government servant of the
whosoever part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to Government by negligence or breach of orders or withholding of increments
of pay, are also minor penalties laid down in rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. As in the case of promotion of a Government servant,
who has been awarded the penalty of censure the penalty of recovery from the pay for the loss caused by him to Government or of
with-holding his increment (s) does not stand in the way of his consideration for promotion through in the later case promotion is
not given effect to during the currency of the penalty. While therefore, the fact of the imposition of such a penalty does not by itself
debar the Government servant concerned from being considered for promotion, it is also taken into account by the Departmental
Promotion Committee, or the competent authority, as the case may be, in the overall assessment of his service record for judging his
suitability or otherwise for promotion of his fitness for admission to a departmental / promotional examination (where fitness of the
candidates is a condition precedent to such admission.)

4. The Ministry of Finance etc. are requested kindly to bring the position indicated in the foregoing paragraphs to the notice of all
administrative authorities in and under them for guidance.
(DG P&T No. 35-7/71-SPB.II dated04.08.1971)

30. Promotion to higher grade of post clarification in regard to sealed cover procedure - Effect of warning, censure etc. on
promotion
Attention of the Ministry of Finance etc. is OM No. 38/3/59-Estt (A) dated31-8-1960, O.M. No. 7/28/63-Estt (A) Dated 22-
12-1964, and O.M. No. 22011/3/77-Estt. (A) dated14-7-77, which lay down the guide-lines for following the 'sealed cover' procedure
and for granting benefits with retrospective effect on the "complete exoneration" of the official concerned. The scope of the term
"complete exoneration" was very wided, resulting in denial of benefits even to those who had not been awarded any of the
prescribed penalties as, a result of disciplinary proceedings but were only issued a warning. There is also in vogue the practice of
issuing "recordable warning" to Government employees which affects their career prospects. The matter has, therefore, been
examined carefully and the following decisions have been taken:
(i) As clarified in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 39/21/56-Estt (A) dated 13-12-1956, warning is administered by an
authority superior to a Government employee in the event of minor lapses like negligence carelessness, lack of thoroughness, delay
etc. It is an administrative device in the hands of superior authorities for cautioning the Government employees with a view to
toning up efficient and maintaining discipline. There is, therefore, no objection to the continuance of this system. However where a
copy of the warning is also kept in the confidential Report dossier, it will be taken to constitute an adverse entry and the officer so
warned will have the right to represent against the same in accordance with the existing instructions relating to communication of
adverse remarks and consideration of representations against them.
(ii) Where a departmental proceeding has been completed, it is considered that the officer concerned deserves to be
penalised, he should be awarded one of the recognizedstatutory penalties as given in Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In such a
situation, a recordable warning should not be issued as it would, for all practical purposes, amount to "censure" which is a formal
punishment and which can only be awarded by a competent disciplinary authority after following the procedure prescribed in the
relevant disciplinary rules. The Delhi High Court, has in the case of Madhan Singh Vz. Union of India, also expressed the view that
warning kept in the C.R. dossierhas all the attributes of "Censure". In the circumstances, as already stated where it is considered
after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings that some blame attaches to the officer concerned which necessitated cognizance of
such fact the disciplinary authority should award the penalty of "censure" at least. If the intention of the disciplinary authority is not
to award a penalty of "Censure", then no recordable warning should be awarded. There is no restriction on the right of the
disciplinary authority to administer oral warnings or even warning in writing which do not form part of the character role.
(iii) Where the departmental proceedings have ended with the imposition of a minor penalty, viz. censure, recovery of
pecuniary loss to the Government, withholding of increments of pay and withholding of promotion, the recommendation of the DPC
in favour of the employee, kept in the sealed cover will not be given effect to. But the case of the employee concerned for
promotion/confirmation may be considered by the next DPC when it meets after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. If
the findings of the DPC are in favour of the employee, he may be promoted inthe turn if the penalty is that of "censure" or "recovery
of pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of orders. In the case of employees who have been awarded
the major minor penalty of "withholding of increments" or "withholding of promotion", promotion can be made only after the expiry
of the penalty.

17
(iv) In a recordable warning has been issued to an officer as a result of disciplinary proceedings before the issue of this office
Memorandum and the case of the officer concerned for promotion is still under consideration, he should be treated as having been
"censured". The officer will also have the right of representation against such warning and such representation shall be dealt with by
the competent authority as if it were an appeal under the relevant disciplinary rules.

2. In so far as personnel serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these clarifications have been
issued after consultation with the Controller and Auditor General of India.
(MHA DOP OM No. 22011/2/78-Estt (A), dated 16.02.1979)

31. Promotion to higher gradeof post - clarification in regard to sealed cover procedure - effect of warning, censure etc. on
Promotion
The undersigned is directed to invite the attention to the Ministry of Finance etc. to the instructions contained in this
Department Office Memorandum No. 22011/2/78-Ests. (A) datedthe 16th February 1979 and to say that a question has been raised
whether this OM empowers the disciplinary authorities to issue warnings as a result of regular departmental proceedings conducted
under the relevant disciplinary rules. This is because the last sentence of Para 1 (ii) of this Department OM No. 22011/2/78-Ests. (A)
dated16-02-79 has been mistaken as permitting the issue of oral or written warnings even as resultof disciplinary proceedings.
It is clarified that this is not the intention of the OM of the 16th February 1979 under reference. This is made clear in Para
1(ii) of the aforesaid OM of 16th February 1979 in which it is stated that a warning should not be issued as a result of regular
disciplinary proceedings. There is however, no bar to issuing a warning orally or in writing as a result of administrative action in the
case of an officer against whom no formal proceedings are taken under the disciplinary rules applicable to him. The manner in which
such warnings should be mentioned in the Confidential Report of an office is also explained in this Department Office Memorandum
No. 21011/1/81-Ests (A) dated the 5th June, 1981.
(DOP & A.R.s O.M. No. 22011/2/82-Ests (A) dated 21.05.1982)
Copy of OM No.21011/1/81-Ests (A) dated 5-6-1981
The undersigned is directed to say that questions have been raised from time to time regarding the stage at which a
mention about warnings, admonitions, reprimands etc. administered in the course of normal day-to-day work by superior officers
should be mentioned in the Confidential Report of the official to whom the warning, reprimand etc. has been administered. As there
seems to be some doubt in this regard, the position is clarified in the following paragraph.
2. There may be occasions when a superior officer may find it necessary to criticize adversely the work of an officer working
under him or he may call for an explanation for some act of omission or commission and taking all circumstances into consideration,
it may be felt that while the matter is not serious enough to justify the imposition of the formal punishment of censure, it calls for
some formal action reprimands where such a warning / displeasure / reprimand is issued, it should be placed in the personalfile of
the officer concerned. At the end of the year (or period of Report), the reporting authority while writing the confidential report of
the officer, may decide not to make a reference in the confidential report to the warning/ displeasure / reprimand, if, in the opinion
of that authority the performance of the officer reported on or after the issue of the warning or displeasure or reprimand, as the
case may be, has improved and has been found satisfactory. If, however, the reporting authority comes to the conclusions that
despite the warning or displeasure or reprimand, as the case may be has improved and has been found satisfactory. If, however the
reporting authority comes to be conclusionthat despite the warning/displeasure/reprimand the officer has not improved, it may
make appropriate mention of such warning / displeasure / reprimand, as the case may be, in the relevant column, in part -II of the
form of Confidential Report relating to assessment by the reporting officer and, in that case, a copy of the warning / displeasure /
reprimand referred to in the Confidential Report should be placed in the CR Dossier as an Annexure to the Confidential report for the
relevant period. The adverse remarks should also be conveyed to the officer and his representation, if any, against the same
disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in the instructions issued in this regard.
3. Ministry of Finance etc. are requestedto bring the above clarifications to the notice of all the administrative authorities
under their control.

32. CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Promotion to a higher grade or post-clarifications regarding effect of warnings etc. on promotion.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the DOPT's O.M. No. 22011/2/78-Estt. (A) dated 16th February, 1979 on the above
mentioned subject and to say that at present, administrative devices like warning, letter of caution, reprimand etc. are being used by
the various administrative Ministries/Departments for cautioning the Government servants against such minor lapses as negligence,
carelessness, lack of thoroughness and delay in disposal of official work with a view to toning up efficiency or maintaining discipline.
These administrative actions do not, however, constitute any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Doubts have often been raised about the actual effect of such informal administrative actions as warning, letter of caution and
reprimand on the promotion of a Government servant.
2. In this connection, the existing provisions regarding the effect of warning etc. as distinguished from Censure on promotion are
reiterated and clarified as follows:-
(i) There is no objection to the continuance of the practice of issuing oral or written warnings. However, where a copy of the
warning is also kept on the Confidential Report dossier, it will be taken to constitute an adverse entry and the officer so warned will
have the right to represent against the same in accordance with the existing instructions relating to communication of adverse
remarks and consideration of representations against them.
(ii) Warnings, letters of caution, reprimands or advisories administered to Government servants do not amount to a penalty
and, therefore, will not constitute a bar for consideration of such Government servants for promotion.
(iii) Where a departmental proceeding has been instituted, and it is considered that a Government servant deserves to be
penalized for the offence/misconduct, one of the prescribed penalties may only be awarded and no warning recordable or
otherwise, should be issued to the Governments servant.

18
(iv) The term 'empanelment' occurring in para 1 of DOPT's O.M. No. 11012/11/2007-Estt. (A) dated 14.12.2007 relating to
guidelines on grant of vigilance clearance does not cover cases of promotion. Cases of promotion of Government servants during the
pendency of disciplinary proceedings would be regulated by DOPT's O.M. No. 22011/4/91-Estt. (A) dated 14.09.1992. , O.M. No.
22012/1/99-Estt.(D) dated 25.10.2004 and after imposition of any of the prescribed penalties as per O.M. No 22034/5/2004-Estt. (D)
dated 15-12-2004.
3. All Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to keep in view the above guidelines while dealing with cases of
promotion of the Government servants.
(DOPT O.M.No.11012/6/2008-Estt.(A) dated 07.07.2008)

33. CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 – Promotion to a higher Grade or post – Clarification regarding effect of warnings etc. on promotion
The undersigned is directed to refer to the DOPT’s OM No. 22011/2/78-Estt (A) dated 16.02.1979 on the above mentioned subject
and to say that at present, administrative devices like warning, letter of caution, reprimand etc. are being used by the various
administrative Ministries/Departments for cautioning the Government servants against such minor lapses as negligence,
carelessness, lack of thoroughness and delay in disposal of official work with a view to toning up efficiency or maintaining discipline.
These administrative actions do not, however, constitute any of the penalties specified in rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Doubts have often been raised about the actual effect of such informal administrative actions as warning, letter of caution and
reprimand on the promotion of a Government servant.

2. In this connection, the existing provisions regarding the effect of warning etc. as distinguished from Censure on promotion are
reiterated and clarified as follows: -
(i) There is no objections to the continuance of the practice of issuing oral of written warning. However, where a copy of the
warning is also kept on the Confidential Report dossier, it will be taken to constitute and adverse entry and the officer so
warned will have the right to represent against the same in accordance with the existing instructions relating to
communications of adverse remarks and consideration of representations against them.
(ii) Warnings, letters of caution, reprimands or advisories administered to Government servants do not amount to a penalty and,
therefore, will not constitute a bar for consideration of such Government servants for promotion.
(iii) Where a departmental proceedings has been instituted, and it is considered that a Government servant deserves to be
penalized for the offence/misconduct, one of the prescribed penalties may only be awarded and no warning recordable or
otherwise, should be issued to the Government servant.
(iv) The term ‘empanelment’ occurring in para 1 of DOPT’s OM No. 11012/11/2007-Estt (A) dated 14.12.2007 relating to
guidelines on grant of vigilance clearance does not cover cases of promotion. Cases of promotion of Government servants
during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings would be regulated by DOPT’s OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated
14.09.1992, OM No 22012/1/99-Estt (D) dated 25.10.2004 and after imposition of any of the prescribed penalties as per OM
No. 22034/5/2004-Estt (D) dated 15.12.2004.

3. All Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to keep in view the above guidelines while dealing with cases of promotion
of the Government servants.
(DG (P) No. 137-16/2009-SPB-II dated 26.03.2009)

34. Promotion in case of disciplinary proceedings

I am directed to refer to your letter No. P/31-11/BPU dated 17.12.1984 on the above subject and to say that the Ministry of
Home Affairs OM No. 22011/2/78-Estt (A) dated 16th February, 1979, If the punishment is of withholding of promotion than the
promotion can be given only after the expiry of the penalty.
(DG (P) No. 13/1/85-Vig. III dated 30.04.1985)

35. Promotion effect of punishment and monetary recovery

Promotion of the official can be given effect to during the currency of the punishment of monetary recovery. In this
connection your kind attention is invited to the instructions issued by the Min. of Home affairs, Dept. of Personnel and A.R. under
Memo No. 22011/1/68-Estt.(A), dt. 16-2-79 their stating interalia that the punishment of censure, recovery and pecuniary loss and
stopping of increment do not constitute a bar to promotion of the official provided on the basis of overall assessment of his record of
service, the DPC recommends his promotion to the next higher grade.
(DG (P&T) No. 35/9/84-SPB-II, dated 19.5.1984)

36. Promotion of persons undergoing a penalty

Kindly refer to DOP&T O.M No. 21/5/70 Estt. (A) dated 15.5.1971 (reiterated vide O.M. No. 22011/2/78-Estt (A), dated
16.2.1979) and to say that in terms of the provision of these Office Memoranda, a Government servant, on whom a minor penalty of
withholding of increment, etc. has been imposed should be considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee
which meets after the imposition of the said penalty and after due consideration of full facts leading to imposition of the penalty, if
he is still considered fit for promotion, the promotion may be given effect after the expiry of the currency of the penalty. It has
however, been separately clarified vide Office Memorandum No. 22011/2/92-estt. (D), dated 30.11.1995 that in such cases, the
seniority would be fixed according to the position of the officer in the panel on the basis of which he is promoted on expiry of the
period of currency of the penalty.

19
2. Doubts have been expressed regarding the pay fixation and date of commencement of the eligibility service in such cases, it is
clarified that since the promotion is to take effect only from a date subsequent to the expiry of the currency of the penalty, the
officer would be entitled to pay fixation in the promotional grade with effect from the date of actual promotion only. Even if a
person junior to him in the panel is promoted earlier, it will have no bearing on the pay to be allowed on promotion to the officer on
whom a penalty was imposed, and there shall be no stepping up of his pay.

3. Similarly, as the officer undergoing penalty is not to be promoted during the currency of the penalty, the eligibility service in the
promotional grade for further promotion shall commence only from the date of actual promotion and in no case, it may be related,
even notionally, to the date of promotion of the junior in the panel.
(DOPT No. 22034/5/2004-Estt (D, dated 15.12.2004)

37. Recovery of pay not a bar to promotion

"Enquirieshave been received in this office whether an official who has been punished with recovery of pecuniary loss
caused to Government can be considered for promotion and promoted during the period when such recovery from pay is in
progress. The matter has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the position is that the appointing
authority, in consultation with the Departmental Promotion Committee, wherever it exists, will consider the fact of his having been
punished while adjudging his suitability for promotion notwithstanding the fact that he has been punished with recovery from payof
the pecuniary loss caused to Govt. There is no bar to his being promoted while the recovery is in progress because such promotion
will not affect the enforcement of the penalty."
(DG(P&T) No. 35/7/37-SPB dated 22.12,1987)

38. Promotion of Govt. Servants exonerated after retirement - Procedure and Guidelines to be followed - Regarding.
The Department intends to issue instructions on the subject- "Promotion of Govt. Servants exonerated after retirement -
Procedure and Guidelines to be followed". Draft instructions proposed to be issued are enclosed. Ministries/Departments are
requested to offer their comments/View, if any, in this regard latest by 22nd December, 2015 at the e-mail address dire 1-
dopt@nic.in
(DOPT OM No.22011/3/2013-Estt.(D) dated 23.11.2015)

39. Promotion of Govt. Servants exonerated after retirement - Procedure and Guidelines to be followed - Regarding.
The undersigned is directed to invite reference to the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum
No.22011/4/91-Estt (A) dated: 14th September, 1992 regarding procedure and guidelines to be followed by DPC in respect of
Government servant against whom disciplinary/Court proceeding are pending or whose conduct is under investigation. In case the
Government servant is covered under any of the three conditions as mentioned in Para 2 of OM dated 14.09.1992, the
recommendations of the DPC are to be kept in 'sealed cover' and subsequent action regarding opening of sealed cover will depend
on the outcome of the disciplinary/criminal proceedings.
2. If on conclusion of the disciplinary/ criminal proceeding, the Government servant is exonerated, the procedure prescribed in
para 3 of the OM dated 14-9-1992 is to be followed. This provides as under:-
"On the conclusion of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution which results in dropping of allegations against the Govt. servant,
the sealed cover or covers shall be opened. In case the Government servant is completely exonerated the due date of his promotion
will be determined with reference to the position assigned to him in the findings kept in the sealed cover/covers and with reference
to the date of promotion of his next junior on the basis of such position. The Government servant may be promoted, if necessary, by
reverting the junior most officiating person. He may be promoted notionally with reference to the date of promotion of his junior.
However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the
date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the appointing authority by taking into consideration all the
facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of
it, it will record its reasons for doing so. It is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which
such denials of arrears of salary or part of it may become necessary. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether
disciplinary or criminal, are, for example delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or
acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts
attributable to the employee etc. These are only some of the circumstances where such denial can be justified."
3. The applicability of above provisions in so far as relates to cases where the Government Servant, who has retired by the
time he is exonerated of all the charges has been considered in respect of the following cases:
i. Where the promotion order pertaining to the relevant DPC has been issued and the officers empanelled have assumed
charge prior to the date of superannuation of the retired Government Servant; and
ii. The retired Government Servant would have been in service and assumed charge of the post had the disciplinary
proceeding not been initiated against him/her.
4. It has been decided in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Department of Pensions & Pensioners' Welfare
and the Department of Legal Affairs that notional promotion and payment of arrears of pay, if any, for the period of notional
promotion till the date of retirement, to such a retired Government servant if found fit on opening of the sealed cover is to be
decided by the appointing authority in terms of Para 3 of OM NO. 22011/4/91-Estt (A) Dated: 14/09/1992.
5. A retired Government employee who is considered for notional promotion from the date of promotion of his next junior
after opening of the sealed cover would also be entitled to fixation of pension on the basis of such notional pay on his notional
promotion.

20
6. The provisions contained in this Office Memorandum shall become operational from the date of issue of this Office
Memorandum. Past cases settled in accordance with the earlier provisions shall not be reopened.
(DOPT OM No. 22011/3/2013-Estt (D) dated 23.11.2015)

V. SENIORITY AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUNISHMENT

40. Imposition of penalty of reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service
Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited to the provisions of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Clause (vi) thereof provides for the imposition on a Government servant of a penalty of reduction
to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the
time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of
restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced, and his seniority and pay on such
restoration to that grade, post or service.
2. The Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) has made a request that the penalty of reduction to lower time-scale of pay in
the said Clause (vi) should not be imposed on the Charged Officer on a permanent basis on the ground that it is harsh and does not
allow the employee to be promoted to the next grade even if he improves his working and the Competent Authority later finds him
fit for promotion. The Staff Side has suggested that the penalty in question should be for a specified time-period with clear directions
regarding restoration to the higher grade.
3. The existing rule position is that, the imposition of the penalty of reduction to a lower grade, post or service is normally a
bar to the promotion to a higher grade, post or service (from which he was reduced) unless the conditions of restoration are
specified. It is open to the Disciplinary Authority to prescribe the conditions of restoration to the higher grade in deserving cases.
4. The minor penalties and major penalties in Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have been graded in order of the severity
to be awarded to a charged Government servant in proportion to the gravity of misconduct/negligence which has given rise to the
charge-sheet. While the major penalties of compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal' from service have been
included as Clauses (vii). (viii) and (ix) of the said Rule 11, the penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service
has been incorporated therein as Clauses (vi). This clauses also provided that while imposing this penalty, the Disciplinary Authority
or the Appellate / Revision Authority is also required to indicate in the penalty order whether or not individual charged Government
servant would be eligible for restoration to the grade/post or service from which he was reduced and his seniority and pay on such
restoration and the conditions for such restoration. It will, therefore, be seen that the penalty has been provided to be awarded to
an individual who may not be sent out of Government service (through dismissal/removal, etc.) but who needs to be given a very
severe penalty in view of the gravity of his misconduct.
5. Attention in this connection is also invited to the Government of India, M.H.A. O.M. No. 9/13/92-Estt. (D), dated 10-10-
1962 and No. 9/30/63-Estt. (D), dated 7-2-1964 which stipulates that an order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service,
grade or post or to a lower time-scale should invariably specify the period of reduction unless the clear intention is that, the
reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period. These instructions also indicate the manner in which the order should be
framed when the reduction is for specified period or indefinite period. In case the intention on permanent basis, the same may be
specifically stated in the order so that the intention is conveyed to the Government servant in unambiguous terms and he is afforded
full opportunity for submission of his appeal as provided in the rules.
6. Ministries/Departments are requested to please bring the above to the notice of all concerned for information and
necessary action.
(M.H.A., O.M.No. 9/13/92-Estt. (D), dated 10.10.1962)

41. Fixation of seniority of a Government servant reverted to a lower post/grade/service for a specified period as a measure of
penalty and subsequently repromoted to higher post after the expiry of the period of punishment.
The undersigned is directed to invite a reference to Clause (iv) of Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which provides for the imposition of a penalty of:-
(i) Reduction to a lower stage in a time-scale or;
(ii) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time-scale.
FR 29(1) provides that if a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower stage in his time-scale, the
authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether on restoration, the period of
reduction shall operate to postpone his future increments and if so to what extent. In such cases, the seniority of the person
concerned remains unaffected.
FR 29(2) regulates the pay of a Government servant reduced to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale. The
scope of this rule has been clarified by the Ministry of Finance in their Office Memorandum No. F. 2(47) E.III/60, dated the 16th
August, 1960 and F.2 (18)-E.III/61, dated the 17th May, 1961.
2. Certain doubts have, however, arisen regarding the consequence of an order of reduction to a lower service, grade or post
or to a lower time-scale and it has also been found that there has been no uniformity in determining the consequence of such
reduction. Where such an order is passed, two questions often arise for consideration, namely:-
(i) When should the Government servant so punished be considered eligible for re promotion; and
(ii) How should the seniority of such a Government servant be determined on repromotion?
3. The order imposing the penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale may or may not
specify the period of reduction. Where the order does not specify the period of reduction and there is coupled with it an order
declaring the Government servant permanently unfit for promotion, the question of repromotion will, obviously not arise. In other
cases where the period of reduction is not specified, the Government servant should be deemed to be reduced for an indefinite
period, i.e., till such date as, on the basis of his performance subsequent to the order of reduction he may be considered fit for
21
promotion. On repromotion, the seniority of such a Government servant should be determined by the date of repromotion. In all
such cases, the person loses his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post in entirety. On repromotion, the seniority of
such a Government servant should be determined by the date of repromotion without regard to the service rendered by him in such
service, grade or post prior to his reduction.
4. The more common course is to specify the period of reduction and except when it intended to debar a Government
servant from promotion permanently, it is the preferable course. The late Home Department letter No. 9/41-Ests dated the 18th
March, 1941, amongst other things prescribed that:-
(i) While reduction of seniority as an independent penalty not provided for in the rule cannot be imposed as such, the loss of
seniority as a result of an order of reduction to a lower post or time-scale, being inherent in the order of reduction cannot be
avoided.
(ii) The seniority on repromotion of an officer reduced to a lower post or time-scale should be determined by the date of such
repromotion. He should not be restored to his original position unless this is specifically laid down at the time the order if
punishment is passed or revised on appeal.
The above instructions require that a Government servant reduced for a specified period, should not, on repromotion, be
restored to his original position in the order of seniority even if permanent forfeiture of seniority was not provided for in the original
order. The question of the propriety and fairness of such enlargement of the penalty, originally imposed, has been considered in all
its aspects in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Finance and it has been decided that, in future, an order imposing the
penalty of reduction to a lower service grade or post or to a lower time-scale should invariably specify-
(i) the period of reduction, unless the clear intention is that, the reduction should be permanent or for an indefinite period;
(ii) where the period of reduction is specified, whether on the expiry of the period the Government servant is to be promoted
automatically to the post from which he was reduced; and
(iii) whether on such repromotion, the Government servant will regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post
of higher time-scale which had been assigned to him prior to the imposition of the penalty.
In case where the reduction is for a specified period and is not to operate to postpone future increment, the seniority of
the Government servant may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed in the higher service, grade or
post or the higher time-scale at what it would have been but for his reduction.
Where the reduction is for a specified period and is to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the
Government servant on repromotion may, unless the terms of the order of punishment provide otherwise, be fixed by giving credit
for the period of service rendered by him in higher service, grade or post or higher time-scale.
5. In cases where an order of punishment passed prior to the issue of these instructions does not specifically cover the points
referred to in Para 4, the Government servant on whom the penalty of reduction for a specified period is imposed, will on
completion of such period be promoted automatically and his seniority will be determined as follows :-
(a) If the period of reduction is to operate to postpone future increments, the seniority of the Government servant should be
determined on repromotion, by giving credit for the period of service rendered by him in the higher grade, etc., prior to his
reduction.
(b) if the period of reduction does not operate to postpone future increments, the Government servant on repromotion will
regain his seniority as it existed before his reduction.
6. These instructions supersede the instruction contained in the Home Department's Letter No. 9/41-Ests. dated the 18th
March, 1941 and will have effect from the date on which the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957
were issued, i.e., 28th February, 1957.
7. It is requested that these instructions may also be brought to the notice of the attached and subordinate offices under the
Ministry of Finance, etc.
8. In so far as the persons serving in the Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders have been issued after
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
(M.H.A.,O.M. No. 9/30/63-Estt.(D),dated 07.02.1964)

42. Fixation of seniority of a Government servant reverted to a lower post / grade / service for a specified period as a measure of
penalty and subsequently repromoted to a higher posts/grade/service after the expiry of the period of punishment.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Ministry's Office Memorandum No. 9/13/62-Estt. (D), dated the 10th October,
1961 on the subject noted above and to say that in the second part of Paragraph 4 of that Office Memorandum, it has been stated
that the competent authority at the time of imposing a penalty of reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale
should invariably specify the period of reduction and where the period of reduction is specified, whether on the expiry of the period
the Government servants is to be promoted automatically to the post from which he was reduced. This implies that where the order
of reduction is for a specified period, repromotion is not automatic but that such repromotion as to be specified in the order of
punishment. In other words, this means that where the period of reduction has been specified, repromotion can be subject to
certain conditions prescribed by the competent authority.
The question whether any condition can be imposed for repromotion when the penalty of reduction is for a specified
period or whether repromotion after the period of reduction is automatic in such cases was considered in consultation with the
Ministry of Law. It has been held that if the punishment order directs reduction for a period but imposes a further condition that the
person concerned shall not be restored to the higher service, grade or post until he is found fit for restoration or subject to any other
similar conditions, such a condition would be beyond the scope of the rules and invalid. Therefore, where the period of reduction has
been specified, the Government servant should, on the expiry of the period, be repromoted or restored to his original position
automatically. Accordingly, Item (ii) of the second part of Para 4 of this Ministry's Office Memorandum, dated the 10th October,
1962, should be deleted and the existing Item (iii) renumbered as Item (ii).
3. If the order of reduction is intended for an indefinite period, the order should be framed as follows:-

22
 "A is reduced to the lower post/grade/service of X until he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the
higher post/grade/service of Y".
In case where it is intended that the fitness of the Government servant for repromotion or restoration to his original
position will be considered only after a specified period, the order should be made in the following form:-
"A is reduced to the lower post/grade/service of X until he is found fit, after a period of ....... years from the date of this
order, to be restored to the higher post of Y".
4. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are issued after
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India.

VI. ABSENCE, DIES NON, FR17(A), STRIKE PERIOD ETC.

43. Punctuality in attendance - action to be taken for late coming

The undersigned is directed to say that the existing instructions provide for deducting half-a-day's casual leave when a
Government servant comes late without sufficient justification and the competent authority, while not considering it as a fit case for
initiating disciplinary action, is also not prepared to condone the late comings sometimes it so happens that a Government Servant
who comes late without sufficient justification has no casual leave to his credit and it is not, therefore, possible to debit 'half-a-day's
Casual leave to his casual leave account. The question has, therefore, been raised by many Ministries and Departments as to how
such a situation is to be met.
2. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law, and it has been decided that if an official who has
no casual to his credit comes late without sufficient justification and the administrative authority concerned is not prepared to
condone the late-coming but does not, at the same time, proposes to take disciplinary action he may inform the official concerned
that he will be treated as on unauthorised absence for the day on which he has come late, and leave it to the official himself either to
face the consequences of such unauthorised absence or to apply for earned leave or any other kind of leave due and admissible for
that day, as he may choose. If he applies for earned leave or any other kind of leave due and admissible for the entire day, the same
may be sanctioned by the competent authority.
3. The contents of this office memorandum may be brought to the notice of all administrative authorities for their
information and guidance.
(DOPT OM No. 28034/3/82-Estt (A) dated 05.03.1982)

44. Dies non and its effect

The day can be marked as dies non by the leave sanctioning authority only under following three circumstances,
(i) When the official remains absent from duty without prior information;
(ii) When on duty in office, the official leaves the office without proper permission; and
(iii) The official remains in office, but refuses to perform duty assigned to him.
From the conditions mentioned above, it is clear that an official can be marked as dies non even if he performs duty for a
part of day in case he leaves office without proper permission or when he refuses to perform duties while remaining in office. But a
day on which an official comes late and works throughout the day during office hours will not be marked as dies non. It is
accordingly clarified that treating this day as dies non for coming late is not contemplated in the rules. The proper course in such
cases would be to debit the casual leave account of the official as per instructions issued from time to time.
(DG (P&T) No. 10-44/79-PE.II dated 26.11.1979)

45. Consolidated instructions on Regularization of Unauthorized Absence.

The undersigned is directed to say that this Department has been receiving various references from Ministries/
Departments regarding regularization of unauthorized absence for long periods. The references are made basically because the
Ministries/Departments do not follow the prescribed procedure for dealing with such unauthorized absence. Guidelines/instructions
exist for handling such situations.
2. As per Rule 25 of the CCS (Leave) Rules 1972.
(1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, a Government servant who remains absent
after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave
account as though it were half pay leave, to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as
extraordinary leave.
(2) Willful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action.
Government of India decisions also exists that a Government Servant who remains absent without any authority should be
proceeded against immediately and this should not be put off till the absence exceeds the limit prescribed in Rule 32(2) (a) of the
CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
3. It is once again stressed that a Govt. servant who remains absent without any authority should be proceeded against
immediately. All Ministries/Departments are requested to ensure that in all cases of unauthorized absence by a Government
Servant, he should be informed of the consequences of such absence and be directed to rejoin duty immediately/within a specified
date, say within three days, failing which he would be liable for disciplinary action under CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. If the Government
Servant does not join duty by the stipulated date the Disciplinary Authority should initiate disciplinary action against him and the
disciplinary case should be conducted and concluded as quickly as possible.
4. It is only due to apathy of the Disciplinary Authorities that the situation arises where long pending unauthorized absence
leads to delay in other service matters of Government Servants, including promotions. To avoid such situations all Ministries /

23
Departments should advise Disciplinary Authorities to ensure that prompt action is taken against Government Servants who absent
themselves without permission and that charge-sheets are issued without delay.
5. The consequences and procedure to be followed in respect of an officer who is absent from duty without any authority has
been brought out under FR 17(1) and 17-A. As per FR 17-A(iii) without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Central Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 remaining absent without any authority or deserting the post, shall be deemed to cause an
interruption or break in the service of the employee, unless otherwise decided by the competent authority for the purpose of leave
travel concession, quasi-permanency and eligibility for appearing in department examinations, for which a minimum period of
continuous service is required.
6. Comptroller and Auditor General have issued orders that the period of absence not covered by grant of leave shall have to
be treated as "dies non" for all purposes, viz., increment, leave and pension. Such absence without leave where it stands singly and
not in continuation of any authorized leave of absence will constitute an interruption of service for the purpose of pension and
unless the pension sanctioning authority exercises its powers under Article 421, Civil Service Regulations now Rule 27 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules to treat the period as leave without allowance, the entire past service will stand forfeited.
7. It may be noted that regularization of unauthorized absence for pension purpose is to be considered under the
CCS(Pension) Rules. Only in cases where the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the grounds adduced for unauthorized absence are
justified, the leave of the kind applied for and due and admissible may be granted to him under the CCS (Leave) Rules.

(DOPT OM No.13026/3/2010-Estt.(Leave) dated 22.06.2010)

46. Absence without permission (Dies-Non)

FR 17 and Implications:-
a) Under provision to FR 17(i) an officer, who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and
allowances during the period of such absence. Unauthorised absence of this kind apart from resulting in loss of pay and allowances
for the period of such absence would also constitute a break in service entailing for-feature of past service for all purposes, unless
the break itself is condoned and treated as Dies-Non.
b) As per the provision in Rule 40, 62, 63 of Postal Manual Vol-III in case in which an official absents himself from work, the
leave sanctioning authority may order that the days on which work is not performed be treated as Dies-Non i.e. they will neither
count as service nor be counted as a break in service.
c) A Govt. servant who is unauthorisedly absent from duty will normally be allowed to rejoin duty at the end of the period of
unauthorized absence.
d) Whenever an official continues to remain absent from duty, overstays leave without permission and his movements are
not known or he fails to reply to official communications the disciplinary authority may initiate action under Rule 14 of CCS (CC & A)
Rules 1965.
Note: Where an order regarding treatment of certain period as dies non is issued, an appeal on that may be preferred
notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 25(iv) (a) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
2. Half a day's CL should be debited to the C.L. account of a Govt. servant for each late attendance but late attendance upto
an hour on not more than two occasions in a month may be condoned by the competent authority, if it is satisfied.
[DG (P&T) Circular No.2 dated 22.07.1975]

47. Instructions regarding invoking of FR 17A and relevant provision in GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules.
I am directed to refer to Department's DO letter No. 8-27/97-SR/Pt. dated 23.6.98 vide which instructions to deal with
strike situation were issued. As stated in para-2 of the said D.O. letter, the provisions of FR 17-A in respect of departmental
employees and corresponding provisions in GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules may be invoked only in cases of incitement,
instances of violence/sabotage etc.
2. It is requested that the above said instructions may be followed in letter and spirit, while following the principle of "No
work, no pay" to deal with the strike situation.
(DG (P) No. 08/15/2011-SR dated 09.01.2012)

48. Regulation of strike period - Reiteration of instructions issued vide letter No. 8/27/97-SR(Pt.) dated 23.06.1998.
As you are aware, the Postal Joint Council of Action served a notice of indefinite strike with effect from 17.01.2012,
accompanied by a 25 point Charter of Demands. All the items were discussed in detail in a series of meetings taken by
Secretary/Members of the Postal Services Board and minutes of the meetings were sent to you vide communication dated
16.01.2012.

2. In this regard, attention is invited to para 24 of the meeting dealing with imposing of FR-17A against strikers. Instructions on the
subject were issued by the Department vide D.O. letter No. 8-27/97-SR (Pt.) under the signature of the then Member (Development)
which interalia states that the provisions of FR 17(a) in respect of departmental employees and Rule 23 of ED Conduct and Service
Rules, 1964 in respect of EDs {since substituted by GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011} may be invoked only in cases of
incitement, instances of violence/sabotage etc. The Department is following these instructions in the matter of regulating the strike
period/strike situation. It is requested to review the action taken in this regard in the light of the aforesaid instructions, under
intimation to this office.
(DG (P) No.5-06/2011-PAP dated 24.01.2012)

24
49. Submission of charter of demands accompanied by agitational programme by Joint Council of Action Comprising NFPE, FNPO,
All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees Union and National Union of Gramin Dak Sevaks- Regulation thereof.
I am directed to refer to letter No. JCA/AGTN/2011 dated. 01.04.2011 received from Joint Council of Action Comprising
National Federation of Postal Employees, Federation of National Postal Onganisations, All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees
Union and National Union of Gramin Dak Sevaks on the above mentioned Subject. The JCA has threatened to observe the following
agitational programme in support of their demands:
1. Submission of charter of demands to Secretary (P) with a mass Demonstration on 20.04.2011 at Dak Bhawan and all lower
level offices.
2. Mass Dharna on 25.5.2011 at Dak Bhawan, Circles/Regions/Divisions.
3. Country wide Indefinite Strike from 05.07.2011
In regard to the proposed Demonstration and Dharna, your attention is drawn to the instructions issued vide Department's
letters No 8-14/98-SR dated 30.04.98 and No. 8-14/2000-SR dated 03.11.2000 which inter alia envisage seeking prior permission for
holding demonstration/dharna. It is requested to follow these instructions scrupulously.
Any action of the JCA, in defiance of the above referred instructions will be dealt with as per extant instructions including
the principle of " no work, no pay" and FR 17-A.
As regards the proposed Indefinite Strike, the matter will be dealt with separately.
(DG (P) No. 08/09/2011-SR dated08.04.2011)

50. Absence cannot be treated as “dies non” without notice to employee

“Dies non” is not a statutory punishment and the elaborate procedure laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules is not required to be
followed. However, the basic principles of natural justice require that before deciding how to treat the absence of one hour by the
applicant on 23.07.1985, a notice should have been given to him; his explanation obtained and decision should have been taken only
after due consideration of his representation. We find that in this case on 24.07.1985, a letter has been addressed to him stating that
in view of his unauthorized absence for the above period the same was being treated as “dies non” on 23.07.1985. This was followed
immediately by office order, dated 25.07.1985, stating his absence for one hour on 23.07.1985 was treated as “dies non”. We thus
find that the applicant was not given any opportunity before a hurried decision on his absence was taken. We, therefore, hold that
the decision of the respondents is not sustainable and quash the order treated 23.07.1985 as “dies non”.
(BE Reddy V. The Superintendent, Survey of India and other, 1993 (i) SLJ (CAT) 213 (Hyderabad) (192) 19 ATC 595 date of judgment
14.10.1991)

51. Permission to leave Head Quarters

Doubts have been expressed by Ministries/Departments as to whether a Government servant is required to take
permission before leaving station/headquarters during leave or otherwise, especially for visits abroad.
2. Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited in this connection to the provision of FR 11 which provides that unless in
any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which
pays him. Article 56 of the Civil Services Regulation also provides that no officer is entitled to pay and allowances for any time he may
spend beyond the limits of his charge without authority; it is implicit in these provisions that a Government Servant is required to
take permission for leaving station/headquarters. It is thus clear that such permission is essential before a Government servant
leaves his station or headquarters and more so when he proposes to go abroad during such absence as such visit may have wider
implications.
3. However, separate permission may not be necessary where a Government servant has indicated his intention of leaving
headquarters/station along with leave address while applying for leave. The leave application form prescribed under the CCS (Leave)
Rules 1972.
(DOPT OM No.11013/7/94 – Estt (A) dated 18.05.1994)

52. Punctuality in attendance – action to be taken for late coming

The undersigned is directed to say that the existing instructions provide for deducting half a day’s casual leave when a
Government servant comes late without sufficient justification and the competent authority, while not considering it as a fit case for
initiating disciplinary action is also not prepared to condone the late coming. Sometimes, it so happens that a Government servant
who comes late without sufficient justification has no casual leave to his credit and it is not, therefore, possible to debit half-a-day’s
casual leave to his casual leave account. The question has, therefore, been raised by many Ministries and Departments as to how
such a situation is to be met.
The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law, and it has been decided that if an official who has
in casual leave to his credit comes late without sufficient justification and the administrative authority concerned is not prepared to
condone the late-coming but does not at the same time proposes to take disciplinary action he may inform the official concerned
that he will be treated as on unauthorized absence for the day on which he has come late and leave it to the official himself either to
face the consequences of such unauthorized absence or to apply for earned leave or any other kind of leave due and admissible for
that day as he may choose. If he applies for earned leave or any other kind of leave due and admissible for the entire day same may
be sanctioned by the competent authority.

The contents of this office memorandum may be brought to the notice of all administrative authorities for their
information and guidance.
(Min. of Home Affairs & DOP & AR OM. No. 28034/3/82-Ests (A) dt. 05.03.82)
(DG (P&T) No. 40-21/60-91 dt. 05.04.82)

25
VII. SEXUAL HARASSMENT

53. Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013.
I am directed to forward herewith copy of Notification dated 9th December, 2013 issued by Ministry of Women and Child
Development on the subject mentioned above for compliance.

MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

NOTIFICATION Dated 9.12.2013
G.S.R. 769 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 29 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act. 2013 (14 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely: -

1. Short title and commencement – (1) These rules may be called the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. Definitions – In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-
(a) “Act” means Sexual Harassment of women at workshop place ( Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act 2013 ( 14 of
2013)
(b) “Complaint” means the complaint made under section 9:
(c) “Complaints Committee” means the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be;
(d) “incident” means an incident of sexual harassment as defined in clause(n) of section 2;
(e) “section” means a section of the Act;
(f) “special educator” means a person trained in communication with people with special needs in a way that addresses their
individual differences and needs.
(g) words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to
them in the Act.

3. Fees or allowances for Member of Internal Committee: - (1) The Member appointed from amongst non-government
organizations shall be entitled to an allowances of two hundred rupees per day for holding the proceedings of the Internal
Committee and also the reimbursement of travel cost incurred in travelling by train in three tier air condition on air conditioned
bus and auto rickshaw or taxi, or the actual amount spent by him on travel, whichever is less.

The employer shall be responsible for the payment of allowances referred to in sub-rule(1).

4. Person familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment – Person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment for
the purpose of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 7 shall be a person who has expertise on issues relating to sexual
harassment and may include any of the following: -
(a) a social worker with at least five years’ experience in the field of social work which leads to creation of societal conditions
favourable towards empowerment of women and in particular in addressing workplace sexual harassment.
(b) A person who is familiar with labour, service, civil or criminal law.

5. Fee or allowances for Chairperson and Members of Local Committee - (1) The Chairperson of the Local Committee shall be
entitled to an allowance of two hundred and fifty rupees per day for holding the proceedings of the said Committee.

(2) The Members of the Local Committee other than the Members nominated under clauses (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) of
section 7 shall be entitled to an allowance of two hundred rupees per day for holding the proceedings of the said Committee
and also the reimbursement of travel cost incurred in travelling by train in three tier air condition or air conditioned bus and
auto rickshaw or taxi, or the actual amount spent by him on travel, whichever is less.

The District Officer shall be responsible for the payment of allowance referred to in sub-rules (1) and (2).

6. Complaint of sexual harassment - For the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 9:-
(i) where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical incapacity, a complaint may be filed
by.
(a) her relative or friend; or
(b) her co-worker, or
(c) an officer of the National Commission for Women or State Women’s Commission; or
(d) any person who has knowledge of the incident, with the written consent of the aggrieved woman;

(ii) where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her mental incapacity, a complaint may be filed by
–
(a) her relative of friend or
(b) a special educator, or
(c) a qualified psychiatrist of psychologist, or
(d) the guardian or authority under whose care she is receiving treatment or care; or

26
 (e) any person who has knowledge of the incident jointly with her relative or friend or a special educator or qualified
psychiatrist or psychologist, or guardian or authority under whose care she is receiving treatment or care.

(iii) Where the aggrieved woman for any other reason is unable to make a complaint, a complaint may be filed by any person
who has knowledge of the incident, with her written consent;

(iv) where the aggrieved woman is dead, a complaint may be filed by any person who has knowledge of the incident, with the
written consent of her legal heir.

7. Manner of inquiry into complaint – (1) Subject to the provision of section II, at the time of filing the complaint, the complainant
shall submit to the Complaints Committee, six copies of the complaint along with supporting documents and the names and
addresses of the witnesses.

(2) On receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of the copies received from the aggrieved woman
under sub-rule (1) to the respondent within a period of seven working days.

(3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaint along with his list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses,
within a period not exceeding ten working days from the date of receipt of the documents specified under sub-rule (1).

(4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

(5) The Complaints Committee shall have the right to terminate the inquiry proceedings or to give an ex-parte decision on the
complaint, if the complainant or respondent fails, without sufficient cause, to present herself or himself for three consecutive
hearings convened by the Chairperson or Presiding Officer, as the case may be.

Provided that such termination or ex-parte order may not be passed without giving a notice in writing,fifteen days in advance to
the party concerned.

(6) The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any legal practitioner to represent them in their case at any stage of the
proceedings before the Complaints Committee.

(7) In conducting the inquiry, a minimum of three Members of the Complaints Committee including the Presiding Officer or the
Chairperson, as the case may be, shall be present.

8. Other relief to complainant during pendency of inquiry – The Complaints Committee at the written request of the aggrieved
woman may recommend to the employer to
(a) restrain the respondent from reporting on the work performance of the aggrieved woman or writing her confidential
report, and assign the same to another officer.
(b) restrain the respondent in case of an educational institution from supervising any academic activity of the aggrieved
woman.

9. Manner of taking action for sexual harassment - Except in cases where service rules exist, where the Complaints Committee
arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the
District Officer, as the case may be, to take any action including a written apology, warning, reprimand or censure, withholding
of pay rise or increments, terminating the respondent from service or undergoing a counseling session or carrying out
community service.

10. Action for false or malicious complaint or false evidence – Except in cases where service rules exist, where the Complaints
Committee arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent is malicious or the aggrieved woman or any
other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person
making the complaint has produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer or District Officer
as the case may be, to take action in accordance with the provisions of rule 9.

11. Appeal – Subject to the provisions of section 18, any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2)
of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 14 or
section 17 or non-implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority notified under
clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946).

12. Penalty for contravention of provision of section16 – Subject to the provisions of section 17, if any person contravenes the
provision of section 16 the employer shall recover a sum of five thousand rupees as penalty from such person.

13. Manner to organize workshops, etc – Subject to the provision of section 19, every employees shall –
(a) formulate and widely disseminate an internal policy or charter or resolution or declaration for prohibition, prevention and
redressal of sexual harassment at the workplace intended to promote gender sensitive safe spaces and remove underlying
factors that contribute towards a hostile work environment against women.

27
 (b) carry out orientation programmes and seminar for the Members of the Internal Committee;
(c) carry out employees awareness programmes and create forum for dialogues which may involve Panchayati Raj Institutions,
Gram Sabha, Women’s groups, mothers’ committee, adolescent groups, urban local bodies and any other body as may be
consider necessary;
(d) conduct capacity building and skill building programmes for the Members of the Internal Committee.
(e) declare the names and contact details of all the Members of the Internal Committee.
(f) use modules developed by the State Governments to conduct workshops and awareness programmes for sensitizing the
employees with the provisions of the Act.

14. Preparation of annual report – The annual report which the Complaints Committee shall prepare under section 21, shall have
the following details: -
(a) number of complaints of sexual harassment received in the year.
(b) number of complaints disposed off during the year.
(c) number of cases pending for more than ninety days.
(d) number of workshops or awareness programme against sexual harassment carried out;
(e) nature of action taken by the employer or District Officer.
(DG (P) No. 18-1/2015-SCT dated 13.07.2015)

54. Steps for conducting inquiry in case of allegation of Sexual Harassment

Undersigned is directed to say that during the meeting of the Chairpersons of Complaints Committees with Secretary
(Personnel) on the 16th April, 2015 it was suggested that the Department of Personnel and Training may prepare a step guide for
conduct of inquiry in complaint cases of sexual harassment. Rule 14 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 lays down that the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department for inquiring into
complaints of sexual harassment shall hold such inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these
Rules.
2. The annexed guide on “Steps for Conduct of Inquiry in complaints of Sexual Harassment” is intended to give the procedure
as prescribed in the rules/instructions. This is, however, not intended as a substitute for reference to the Rules and instructions,
Members of the Complaints Committees and others who are required to deal with such inquiries should acquaint themselves with
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and instructions issued thereunder.
(DOPT OM No. 11013/2/2014-Estt.(A-III) dated 16.07.2015)
Steps for Conduct of Inquiry in Complaints of Sexual Harassment(Vide DOPT OM No. 11013/2/2014-Estt.(A-III) dated 16.7.2015)
Complaints Committees
1. Complaints Committees have been set up in all Ministries/Department and organizations under them in pursuance to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Vishakha case. As per Section 4 (1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“the Act”), the Internal Complaints Committee (referred to as
“Complaints Committee” hereafter) is to be set up at every workplace. As per Section 4 (2), this will be headed by a woman
and at least half of its members should be women. In case a woman officer may be so appointed. To prevent the possibility
of any undue pressure or influence from senior levels, such Complaints Committees should involve a third party, either and
NGO or some other body which is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.
What is Sexual Harassment?
2. “sexual harassment” includes any one or more of the following acts or behavior, (whether directly or by implication),
namely :-
(i) physical contact and advances; or
(ii) demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) sexually coloured remarks; or
(iv) showing any pornography; or
(v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal, non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
3. The following circumstances, among other circumstances, in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual
harassment may amount to sexual harassment :-
(i) implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in employment or
(ii) implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in employment; or
(iii) implied or explicit threat about her present of future employment status; or
(iv) interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
(v) humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.
Workplace defined :
4. As per Section 2 (o) of the Act, the following places are included within the ambit of the expression “workplace”:
(i) any department, organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, etc. –established,
owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central
Government;
(ii) hospitals or nursing homes;
(iii) any sports institute, stadium, etc. used for training, sports or other activities relating thereto;
(iv) any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employmentincluding transportation
provided by the employer for undertaking such journey;
Initial relief
5. The Committee will also have the powers to recommend :-

28
 (a) to transfer the aggrieved woman or the charged officer to any other workplace; or
(b) to grant leave to the aggrieved woman up to a period of three months.
(The leave will not be deducted from her leave account.)
Complaints Committee to be Inquiring Authority
6. As per Proviso Rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in case of complaints of sexual harassment, the Complaints Committee
set up in each Ministry or Department etc. for inquiring into such complaints shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority
appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of these rules. Complaints Committee, unless a separate procedure
has been prescribed, shall hold the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rule 14.

Need for investigation

7. The Complaints Committees may act on complaints of sexual harassment when they receive them directly or
through administrative authorities etc, or when they take cognizance of the same suo-moto. As per Section 9 (1) of the Act,
the aggrieved woman or complainant is required to make a complaint within three months of the incident and in case
there has been a series of incidents, three months of the last incident. The Complaints Committee may however extend the
time limit for reasons to be recorded in writing, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the
complainant from filing a complaint within the stipulated period.
8. As mentioned above, the complaints of sexual harassment are required to be handled by Complaints Committee.
On receipt of a complaint, facts of the allegation are required to be verified. This is called preliminary enquiry/fact finding
enquiry or investigation. The Complaints Committee conducts the investigation. They may then try to ascertain the truth of
allegations by collecting the documentary evidence as well as recording statements of any possible witnesses including the
complainant. If it becomes necessary to issue a Charge Sheet, disciplinary authority relies on the investigation for drafting
the imputations, as well as for evidence by which the charges are to be proved. Therefore this is a very important part of
the investigation.
Dual Role
9. In the light of the Proviso to the Rule 14 (2) mentioned above, the Complaints Committee would normally be involved at
two stages. The first stage is investigation already discussed in the preceding para. The second stage is when they act as
Inquiring Authority. It is necessary that the two roles are clearly understood and the inquiry is conducted as far as
practicable as per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Failure to observe the procedure may result in the inquiry getting
vitiated.
10. As the Complaints Committees also act as Inquiring Authority in terms of Rule 14 (2) mentioned above, care has
to be taken that at the investigation stage that impartiality is maintained. Any failure on this account may invite allegations
of bias when conducting the inquiry and may result in the inquiry getting vitiated. As per the instructions, when allegations
of bias are received against an Inquiring Authority, such Inquiring Authority is required to stay the inquiry till the
Disciplinary Authority takes a decision on the allegations of bias. Further, if allegations of bias are established against one
member of the Committee on this basis, that Committee may not be allowed to conduct the inquiry.
11. In view of the above, the Complaints Committee when investigating the allegations should make
recommendations on whether there is a prima facie substance in the allegations which calls for conducting a formal
inquiry. They should avoid making any judgmental recommendations on expressing views which may be construed to have
prejudiced their views while conducting such inquiry.
Decision to issue Charge sheet, and conducting Inquiry
12. On receipt of the Investigation Report, the Disciplinary Authority should examine the report with a view to see as
to whether a formal Charge Sheet needs to be issued to the Charged Office. As per Rule 14(3), Charge Sheet is to be drawn
by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. In case the Disciplinary Authority decides on that course, the Charged Officer
should be given an opportunity of replying to the charge sheet. As per Rule 14(5), a decision on conducting the inquiry has
to be taken after consideration of the reply of the charged officer.
13. If the charged Officer admits the charges clearly and unconditionally, there will be no need for a formal inquiry
against him and further action may be taken as per Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) rules.
The inquiry –stages
14. In case the charged Officer denies the charges and his reply is not convincing, the Charge sheet along with his
reply may be sent to the Complaints Committee for formal inquiry, and documents mentioned in Rule 14 (6) will be
forwarded to the Complaints Committee. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, for the purpose of making an inquiry, the
Complaints Committee shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and
(c) any other matter which may be prescribed.
The Section 11(4) of the Act requires that the inquiry shall be completed within a period of ninety days.
15. The Disciplinary Authority shall also in terms of Rule14(5) (c) appoint a Government servant as a Presenting
Officer to present evidence on behalf of prosecution before the Complaints Committee / Inquiring Authority. The listed
documents are to be sent to the Presenting Officer. The Complaints Committee would, thereafter, summon the Presenting
Officer and the Charged Officer. As a first step, the charged officer would be formally asked as to whether he admits the
charges. As mentioned above, in case of any clear and unconditional admission of any Article of Charge, no inquiry would
be held in respect of that Article and the admission of the Charged Officer would be taken on record. The Inquiry would be
held, thereafter, in respect of those charges which have not been admitted by the Charged Officer. The Charged Officer is
also entitled to engage a Defence Assistant. The Provisions relating to Defence Assistant are given in Rule 14(8).

29
 16. The Inquiring Authority is, thereafter, required to ask the Presenting Officer to have the prosecution documents
listed in the Charge Sheet inspected by the Charged Officer. Copies of such documents if not only given to the Charged
Officer, would be handed over to him. The Charged Officer would, therefore be required to submit a list of documents and
witnesses which he wants to produce in support of his defense. The inquiring Authority would consider allowing such
documents or witnesses on the basis of their relevance. Normally any document or witness which reasonably appears to be
relevant and helpful in defense may be allowed. Once the documents have been allowed, the Inquiring Authority would
send a requisition for these documents to the custodian of such documents.
17. When the regular hearing commences, the Inquiring Authority would ask the Presenting Officer to produce the
documentary evidence. Such documents as are disputed by the Charged Officer have to be proved by the witnesses before
they are taken on record. The undisputed documents would be taken on record and marked as exhibits.
Examination of Witnesses
18. Summons would, thereafter, be sent to the witnesses listed in the Charge sheet. The Presenting Officer may
choose to produce them in any order he finds appropriate. These witnesses, would be examined in the Inquiry in the
following manner. The examination in chief would be done by the Presenting Officer where the Presenting Officer may ask
questions of the witness to ascertain the facts. The witness would, thereafter, be crossed-examined by the Defense. After
crossed-examination the Presenting Officer would be given an opportunity to re-examine the witnesses. In the
examination in Chief, leading questions are not allowed. These are however allowed in the cross examination.
19. The procedure of Inquiry requires opportunity to the Charged Officer to cross-examine all the witnesses that
appear on behalf of the Prosecution. Failure to do so may be construed as a denial of reasonable opportunity to the
charged officer, resulting in vitiation of the Inquiry. If the complainant appears as witness, she would also be examined and
cross examined. The Inquiry Officer may however disallow any questions which are offensive, indecent or annoying to the
witnesses including the complainant.
20. If Inquiring Authority wishes to ascertain some facts for clarity, he may pose questions to the witnesses. This
should however, be done in such a manner as to not show any bias for or against the charged officer. This has to be done in
the presence of the Presenting Officer and the Charged Officer/defence Assistant. No inquiry should be conducted behind
the back of the charged officer. The witnesses will be examined one by one, and the other witness who are either yet to be
examined or have been examined are not allowed to be present during the examination of a witness.
Daily Order Sheet
21. The Inquiring Authority would also maintain a document called Daily Order Sheet in which all the main events of
the inquiry and including requests/ representations by the charged officer or the presenting officer, and decisions there on
would be recorded. For example (i) if the Charged Officer refuses to cross-examine the witnesses this should be recorded in
the Daily Order Sheet (ii) the Daily Order Sheet should record that the Charged Officer had been advised that he has the
right to engage a Defence Assistant (iii) it should also be clearly mentioned that the Charged Officer was also informed as
to who are eligible to assist him as Defence Assistant. (iv) the Daily Order Sheet should also record in case request of the
Charged Officer for engaging a particular person as Defense Assistant is disallowed in the light of the existing instructions.
Daily Order Sheet should be signed by the Inquiring Authority, Presenting Officer and the Charged Officer/Defence
Assistant.
Defence Evidence
22. After the prosecution evidence is over, the Charged Officer is required to submit his statement of defense. In this
statement the Charged Officer is required to briefly indicate his line of defense. After this, the Defense Evidence will be
taken. The evidence will be produced in the same order as the prosecution evidence. First, the documents allowed by the
inquiry Authority would be taken on record and then the witnesses called and their examination, cross-examination and re-
examination done. The only difference here would be that the Examination in Chief would be done by defense while the
cross-examination would be done by the prosecution. The defense would then have the opportunity of reexamining the
witness.
General Examination of the Charged Officer
23. After the Defense evidence is over, the Inquiring Authority shall ask Charged Officer as to whether he wishes to
appear as his own witness. In case he does so, he will be examined like any other defense witness. In case however, he
declines to do so, the Inquiring Authority is required to generally question him. At this stage due care is required to be
exercised that as per Rule 14(18) the purpose of this stage is to apprise Charged Officer of the circumstances which appear
to be against him. This is to enable the Charged Officer to explain them to the Inquiring Authority. Presenting officer and
the Defense Assistant do not take any part in the General Examination. Charged Officer may not be compelled to answer
questions during examination by the Inquiring Authority.
Brief
24. After this, the Presenting Officer would be asked to submit his brief. A copy of this brief would be given to the
Charged Officer. Both the Presenting Officer and the charged officer may be allowed reasonable time for submission of
their brief.
25. The Inquiring Authority then writes the Inquiry Report in which the evidence in support of the charges and
against them will be examined. The report should be a speaking one clearly bringing out as to the evidence on this basis of
which any particular conclusion has been reached. Based on this analysis, the Inquiring Authority will give its findings on
the Articles as proved or not proved.In case any Article of charge is proved only partially, then the Inquiring Authority
should record the extent to which that Article has been proved.

Powers of the committee to make recommendations

30
 26. Normally, the Inquiry Officer is not allowed to make any recommendations in his report. Here the function of the
Complaints Committee acting as the Inquiring Authority differs. The Complaints Committee may however, make
recommendations including what has been mentioned in para 2 above.
. (c) to grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman as may be prescribed; or
. (d) to deduct from the salary or wages of the charged officer such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid
to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs.
. Any amount outstanding at the time of cessation of the services of the charged officer due to retirement, death
or otherwise may be recovered from the terminal benefits payable to the officer or his heirs.
. Such compensation will not amount to penalty under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules in terms of the Explanation (ix)
to Rule 11 inserted vide Notification of even Number dated 19-11-2014.
. Committee may recommend action to be taken against complainant, if the allegation is malicious, or the
complainant knows it to be false, or has produced any forged or misleading document.
. The Committee may also recommend action against any witness if such witness has given false evidence or
produced any forged or misleading document.
27. The Complaints Committee should also remember that as per the Section 16 of the Act, notwithstanding the RTI
Act, 2005, information as regards identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, Inquiry
proceedings, Recommendations of the Committee shall not be published or communicated or made known to public, press
or media in any manner. Provided that information may be disseminated regarding the justice secured to any victim of
sexual harassment under Act without disclosing the name, address, identity or any other particulars calculated to lead to
the identification of the aggrieved woman and witnesses.
28. With the above stage, the inquiry would be formally over. The Inquiring Authority should prepare separate
folders containing the documents mentioned in Rule 14(23(ii).
Suspension
29. A Government servant may also be placed under suspension before or after issue of a Charge Sheet where his
continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, for example if there is an apprehension that he may tamper with
witnesses or document. Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the Government servant in office will be
against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under
suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals. It may be
desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude.
Special provisions to deal with threats or intimidation
30. Disciplinary Authority may also dispense with inquiry under Rule 19 (ii), and action may be taken without the inquiry when
the Disciplinary Authority concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading
to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. Such
situation would be deemed to have arisen :
(i) where the Government servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates
witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing
so; or
(ii) where the Government servant himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the
Disciplinary Authority, Members of the Committee, the Presenting Officer or members of their family.
Disciplinary Authority is not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly, arbitrarily or with ulterior motive or merely
because the case against the Government servant is weak.
(DOPT OM No 11013/2/2014 – Estt (A) dated 16.07.2015)

55. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1961 - Guidelines regarding prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace
- regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the DoPT OM number No.11013/2/2014-Estt.A-III, dated the 16th July, 2015 etc.,
vide which need for effective mechanism to ensure that inquiries in the case of allegations of sexual harassment are conducted as
per the prescribed procedure and that they are monitored have been issued. Recently, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship
of Minister, Women and Child Development wherein concern was expressed that the inquiries in such cases are taking unduly long
time. It has, therefore, been decided that the following further steps may be taken to ensure that the inquiries are conducted
expeditiously and the aggrieved women are not subjected to victimization:
(1) As already conveyed vide OM dated 2nd February, 2015 all Ministries/Departments shall include in their Annual Reports
information related to the number of such cases and their disposal.
(2) As far as practicable, the inquiry in such cases should be completed within 1 month and in no case should it take more than
90 days as per the limit prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013.
(3) It should be ensured that the aggrieved women are not victimized in connection with the complaints filed by them. For a
period of five years after a decision in a proven case of sexual harassment, a watch should be kept to ensure that she is not subjected
to vendetta. She should not be posted under the Respondent, or any other person where there may be a reasonable ground to
believe that she may be subjected to harassment on this account. In case of any victimization the complainant may submit a
representation to the Secretary in the case of Ministries/Departments and Head of the Organization in other cases. These
representations should be dealt with sensitivity, in consultation with the Complaints Committee, Ministries/Departments and Head
of the Organization in other cases. These representations should be dealt with sensitivity, in consultation with the Complaints
Committee, and a decision taken within 15 days of the submission of the same.

31
(4) (4) All Ministries/Departments shall furnish a monthly report to the Ministry of Women and Child Development giving
details of number of complaints received, disposed of and action taken in the case.
(DOPT OM No.11013/7/2016-Estt.A-III dated 22.12.2016)

56. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 — Guidelines regarding prevention of sexual harassment
of women at the workplace— regarding
Undersigned is directed to say that following enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition
and Redressal) Act, 2013 [SHWW (PPR) Act] and notification of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 [SHWW (PPR) Rules] on09.12.2013, the Government notified the amendments to Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The amendments and other
salient features of the Act/ Rules was brought to the notice of all concerned vide Office Memorandum No. 11013/02/ 2014-Estt.A-III
dated 27.11.2014.
2. Section 18 (1) of the SHWW(PPR) Act, 2013 provides that any person aggrieved with the recommendations made under sub
section (2) of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section
14 or section 17 or non-implementation of such recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with
provisions of the service rules applicable to said person or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to the provisions
contained in any other law for the time being in force, the person Aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be
prescribed.
3. In accordance with Section 18(i) of the SHWW (PPR) Act, 2013, it has been decided that in all cases of allegations of sexual
harassment, the following procedure may be adopted:
Where a Complaint Committee has not recommended any action against the employee against whom the allegation have been
made in a case involving allegations of sexual harassment, the Disciplinary Authority shall supply a copy of the Report of the
Complaint Committee to the complainant and shall consider her representation, if any submitted, before coming to a final
conclusion. The representation shall be deemed to be an appeal under section 18(i) of the Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
4. All Ministries/Departments/Offices are requested to bring the above guidelines To the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities under
their control. All cases, where final Orders have not been issued may be processed as per these guidelines.
(DOPT OM F. No. 11012/5/2016-Estt.A-III dated 02.08.2016)

57. Prevention of Sexual harassment of working women at workplace – Seniority of the Chairperson of the Complaint Committee
– regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the DoPT OM no.11013/2/2014-Estt.A-III dated 16th July, 2015 as the para I of the
Guide attached to the OM, it was clarified that the complaints Committee set up to inquiry into charges of sexual harassment should
be headed by a women and at least half of its member should also be women. In case a woman Officer of sufficiently senior level is
not available in a particular office, an office from another officer may be so appointed. It was also indicated that to prevent the
possibility of any undue pressure, the Complaints Committee should also involve a third party either NGO other body which is
familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.
2. The issue of legality of a committee conducting inquiry against an officer against whom there are allegations of sexual
harassment but where the chairperson to be junior in rank to the suspect officer has been examined. It is clarified that there is no
bar either in the CCS (CCA) Rules or under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013 to the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee being junior to the suspect officer or the charged officer. Hon’ble
Allahabad High Court has in Smt. ShobhaGoswamivs State of U.P. And 2Ors, in WRIT – A No, - 31659 of 2015 observed as follows:
“In my opinion, there is nothing in the Scheme of the section which requires the lady member to be senior in rank to the
officer against whom the allegation of sexual harassment are brought. The language of Section 4 of the Act only requires the lady
member to the Senior Level”.
This also does not in any way cause any prejudice to the charged officer.
3. Further, to ensure fair inquiry, Ministries/Departments may also consider transferring the suspect officer/charged officer to
another office to obviate any risk of that officer using the authority of his office to influence the proceedings of the Complaints
Committee.
(DOPT OM No.11013/2/2014 – Estt .(A) - III dated 09.09.2016)

58. Implementation of leave provision under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work place (Prevention, Prohibition &
Redressal) Act, 2013 – Reg.
Consequent to the enactment of the 'Sexual Harassment of Women at Work place (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act,
2013’, this Department is considering issuing instructions for the grant of leave to the aggrieved woman during pendency of inquiry
up to a period of three months in additional to the leave which she is otherwise entitled to.
2. In this regard, it is proposed to insert/incorporate a new Rule in the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. The new rule may read as
follows:
“Special Leave connected with inquiry on sexual harassment – Leave up to a maximum of 90 days may be granted to an
aggrieved female Government Servant on the recommendation of the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may
be, during the pendency of inquiry under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013.
(2) The leave so granted to the aggrieved woman under this rule shall not be debited against the leave account.”
(DOPT OM No.13026/2/2016 – Estt (L)dated 14.07.2016)

32
59. CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964-Guidelines regarding prevention of sexual harassment of working women in the workplace
The undersigned is directed to refer to Department of Personnel and Training's OM No. 11013/10/97-Estt.(A) dated
13.02.1998 and 13.07.1999. O.M No 11013/11/2001-Estt (A) dated 12.12.2002 and 04.08.2005 and O.M. No. 11013/3/2009-Estt. (A)
dated 02.02.2009 on the abovementioned subject and to say that it is necessary to have in place at all times an effective Complaint
Mechanism for dealing with cases of sexual harassment of working women and to create awareness in this regard, particularly
amongst working women. The salient features of the Complaint Mechanism and inquiry procedure are as follows:-
(i) Rule 3 C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 provides that no Government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual
harassment of any women at her work place. Every Government servant who is incharge of a work place shall take appropriate steps
to prevent sexual harassment to any woman at such work place. "Sexual harassment" includes such unwelcome sexually determined
behaviour, whether directly or otherwise, as :-
(a) physical contact and advances;
(b) demand or request for sexual favours;
(c) sexuallycoloured remarks;
(d) showing any pornography; or
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
(ii) Whether or not such conduct constitutes an offence under law or a breach of the service rules, an appropriate complaint
mechanism should be created in the employer's organization for redress of the complaint made by the victim. Such complaint
mechanism should ensure time bound treatment of complaints.
(iii) The complaint mechanism should be adequate to provide, where necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special counselor
or other support service, including the maintenance of confidentiality.
The Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women. Further
to prevent the possibility of any undue pressure or influence from senior levels, such Complaints Committee should involve a third
party, either NGO or other body who is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.
The Complaints Committee must make an annual report to the Government department concerned of the complaints and
action taken by them.
The employers and person in charge will also report on the compliance with the aforesaid guidelines including on the
reports of the Complaints Committee to the Government department.
(iv) The Committee constituted for redressal of the complaints by the victims of sexual harassment should be headed by an
officer sufficiently higher in rank so as to lend credibility to the investigations.
(v) The Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into complaints of sexual
harassment shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and that the Complaints
Committee shall hold, if no separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into
such complaints the inquiry, as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said rules (In 2004 a proviso was
added to rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services {Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (copy enclosed) to this effect}.
(vi) The Complaints Committee in terms of Cabinet Secretariat's Order No. 1 dated 26.09.2008 will inquire into complaints
made against officers of the level of Secretary and Additional Secretary and equivalent level in the Government of India in the
Ministries/Departments and Organisations directly under the control of the Central Government (other than the Central PSUs). The
existing Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office will, inquire into complaints of sexual
harassment against only those Government servants who are not covered by the Cabinet Secretariat's Order No. 1 dated 26.09.2008.
(vii) It may be ensured that the Complaints Committee shall at all times be in existence and changes in its composition,
whenever necessary, should be made promptly and adequately publicized. The composition of the Complaints Committee be also
posted on the websites of the concerned Ministries/Departments/Offices concerned.

3. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the foregoing to the notice of all concerned.
(DOPT OM No.11013/3/2009-Estt.(A) dated 21.07.2009)

60. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964- Guidelines regarding prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace-
reg.
Following the promulgation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013 {HSWW)PPR) Act} and notification of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Rules, 2013 [SHWW(PPR) Rules] on 09-12-2013, the Government has recently, on 19-11-2014, notified the amendments to Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965. The amendments and other salient features of
the Act/Rules was brought to the notice of all concerned vide Office Memorandum of even no. dated 27-11-2014. The amendments
to the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 and the Office Memorandum
dated 01-12-2014 are available on the Department's website.
2. The following guidelines, conveying the decision of the Committee of Secretaries on this subject, were issued vide this
Department's Office Memorandum No. 11013/3/2009-Estt.(A) dated 03-08-2009.
"As regards provisions for protection of women, it was suggested that the complaints committee mechanism provided
under Vishakha guidelines relating to sexual harassment should be strictly in accordance with the judgment and steps should be
taken to ensure that the committee is effective and functional at all times. It would also be desirable for the Committees to meet
once a quarter, even if there is no live case, and review preparedness to fulfill all requirements of the Vishakha judgment in the
Department/Ministry/organization concerned."
3. As per the guidelines issued vide Office Memorandum dated 21-07-2009, it is also to be ensured that the Complaints
Committee shall at all times be in existence and changes in its composition, whenever necessary, should be made promptly and

33
adequately publicized. The composition of the Complaints Committee should also be posted on the websites of the concerned
Ministries/Departments/Offices concerned.
4. Vide the Office Memorandum dated 01-12-2014, the attention of the Ministries/ Departments was also invited to the
reporting requirements mentioned in the SHWW(PPR) Act and SHWW(PPR) Rules.
5. All Ministries/ Departments are requested to please review the progress of implementation of the existing
abovementioned guidelines issued in the aftermath of the Vishakha judgment.
6. Attention of all Ministries is invited to Section 22 of the Act relating to including information in Annual Report, and to
request that information relating to number of cases filed, if any, and their disposal may be included in the Annual Report of the
Ministry/ Department.
7. All Ministries/ Department are also requested to furnish an annual return (as on 31st March) in the enclosed proforma to
this Department by 30th April every year.
(DOPT OM No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-III) dated 02.02.2015)

VIII. DISCIPLINARY RULES – SELECTIVE ORDERS

61. Provisions of Rule 14(2) of the central civil services (classification, control & appeal) rules, 1965
14(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation
of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the
provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964, the complaints Committee established in each ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such
complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed
(DOPT No. 2101/11/2005-Estt (A) (Pt-II) dated 23.07.2009)

62. Revised time limit for grant/refusal of permission under the provisions of CCS (conduct) rules
The following time limits for granting or refusing permission have been prescribed with immediate effect.

S. Rule Provision relating to Time limit

N.
1. 8 (2) Connection with press or radio
Gifts
13 (4) Transaction in movable and 30 days
18 (2) Immovable property.

18 (3)
2. 19 (1) Vindication for acts and 6 weeks
character of Government
servant
3. 18 (a) Transactions in immovable 60 days
property outside India or with
foreigners.

In the event of failure on the part of competent authority to communicate its decision within the time limits, the employee shall be
free to assume that permission has been granted to him.
(DOPT OM No. 11013(2)/88-Estt. (A), dated. 07.07.1988)

63. Withdrawal of instructions issued by the erstwhile DG (P&T) in the matter of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules 1972
Reference is invited to this office OM No. 13/6/83-Vig. III dated 28.02.1984 on the subject cited above wherein it has been laid
down that if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that action under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules 1972 is not justified and
that the proceedings should be dropped, it would be within the competence of the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings.
2. The matter has been examined by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, P. G. and Pensions
in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Ministry of Law. The Ministry of Law has advised that the President is the
competent authority to take a decision as to withhold the pension or otherwise and the inquiry officer conducting the inquiry under
CCS (CCA) Rules, which after retirement of the public servant is converted into proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, is
the delegate of the President and he will have to submit his report to the President for taking appropriate action. It is further stated
that under the CCS (Pension) Rules, the inquiry officer is not empowered at all to drop proceedings for any reason whatsoever.
3. In view of the above advice it has been decided to withdraw the instructions issued vide OM No. 13/6/83-Vig. III dated
28.02.1984 with immediate effect.
4. In future, in all such cases where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that disciplinary action under Rule 9 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules is not justified, he should submit a detailed report to the President for taking appropriate action. The report of the
disciplinary authority should be submitted to the Directorate through the Postmaster General/Chief Postmaster General along with
original/authenticated copies of all the relevant documents in the manner prescribed.
(DG (P) No. C-11011/01/03-VP dated 04.03.2003)

34
64. Withdrawal of instructions issued by the erstwhile DG (P&T) in the matter of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972
Kind reference is invited to this office memo of even number dated 04.03.2003 on the subject cited above wherein it has been
laid down that all the disciplinary cases under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 if required to be dropped may be submitted to the
Directorate to be considered by the Plenary Board on behalf of the President.
2. It has been observed that cases under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 coming up to the Postal Board for consideration are
mostly found unjustified due to casual attitude with which they are processed at the lower levels. It is seen that the non-financial
cases initiated under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before the retirement of the officials are not being concluding within their
service period and as such automatically get covered under Rule 9 ibid after retirement. Later such cases are referred by the circles
to the Directorate with recommendation for dropping of the proceedings. This speaks of inadequate application of mind by
disciplinary and other authorities, apart from avoidable delay in settling pension and other retirement claims. Above all, the
derelictions go unpunished because of procrastination.
3. In view of the above, I am directed to advise all Heads of Circles to take due care while processing non-financial cases of the
officials who are at the verge of retirement so that unnecessary reference to the Directorate for dropping such cases can be avoided.
(DG (P) No. 11011/01/03-VP dated 31.08.2004)

65. Guidelines for processing of cases under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
In accordance with provisions of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rule 1975, the departmental proceedings instituted against the
government servant while he was in service, shall, after the retirement of the government servant be deemed to be proceedings
under Rule 9 ibid and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if
the government servant had continued in service.
2. Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority
shall submit a report regarding its findings to the President.
3. The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or
during his re-employment.
a) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President.
b) Shall not be in respect of any even which took place more than four years before such institution.
4. The said findings should, invariably, be recorded by the competent Disciplinary Authority in respect of the charged official, after
receipt of representation of the charged official against the IO's report. The findings should be recorded in the same format in which
an order of penalty is prepared with the exception of the last Para imposing penalty which should contain a recommendation that
the misconduct/misbehavior proved against the retired official to drop the proceedings. All the points made by the charged official
should be discussed in the findings. Needless to mention that disagreement, if any, with the IO's report should also be
communicated to the charged official along with the enquiry report by the competent disciplinary authority.
5. Records of the case in original or legible photocopies duly authenticated should be sent along with the prescribed proforma for
sending the case to the UPSC. The documents should be kept in 13 different folders marked as 1 to 13 as indicated in the enclosed
checklist. The proforma for sending the cases to the UPSC should be signed by the CPMG/PMG and documents placed in the 13
folders should be duly referenced. The documents placed in the folder must also be indicated on its cover.
6. The letter forwarding the Rule 9 proposal must inter alia contain the brief history of the case in chronological order and should
cover the following points.
(i) How the case came to light:
(ii) Who are principal/subsidiary offenders, including details of Departmental/Criminal action initiated against them with result
thereof?
(iii) Recovery of Govt. Loss, if any, as well as Net loss suffered by the Department:
(iv) Para wise comments on the representation of the charged official should invariably be submitted and kept along with
representation of the charged official in the relevant folder.
(v) Whether any Court case/FIR is pending against the retired charged official.
7. The Union Public Service Commission in a recent letter addressed to the Secretary of the Department has desired to have the
files/documents on CD/DVD along-with hard copies for faster handling of unwieldy files. In view of this, the essential documents i.e.
(a) 'charge sheet' (b) IO's report and (c) findings of disciplinary authority may be placed on CD along with their hard copies for
transmitting the same to the UPSC while seeking their advice in Rule 9 cases.
8. It has been observed that due to incomplete documentation work on part of the circle office while referring a Rule 9 case
to the Directorate for decision by the President considerable time is lost in shutling the records between the Directorate and the
circle office. This is an unproductive exercise and leads to delay in processing the Rule 9 cases. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure
that all the above instructions are followed scrupulously before forwarding a proposal for conclusion of proceedings under Rule 9 of
CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
9. This issues with the approval of Member (P).
(DG(P) No. 11011/02/2006-VP dated 11.12.2006)

66. Expeditious disposal of cases involving public servants due to retire shortly
The commission vide its letter No. DO/DSP/15 dated 26.02.1981 and 06.05.1981, directed expeditious completion of
disciplinary action, particularly against the officials likely to retire soon. Later, vide commission's circular No. 14/3/06 dated
13.03.2006, detailed instructions were issued on the pre-requisites for seeking first/second stage advice. In this circular a specific
mention had been made about the requirement of bio-data which inter-alia contains the date of superannuation of the SPS/CO.

35
2. The ready availability of date of superannuation of the SPS/CO is meant to serve as a guide to the CVO/DA to handle the case at
a pace that should complete the action well in time. It has, however, come to repeated notice of the commission that the CVO/DA
often tends to lose sight of the superannuation dates, thereby creating situations which serve to the advantage of the SPS/COs. The
entire effort is rendered all the more infructuous in organizations where the conduct rules do not provide for continuance of
disciplinary action after retirement.
3. The Commission, has, therefore, emphasized once again that all vigilance/administrative functionaries in an organization must
invariably keep in mind the date of superannuation of the SPS/CO while handling disciplinary case and anyone found to have
consciously ignored the fact should be held accountable for the delay that may lead to the eventual dropping of the proceedings.
(DG (P) No. 7-5/CVC/2005-Vig dated 31.10.2007) &(CVC No. 007/VGL/052 dated 27.09.2007)

67. Expeditious disposal of cases involving public servants due to retire shortly
Attention is invited on Commission's circular of even No. dated 27.09.2007 wherein all Ministries/Departments/Organizations
were impressed on the need for expeditious completion of disciplinary proceedings/action, particularly against officials likely to
retire. Commission has of late observed that some Departments/organizations have a marked tendency to refer the vigilance cases
to the Commission seeking its advice at the last moment and sometimes even an few days before retirements of officers.
2. The Commission has taken a serious note of such lax attitude on the part of CVO's/DAs in making such references which leaves
no option for the Commission, except to examine the case in a hurry. Such delayed references ultimately result in situations which
either serve to the advantage of the suspect public servants/ charged officers (SPS/COs) or initiations of disciplinary proceeding at
the fag end of service of an officer.
3. While reiteration its earlier instructions in this regard, the Commission emphasizes that the vigilance functionaries as well as
administrative authorities concerned should priorities their activities of conducting investigation and disciplinary action so as to
avoid such late references to the Commission. Undue delays on part of administrative authorities in dealing with vigilance
matters/disciplinary cases will henceforth be viewed seriously by the Commission and it would be constrained to take and adverse
view of CVOs/Administrative authorities for such avoidable delays.
4. All CVOs/Administrative Authorities should ensure strict compliance to the above instructions.
(No. 007/VG/052 dated 11.03.2011)

68. Improving vigilance administrative

In exercise of powers under section 8(1)(g) CVC Ordinance 1999 the Central Vigilance Commission issued the following instructions
and stipulates a model time schedule for conducting Departmental Inquiries:

Time Limit
2.1) Fixing date of preliminary hearing and inspection of listed Within 4 Weeks
documents, submission of list of Defence documents/witnesses and
nomination of a Defence Assistant (DA) (if not already nominated).

2.2) Inspection of relied upon document/submission of list of Within 4 Weeks

DWs/Defence document/Examination of relevancy of DDs/DWs,
procuring the additional document and submission of certificates
confirming inspection of additional documents by CO/DA.

2.3) Issue of summons to the witnesses, fixing the date for Regular Within 3 months
Hearing and arrangement for participation of witnesses in the
Regular Hearing.

2.4) Regular hearing on Day to Day basis.

2.5) Submission of Written Briefs by PO to CO/IO Within 15 Days

2.6) Submission of Written Brief by CO to IO Within 15 Days

2.7) Submission of Inquiry Report from the date of receipt of Within 30 Days

If the above schedule is not inconsistent/conflict with the existing rules on the subject, the outer time limit of six months for
completing the Departmental Inquiries should be adhered to.

3. Non Production of Documents

One of the causes for delay in departmental inquiries is due to non production of documents cited by the CO as defence
document during the course of enquiry. In order to ensure that the departmental inquiries are complete in time, the document
asked for by the CO would be produced by its custodian through PO if there is no PO by its representative within a time limit fixed by
IO failing which adverse note would be taken against the concerned officer (custodian of the documents). It should also be ensured
that in one case involving more than one officer; only one PO should be appointed by all the DAs.
4. Disposal of allegation of Bias
The other cause of delay in completing departmental enquiries within time limit is taking unreasonable time by the
DAs/Appellate authority in disposing the representation of the CO alleging basis against the IO. The DAs/Appellate authority should,

36
therefore, decide the representation of the CO with fifteen days after receipt of the representation of the CO failing which as adverse
view a will be taken against the concerned authority.
(DG (P) No. 8 (1) (g) /99 (3) dated 3.03.1999)

69. Strengthening of Vigilance set-up in Ministries/Departments.

The Government had constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM), on 6th January, 2011 with the approval of the Prime Minister to
consider measures that can be taken by the Government to tackle corruption. One of the terms of reference (ToR) of the GoM was
to consider and advise on 'Fast tracking of all cases of public servants accused of corruption ". The GoM, while considering this (ToR)
also considered certain important recommendations of the Hota Committee (Committee of Experts to review the procedure of
Disciplinary/Vigilance Inquiries and recommended measures for their expeditious disposal) has made a recommendation that
vigilance administration of the Central Ministnes/Departments may be strengthened.
This recommendation of the GoM has been accepted by the Government. Accordingly, and all Ministries/Departments are
advised to strengthen their vigilance administration with requisite manpower with a view to ensuring expeditious disposal of
disciplinary cases. The Ministries/Departments may, where appropriate, consider setting up of a monitoring cell to review and
monitor the progress of all pending Disciplinary Inquiries on a day-to-day basis, with a view to ensuring their timely conclusion.
(DOPT OM No.372/19/2011-AVD-III(Pt.I) dated 26.09.2011)

70. Accountability for delay in decision making

A Core Group on Administrative Reforms (CGAR) has been constituted under the Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary in
February, 2003 to formulate specific changes in the systems and procedures in consultation with the ministries/departments
concerned and to advise strategies for changing attitudes. The Core Group has decided that the existing provisions about
accountability mechanism should be reiterated with a view to bring to everyone's notice that these provisions are adequate for
initiating disciplinary proceedings when an officer adopts a dilatory attitude leading to delay in decision-making and/or harassment
of the public.
2. In view of the above, the following provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are brought to the notice of all
Ministries/Departments for information and necessary action: -
Rule 3. General
(1) Every Government servant shall at all times -
(i) Maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) Maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant.
(2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to
duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority;
(ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act
otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior;
Explanation I - A Government servant who habitually fails to perform the task assigned to him within the time set for the
purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning
of clause (ii) sub-rule (1).
Explanation II: - Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be constructed as empowering a Government servant to evade his
responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not necessary
under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.
Rule 3A. Promptness and Courtesy
No Government servant shall
(a) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner;
(b) in his official dealing with the public or otherwise adopt dilatory tactics or willfully cause delays in disposal of the work assigned
to him.
3. Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the penalties (ranging from 'censure' to 'dismissal') mentioned therein may
be imposed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons'. Thus any Government servants violating the provisions of
Conduct Rules can be proceeded against as it will form 'good and sufficient reasons' for imposing the penalties prescribed in Rule 11.
In other words, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated if an officer adopts a dilatory attitude, leading to delay in decisions making
and/or harassment of the public.
4. Ministries/Departments are also requested to bring the above cited provision of the Conduct Rules and CCS Rules to the notice
of all the officers and officials in the Ministry/Department (proper) and in the organizations/offices under their administrative control
to clarify that if they are found responsible for willful delay in the disposal of the various types of cases dealt with by them, finally
leading to delay in decisions making, they shall be liable for disciplinary action in terms of the relevant provision referred to in para 2
and 3 of this OM.
(DOPT No. 11013/2/2004-Estt (A) dated 16.02.2004)

71. Authorization of the Central Government of file an application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance,
1944 for attachment of the money or property acquired by any person by means of the scheduled offence.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this office OM of even number dated 13.05.2009 whereby instructions were issued
regarding authorization of the Central Government to file an application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1944 for attachment of the money or property procured by means of the scheduled offence by the person, who is
employed in connection with affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central
Government.

37
2. References have been received in this office pointing out the difficulties in the matter of authorization of the Central
Government to file Authorization of the Central Government to file an application under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1944 for attachment of the money or property procured by means of the Scheduled offence in respect of persons who
retired before filling the charge sheet, or in the cases where the competent authority cannot be equated with the Central
Government.
3. The matter has been examined in consultation with Ministry of Law & Justice (Deptt. of Legal Affairs) and position is clarified as
below: -
(i) In the case of retired public servants, even though the change sheets are filed without obtaining sanction for prosecution under
section 19 (1) of the PC Act, 1988, the Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant
from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed should be competent to give authorization of the
Central Government to file an application u/s 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 for attachment of money or
property procured by means of scheduled offences.
(ii) In the cases where the Competent authority cannot be equated with the Central Government, the administrative Ministries of
the concerned competent authorities should be competent to give authorization of the Central Government to file an application u/s
3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 for attachment of money or property procured by means of scheduled
offences.
(iii) The cases, which are not covered by the above dispensation or under the instructions issued vide OM dated 13th May, 2009,
may continue to be processed as per the practice prevalent before the issue of OM dated 13th May, 2009.
(DOPT No. 219/12/2009-AVD. II dated 19.01.2012)

72. Simultaneous action of prosecution in a court and initiation of departmental proceedings

The undersigned is directed to refer to this M.H.A O.M.No. 39/30/54-Ests. dated the 7th June 1955 and No. 39/8/64-Ests. dated
the 4th Sept. 1964 on the above subject which state that prosecution should be the general rule in all cases which are found fit to be
sent to Court and in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial public
funds and that such cases departmental action should not precede prosecution. References are being received in this Department
seeking the clarification as to whether departmental action can also be taken where the same matter has been taken up in a court of
competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the Government servant concerned.
2. What may be deduced from the above instructions is that, in serious cases involving offences such as bribery/corruption, etc
action should be launched for prosecution as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in their various judgments the
important ones being State of Rajasthan v B.K.Meera and others {1996 6 SCC 417} Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines
Limited (1993 3 SCC 679), KendriyaVidyalayaSangathan and others v T. Srinivas (2004 (6) SCALE 467) and Noida Entrepreneurs'
Association v. Noida (JT 2007 (2) SC 620) that merely because a criminal trial is pending, a departmental inquiry involving the very
same charges as is involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and
disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent
is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be whereas in the criminal
proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against the Government Servant are established and if, established,
what sentence can be imposed on him. In serious nature of cases like acceptance of illegal gratification, the desirability of continuing
the concerned Government servant in service in spite of the serious charges leveled against him may have to be considered by the
Competent Authority to proceed with departmental action.
3. However if the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questioned of law and fact, it would
be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. This will depend upon the nature of
offence and the evidence and material collected against the Government servant during investigation or as reflected in the charge
sheet. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if they were
kept pending on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an
early date so that if the employee is found not guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest if the case so warrants.
4. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Sarvesh Berry (2004 (10) SCALE Page 340), it has been held in Para 9 that
"it is not desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may not be stayed pending
trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the
charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The Apex Court has referred to the
conclusions given in Para 22 of Captain M. Paul Anthony's case.
5. It is therefore, clarified that stay of disciplinary proceedings is not a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the very
same charges and the concerned authority may decide on proceeding with the departmental proceedings after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of each case and the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs.
6. All Ministries/Departments are therefore requested to keep in view the above guidelines while dealing with cases of criminal
misconduct of Government servants.
(DOPT O.M. 11012/6/2008-Estt/A dated 1.8.2007)

73. Accountability for delay in decision making

A core Group on Administrative Reforms (CGAR) has been constituted under the chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary in February.
2003 to formulate specific changes in the systems and procedures in consultation with the ministries/departments concerned and to
advise strategies for changing attitudes. The Core Group has decided that the existing provisions about accountability mechanism
should be reiterated with a view to bring to everyone's notice that these provisions are adequate for initiating disciplinary
proceedings when an officer adopts a dilatory attitude leading to delay in decision - making and/or harassment of the public.

38
(ii) In view of the above the following provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are brought to the notice of all
Ministries/Departments for information and necessary action: -
Rule 3 General
(1) Every Government servant shall at all times-
(i) maintain absolute integrity;
(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant
(2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to
duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority;
(ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act
otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior;
Explanation I :- A Government servant who habitually fails to perform the task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose
and with the equality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of
clause (ii) of sub rule (I).
Explanation II : - Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be construed as empowering a Government servant to evade his
responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of , a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not
necessarily under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.
Rule 3A promptness and courtesy
No Government servant shall
(a) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner;
(b) in his official dealings with the public or otherwise adopt dilatory tactics or willfully cause delays in disposal of the work
assigned to him.
3. Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the penalties (ranging from 'censure' to 'dismissal') mentioned therein may
be imposed on a Government servant 'for good and sufficient reasons'. Thus any Government servants violating the provisions of
conduct Rules can be proceeded against as it will form 'good and sufficient reasons' for imposing the penalties prescribed in Rule 11.
In other words, disciplinary proceedings could be initiated if an officer adopts a dilatory attitude, leading to delay in decisions making
and/ or harassment of the public.
4. Ministries/Departments are also requested to bring the above cited provisions of the Conduct Rules and CCA Rules to the notice of
all the officers and officials in the Ministry/Department (proper) and in the organizations/offices under their administrative control
to clarify that if they are found responsible for willful delay in disposal of the various types of cases dealt with by them, finally leading
to delay in decision making, they shall be liable for disciplinary action in terms of the relevant provisions referred to in para 2 and 3
of this OM.
(DO P&T L. No. 11013/2/2004-Estt. (A) dt: 16.02.2009)

74. Action against absconding officials

The cases of loss and fraud are usually reported to the police and the officials involved are placed under suspension. A scrutiny
of these cases reveals that some of the departmental officials are involved in such cases abscond and are not apprehended by the
police. The official continued to be under suspension till they surrender or are apprehended by the police and prosecuted. This
results in two things, firstly, the cases drag on for a long time and secondly, if any when the absconding officials are apprehended
and proceeded against they are required to be paid the subsistence allowance if they produce a certificate of non-employment.
2. After careful consideration it has been decided that in such cases the competent disciplinary authorities may take the following
action: -
(a) A certificate should be obtained from the local police authorities to the effect that the whereabouts of the officials concerned
are not known. This certificate should be placed on record in the concerned file.
(b) A brief statement of allegations and charges should be prepared and kept on the file.
(c) The disciplinary authority should himself record on the file the fact that the whereabouts of the officials concerned are not
known and that the police authorities have also certified to that effect and therefore, it is not reasonably practicable to hold the
inquiry contemplated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority can then taken recourse to Rule 19 (ii) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherein enquiry has to be dispensed with. Reasons for not holding enquiry should then be recorded in writing
and the disciplinary authority should issue orders imposing such penalty as it deems fit. The allegations and charges have to be
briefly discussed in the punishment that could be meted out would be either removal or dismissal from service.
(DG P&T No. 4-22/PT-72/INV dated the 04.07.1972)

75. Disciplinary action against those officials who are supplied uniforms and not wearing them while on duty
The staff who are supplied uniforms should be required to put on those uniforms on duty. It was also stated that the wearing of
proper uniforms by the staff would be insisted upon and any failure on their part in this regard, without adequate reasons, should be
treated as an act of misconduct and dealt with accordingly.
2. It has, however, been observed for some ime that in spite of above orders and several other repeated instructions on the
subject issued from time to time, many of the officials who are required to wear uniforms and also escape without action against
them.
3. The growing tendency on the part of the officials to avoid the wearing of uniforms on duty has, to some extent, included a
sense other problems. This has caused inconvenience to the public.
4. It is hereby ordered that officials, after three defaults should be liable for disciplinary action and may not be accepted on duty
and can, in addition, be debarred from supply of uniforms. An entry must be made in their record. Supervisory staff should carry out
periodical weekly or bi-weekly kit inspections and take action against the defaulting officials.

39
5. Requested to take necessary steps to ensure that the officials who are supplied with uniforms wear the while on duty and take
disciplinary action against the erring regular carry out the inspections properly and at regular intervals needs also be taken to task for
dereliction of duty.
(DG Posts No. 26-2/2002-UPE, dated 27-3-2002)

76. Action against Government servants who get appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates
The undersigned is directed to invite reference to this Department's OM No.11012/7/91-Estt.(A) dated 19.5.1993 which
provides as under:-
"Wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc., for
initial recruitment in service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he
should not be retained in service. If, he is probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his services
should be terminated. If he has become a permanent Government servant, an inquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules,
1965 may be held and if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no
circumstances should any penalty be imposed".
2. The position was reiterated vide this Department's OM No.42011/22/2006-Estt.(Res.) dated the 29th March,2007 that the cases
other than those protected by the specific order of the Apex Court should be dealt with in accordance with the instructions
contained in the aforesaid O.M. However, it has been observed that disciplinary proceedings in the cases involving appointments on
the basis of false/fake caste certificates take considerable time and the persons who have secured employment on the basis of false
caste certificates enjoy the benefits of Government service whereas such Government servants should be removed/ dismissed from
the service at the earliest.
3. It is requested that disciplinary enquiries involving the matter of securing jobs on the basis of false/fake certificates should be
completed in a time bound manner and unscrupulous persons who have got appointment on the basis of fake/ false caste
certificates should not be retained in service and should be dismissed/ removed thenceforth.
4. Contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
(DOPT No.36011/1/2012-Estt. (Res.) dated 10.01.2013)

77. Strengthening of Vigilance set-up in Ministries/Departments-reg.

The undersigned is directed to refer to Department's Office Memorandum No. 372/19/2011-AVD-III(Pt.I) dated 26th
September, 2011 regarding strengthening of vigilance set-up in Ministries/Departments, wherein, on the basis of a recommendation
made by the Group of Ministers to tackle Corruption, which was accepted by the Government, all the Ministries/Departments were
advised to strengthen their vigilance administration with requisite manpower with a view to ensuring expeditious disposal of
disciplinary cases. It was also advised therein to consider, where appropriate, setting up of a monitoring cell in each
Ministry/Department to review and monitor the progress of all pending disciplinary cases on a day-to-day basis, with a view to
ensuring their timely conclusion.
2. Further, in order to assess the work load relating to vigilance administration and the adequacy of present vigilance set-up to
handle such volume of work in various Ministries/Departments to meet the challenges posed by the ever increasing volume of
vigilance related work, information was called for from all Ministries/Departments vide this Department's D.O. of even number
dated 17th July, 2012.
3. On the basis of an analysis of statistics received from various Ministries/Departments, the following guidelines are issued for
strengthening of vigilance set up in the Ministries/Departments.
i. It should be ensured that that the Administration and Vigilance Wing are exclusively separate from each other in each
Ministry/Department. Para 2.9 of vigilance manual issued by CVC indicates that participation in decision making or close association
of vigilance staff in such matters over which they might be required, at a later stage, to sit in judgment from vigilance point of view,
should be avoided. Therefore, vigilance functionaries should not be a party to processing and decision-making processes or in other
similar administrative transactions of such nature, which are likely to have clear vigilance sensitivity. While it may not be difficult for
full-time vigilance functionaries to comply with this requirement, the compliance of these instructions could be achieved in respect
of part-time vigilance functionaries by confining their duties, other than those connected with vigilance work, as far as possible, to
such items of work that are either free from vigilance angle or serve as input to vigilance activities such as inspection, audit, etc.
These instructions should be adhered to strictly.
ii. Secretary of the Ministry/Department should review the pending disciplinary proceeding cases and sanction of prosecution
cases each month like monitoring of VIP references/RTI cases.
iii. Some Ministries/Departments are not sending the quarterly report on action plan on anti-corruption measures in the
prescribed proforma as per DoP&T's D.O. No. 321/1/2005-AVD-III dated 9th May, 2005. Each Ministry/Department should send this
quarterly report regularly.
iv. From the inputs received from the Ministries/Departments, it has been observed that in some Ministries/Departments where
the numbers of complaints/DP cases are very high but the CVO is part time and the officers/staff in the vigilance unit are not
sufficient. Therefore, each Ministry/Department should conduct an SU study of its Vigilance Division so that officers/staff may be
posted as per requirement vis-à-vis volume of work.
v. Vide DoPT's OM No. 372/19/2011-AVD-III(Pt.I) dated 26.09.2011, all the Ministries/Departments were requested that they may,
where appropriate, consider setting up of a monitoring cell to review and monitor the progress of all pending disciplinary inquiries
on a day-to-day basis, with a view to ensuring their timely conclusion. However, it has been observed that barring a few
Ministries/Departments, such monitoring cell is yet to be set up by the Ministries/Departments. All Ministries/Departments may
send an action taken report on setting up of a monitoring cell, to this department within a month from the receipt of these
guidelines.

40
4. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to follow the above guidelines in letter and spirit to strengthen their vigilance set
up.
(DOPT No.425/01/2012-AVD-IV(A) dated 30.11.2012)

78. Disciplinary cases should be closed on the death of the charged official
The Govt. has been receiving references seeking clarification whether disciplinary cases initiated against the Government servant
under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, could be closed in the event of death of the charged officer during pendency of the proceedings. After
careful consideration of all the aspects, it has been decided that where a Government servant dies during the pendency of the
inquiry i.e. without charges being proved against him, imposition of any of the penalties prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965,
would not be justifiable. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings should be closed immediately on the death of the alleged Government
servant.
2. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department we concerned, this issues with the concurrence of
the C&AG
(DOPT OM No. 11012/7/99-Estt (A) dated 20.10.1999)

79. Classification of central services - Govt. notification dated 9.4.2009

S.O. 946(E),- In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause 5 of article 148 of the Constitution
read with rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and in supersession, of the notification
of the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training number S.O. 332(E) dated the 20th day of April, 1998 and
after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the President hereby directs that with
effect from the date of publication of this order in the Official Gazette, all civil posts under the Union, shall be classified as follows:-

S. No. Description of Posts Classification of Posts

(1) (2) (3)
1. (a) A Central Civil post in Cabinet Secretary’s scale (Rs. Group A
90000-Fixed), Apex Scale (Rs. 80000-Fixed) and Higher
Administrative Grade plus scale (Rs. 75500-80000); and
(b) A Central Civil post carrying the following grade pays: -
Rs. 12000, RS. 10000, Rs. 8900 and Rs. 8700 in the scale
of pay of Rs. 37400-67000 in Pay Band – 4, and Rs. 6600
and Rs. 5400 in the scale of pay of Rs. 15600-39100 in Pay
Band – 3
2. A Central Civil Post carrying the following grade pays: - Group ‘B’
Rs. 5400, Rs. 4800, Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4200 in the scale of
pay of Rs. 9300-34800 in pay Band – 2
3. A Central Civil Post carrying the following grade pays: Group C
Rs. 1300, Rs. 1400, Rs. 1600 Rs. 1650 in the scale of pay
of Rs. 4440-7440 in IS scale.
4 A Central Civil Post carrying the following grade pays:- Group D
Rs. 1300, Rs. 1400, Rs. 1600, Rs. 1650 in the scale of pay (Till the posts are
of Rs. 4440-7440 in IS scale upgraded)

Explanation: For the purpose of this order pay Band, in relation to a post, means the running Pay Bands specified in Part-A Section 1
of Column 5 of the First Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.
(DOPT OM .No 11012/7/2008-Estt. (A) dated 09.04.2009)

80. Competent to investigate into fraud and loss cases and what are their monetary limits
On the basis of deliberations of the heads of circlesin July, 1992, It has been decided to revise the present monetary limits
for handling of loss and fraud cases for conducting the investigation as under: -

Designation Present limit Revised limit

(A) IPO/ASPOs/IRM/ASRM Upto Rs. 5,000/- Upto Rs. 10,000/-
(B) Divl. Supdts/Sr. Supdt. of POs/RMS Chief Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- to
Postmaster/Dy. PPM (Bombay and Calcutta Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
GPOs)
(C) Astt. Director/APMG (INV) in the Circle office Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- to
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
(D) Director Postal Services/Directors Calcutta Above Above
and Bombay GPOs/ Postmasters General Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/-

Note:-
(i) Investigations into losses between Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- in GPOs at Calcutta and Bombay will be got done by the
Chief Postmasters General through ADPS / APMG (INV) of the Circle Office.
(ii) This revision is being done to avoid delays in the investigation correctly noted at Circle / Regional level.
2. Hereafter, only those cases in which loss exceeds Rs. 50,000/- will be reported to Directorate. The cases up to Rs. 50,000/-
will be disposed of at the level of CPMG / PMG.

41
3. In respect of current cases up to Rs. 50,000/- already reported to the Directorate, no further reports need be sent to the
Investigations Section of the Directorate. These cases will be technically closed in the Investigation Section of Directorate. These
will now be pursued at Circle / Regional level.

4. However, in such of those current cases where initial loss does not exceed Rs. 50,000/-, the verification of the past work has not
been completed, it should be discovered as a result of the verification of the past work that the loss involved has exceeded Rs.
50,000/-, the same should be intimated to the Directorate so that the case can be re-opened in the Investigation Section and brought
on the current list of cases for monitoring their progress by the Investigation Section.
5. In respect of cases involving loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- or more investigations from the Directorate may also be undertaken. However,
cases with loss exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/- shall continue to be investigated and processed by the Circles.
6. Review of cases - Half yearly review reports of loss and fraud cases exceeding Rs. 50,000/- shall continue to be submitted to the
Directorate. In respect of other fraud cases analysis of the cases, patterns of frauds if any found and any novel methods of
defrauding the department should be reported to the Directorate.
7. Following procedure for review of cases up to Rs. 50,000/- in the Circle is prescribed to be followed:-
(a) Cases investigated by IPO / ASPOs/IRM/ASRM up to Rs. 10,000/- will be reviewed by the Divisional Superintendents concerned
or Sr/Chief Postmaster and Dy. PM of Bombay and Calcutta GPOs as the case may be.
(b) Cases investigated upto Rs. 25,000/- by the Divisional Superintendents / Sr/Chief Postmaster in charge Investigation will be
reviewed in the Circle Office by the ADPS / APMG (INV) and submitted to the DPS for information and orders. As regards Bombay
and Calcutta GPOs, the review in such cases will be submitted to the Director Bombay and Calcutta GPOs.
(c) Cases investigated by the ADPS / APMG (investigation) of Circle Offices will be reviewed by the DPS and put upto PMG / CPMG
for information and orders.
8. The investigation in the cases involving amounts over Rs. 50,000/- will be carried out by the Director and by the PMG. The
assistance of the IFA or an A.O. of the Postal Account Office or Regional Office should also be taken with regard to investigations in
these cases. It has to be ensured that investigations at Circle / Regional Office level are not delayed on the pretext of non-availability
of an Accounts Officer.
9. In cases where the loss exceeds Rs. 5 lakhs, Directorate may also undertake investigations at the discretion of Member Postal
Services Board / Secretary (P) with the help of representative of IFA Branch. The investigations by the Directorate will not substitute
the investigation by the Circles which is primarily their responsibility.
10. In every case where the loss exceeds Rs. 50,000/- an intimation by telegram, telex or fax, wherever facility is available, should be
sent in the first instance to ADG (Investigation).
11. Heads of Circles will maintain necessary statistical data in respect of loss / fraud cases pertaining to different Regions in the circle
office.
The monetary slabs fixed above for personal investigation by union grades of officers related to the amount of loss in each
case and not to the amount involved. Amount actually recovered at the time of detection should also be off set against the total
amount of loss for determining as to which authority should investigate a case. The primary responsibility investigation of cases shall
however continue rest with the Divl. Supdt.as laid down in Rule 207 of P & T Man. Vol. V & 41 (P) No. 6-9/72- Nov. dt.31.10.73.
(DG (P) No. 8-5/92-INV dated 24.09.1992)

81. Joint Representation from Govt. Servants to be viewed as subversive of discipline

It has been held that making of joint representations by Govt. servants should be viewed as subversive of discipline and
such representations should not, therefore, be entertained. Every Govt. servant making a representation should do so separately and
his own name.
(Min. W.H. & S.A.V. No. 305, dated 21.02.1967)

82. Provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965
14(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any
imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under
the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule 3 C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964, the complaints Committee established in each ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall
be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed
(DOP&T No. 2101/11/2005-Estt (A) (Pt-II) dated 23.7.2009)

83. Minor Penalty proceedings be finalized before Retirement

The President has the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or a part thereof either permanently or for specified
period and to order recovery from the pension of the whole or a part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service
including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement vide sub rule (1) of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) rule 1972. Sub-rule
(2) of the rule provides that the departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted before the retirement of a
Government Servant or during his re-employment, shall after his final retirement be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and
shall be continued and concluded. Accordingly, the minor penalty proceedings which are instituted against a Government Servant
while in service and which do not get concluded before the date of retirement, automatically become proceedings under Rule 9 ibid.
However, since grave misconduct or negligence cannot be established as a result of minor penalty proceedings, action under Rule
ibid. for withholding or withdrawing pension, etc. cannot be taken against a pensioner in respect of whom minor penalty
proceedings had been instituted and have been continued after retirement. Such minor penalty proceedings continued after

42
retirement, therefore, do not literally have any effect on the pension in the matter of reducing or withholding of his pension. The
disciplinary authorities are requested to take note of this position and take steps to see that minor penalty proceedings instituted
against Government servants, who are due to retire, are finalized quickly and in time before the date of retirement, so that the need
for continuing such minor penalty proceedings beyond the date of retirement does not arise.
( M.H.A, O.M. No. 134/17/80-AVD I dated 28.02.1981)

84. Final orders in Disciplinary cases should be passed within three months
1. The undersigned in directed to say that the U.P.S.C in its 47th annual Report for the year 1996-97 has observed, inter alia as
follows:
"(iv) in passing orders by the Disciplinary Authorities also, delays still continue to occur.
Three were 175 cases as against 145 cases last year where orders were pending for issue for over six months."
2. Attention is invited in this connection to the instructions contained in the O.M. No. 39/43/70-Estt. (A), dated 8.1.1971 where in it
has been envisaged that it should normally be possible for the Disciplinary Authority to take a final decision on the enquiry report
within a period of three months. In cases where it is felt that it is not possible to adhere to this time-limit, a report may be submitted
to the next higher authority indicating the additional period required and reasons for the same. It should also be ensured that cases
involving consultation with the CVC and UPSC are disposed of as quickly as possible.
3. Though no specific time-limit has been prescribed in the above OM in respect of case where consultation with CVC and UPSC is
required, it is imperative that the time limit of three months prescribed for other cases should be adhered to in such cases after
receipt of the advice of the UPSC. All Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to dispose of disciplinary cases as quickly as
possible within the time limit indicated above.
(DOPT O.M. No. 11012/21/98-Estt. (A) dated 11.11.1998)

85. Revised time limit for grant/refusal of permission under the provisions of CCS (Conduct) rules

The following time limits for granting or refusing permission have been prescribed with immediate effect.

S. Rule Provision relating to Time limit

N.
1. 8 (2) Connection with press or radio
Gifts
13 (4) Transaction in movable and 30 days
18 (2) Immovable property.

18 (3)
2. 19 (1) Vindication for acts and 6 weeks
character of Government
servant
3. 18 (a) Transactions in immovable 60 days
property outside India or with
foreigners.

In the event of failure on the part of competent authority to communicate its decision within the time limits, the employee
shall be free to assume that permission has been granted to him.
(DOPT OM No. 11013(2)/88-Estt. (A), dated 07.07.1988)

86. Adherence to time-limit in processing of Disciplinary cases

It has been observed that the schedule of time-limit in conducting investigation and departmental inquiries laid down in
Commission's letter of even number, dated the 23rd May 2000 are not being strictly adhered to. In this context attention is invited to
Department of Personal and Training O.M. No. 11.013/2/2004-Estt. (A) dated the 16th February, 2004, regarding accountability for
delay in decision making.
Delay in decision - making by authorities in processing of vigilance cases would also be construed as misconduct under the
relevant Conduct Rules and would be liable to attract penal action. All administrative authorities are requested to take note and
strictly adhere to the prescribed schedule of time -limit in dealing with disciplinary cases.
(CVC No. 51/08/2004, dated 10.08.2004)

87. Disciplinary cases should be closed on the death of the charged official
The Government has been receiving references seeking clarification whether disciplinary cases initiated against the
Government servant under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, could be closed in the event of death of the charged officer during pendency of
the proceedings. After careful consideration of all the aspects, it has been decided that where a Government servant dies during the
pendency of the of the inquiry i.e. without charges being proved against him, imposition of any of the penalties prescribed under the
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, would not be justifiable. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings should be closed immediately on the death of
the alleged Government servant.
2. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, this issues with the concurrence of
the C & AG.
(DOPT O.M. No. 11012/7/99-Estt. (A) dated 20.10.1999)

43
88. Waival of prosecution
A question was raised on the exercise of powers of waival of prosecution by the Addl. Postmaster General. A few circles,
supporting the exercise of such powers by Addl. PMG, suggested that these powers should be exercised by Addl. Postmaster General
only where the loss has been made good.
II. After consideration of the issue involved, it is clarified that normally in all cases which involved an amount of more than
Rs. 5000/- prosecution should be launched, irrespective of recovery of loss either in full or in part. The waival of prosecution should
be considered only in case where there is no sufficient evidence for successful prosecution and consequent conviction of the
principal offender. There is, therefore, no nexus between the waival of prosecution and the extent of loss made good by or on
behalf of principal offender.
III. (i) As regards the exercise of the powers of prosecution by the Addl. Postmaster General, it is made clear that in as much as the
Addl. PMG have separate identifiable jurisdiction, there is no objection for them to exercise the powers of waival of prosecution,
subject, of course, to other conditions, stipulated thereon.
(DG (P) No. 8-5/RLG/8-INV dated 01.02.1988)

89. Attendance at the office during suspension

It has held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that during the period of suspension a direction to attend the office and
make attendance at the office daily during working hours is illegal
(MHA OM No. 142/2/83/ADV-I dated06.04.1983)

90. Reasons for cancellation of original charge-sheet to be mentioned when fresh charge sheet issued
It is clarified that once the proceedings initiated under Rule 14 or Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and dropped, the
Disciplinary Authorities would be debarred from initiating fresh proceedings against the delinquent officers unless the reasons for
cancellation of the original charge-sheet or for dropping the proceedings are appropriately mentioned and it is duly stated in the
order that the proceedings were being dropped without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the circumstance of
the case. It is, therefore, important that when the intention is to issue a subsequent fresh charge sheet, the order canceling the
original one or dropping the proceedings should be carefully worded so as to mention the reasons for such an action and indicating
the intention of issuing a subsequent charge-sheet appropriate to the nature of charges the same was based on.
(DG (P&T) No. 114/324/78-Disc. II, dated 5.7.1979)

91. Amendment to the provisions of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 regarding review of suspension
The undersigned is directed to refer to the provisions of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965 and to say that the provisions regarding deemed suspension have since been reviewed by this Department.
2. The provisions in Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules have been modified and amendments to the same have been notified in Notification
No. GSR 105, dated 06-06-2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 16-06-2007.
3. As per the original provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the provision for review within ninety days was applicable to
all types of suspensions. However, in cases of continued detention, the review becomes a mere formality with no consequences, as a
Government servant in such a situation has to continue to be under deemed suspension. It has, therefore been decided that a review
of suspension shall not be necessary in such cases. Accordingly, a provision has now been added to sub-rule (7) of the said Rule 10 as
follows:
"Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the
Government servant continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days' of suspension and the ninety days
period for review in such cases will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or
the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his Appointing Authority, whichever is later."
4. In deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), the date of order of suspension may be much later than the deemed date of suspension.
With a view to making these provisions explicit, sub rule (6) of the aforesaid Rule 10 has now been amended to substitute the words
"ninety days from the date of order of suspension". Consequent upon this amendment, it would henceforth be necessary to
specifically indicate in the orders of suspension the effective date of suspension.
5. Sub-rule (7) of the aforesaid Rule 10 stipulates that" Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a), an order of
suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub -rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days
unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days." "Sub-rule (5) (a) of the aforesaid Rule 10 has,
therefore, now been amended to read as follows:
"Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this
rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so." Consequently, the words
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a)" stated in sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 have become redundant and have therefore
been deleted.
6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these amendments have been made in
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
7. All Ministries/Departments are requested to please bring the aforementioned amendments of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities under their control and ensure that review of the orders of suspension is conducted
strictly in conformity with the amended provisions thereof.
(DG (P) No. 51-1/2004-SPB-II 13.02.2004)

92. Clear findings on disciplinary cases required

44
 In this office Memo No. 6/20/58-Disc dated the 18.03.1959 a form for the charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules had been prescribed. Cases still occur where neither the prescribed form is used
nor there is any indication in the charge sheet that action was contemplated under that Rule. Unless, therefore, the disciplinary
authorities use the prescribed form or indicate in the charge sheet that action was proposed under Rule 16 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification and Control and Appeal) Rules 1957, or that it was proposed to impose a particular penalty, the proceedings
become liable to be halted.
One of the penalties prescribed in Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 is
recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt. This penalty can be imposed, only when it has been
established that the Govt. Servant concerned was negligent in the performance of his duties or was responsible for breach of rules or
orders and that the loss was caused by such negligence or breach. It has come to notice, that in quite a few cases, punishment orders
do not contain a finding on these two important issues in clear and precise term. In some, the relation between negligence or breach
of orders or rules and the loss is left out while in some this relation is so closely described as would be enable of a construction other
than that intended. As such punishment orders are liable to be successfully challenged. It is necessary that the disciplinary
authorities word these orders carefully and in conformity with the language of the rule. In other words, they must contain a clear
finding on the following points.
(1) That the Govt. servant was responsible for a particular act or acts of negligence or breach of orders or rules and
(2) That such negligence and/or breach of orders or rules caused the loss.
It is of course necessary that the punishment order should discuss the case fully so as to clearly bring out that the
finding/findings have been arrived at after the punishing authority has applied his mind thereto.
(DG (P&T) No.25/49/60 Disc dated 30.11.1960)

93. Simultaneous action of prosecution in a court and initiation of departmental proceedings

The undersigned is directed to refer to this M.H.A O.M. No. 39/30/54-Ests. dated the 7th June 1955 and No. 39/8/64-Ests.
dated the 4th Sept. 1964 on the above subject which state that prosecution should be the general rule in all cases which are found fit
to be sent to Court and in which the offences are of bribery, corruption or other criminal misconduct involving loss of substantial
public funds and that such cases departmental action should not precede prosecution. References are being received in this
Department seeking the clarification as to whether departmental action can also be taken where the same matter has been taken up
in a court of competent jurisdiction for prosecution of the Government servant concerned.
2. What may be deduced from the above instructions is that, in serious cases involving offences such as bribery/corruption,
etc action should be launched for prosecution as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in their various judgments
the important ones being State of Rajasthan v B.K.Meera and others {1996 6 SCC 417} Capt. M. Paul Anthony v Bharat Gold Mines
Limited (1993 3 SCC 679), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others v T. Srinivas (2004 (6) SCALE 467) and Noida Entrepreneurs'
Association v. Noida (JT 2007 (2) SC 620) that merely because a criminal trial is pending, a departmental inquiry involving the very
same charges as is involved in the criminal proceedings is not barred. The approach and objective in the criminal proceedings and
disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings, the question is whether the respondent
is guilty of such conduct as would merit his removal from service or a lesser punishment, as the case may be whereas in the criminal
proceedings, the question is whether the offences registered against the Government Servant are established and if, established,
what sentence can be imposed on him. In serious nature of cases like acceptance of illegal gratification, the desirability of continuing
the concerned Government servant in service in spite of the serious charges leveled against him may have to be considered by the
Competent Authority to proceed with departmental action.
3. However if the charge in the criminal case is of a grave nature which involves complicated questioned of law and fact, it
would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. This will depend upon the nature of
offence and the evidence and material collected against the Government servant during investigation or as reflected in the charge
sheet. If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings even if they were
kept pending on account of the pendency of the criminal case can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an
early date so that if the employee is found not guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest if the case so warrants.
4. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Sarvesh Berry (2004 (10) scale Page 340), it has been held in Para 9
that "it is not desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may not be stayed
pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and
circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the
charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. The Apex Court has referred to the
conclusions given in Para 22 of Captain M. Paul Anthony's case.
5. It is therefore, clarified that stay of disciplinary proceedings is not a must in every case where there is a criminal trial on the
very same charges and the concerned authority may decide on proceeding with the departmental proceedings after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of each case and the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs.
6. All Ministries/Departments are therefore requested to keep in view the above guidelines while dealing with cases of
criminal misconduct of Government servants.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/6/2008-Estt/A dated 01.08.2007)

94. Supply of a copy of statement during the enquiry:

It has been suggested that a copy of the oral statements of witnesses recorded from day to day in a departmental enquiry
should be furnished to the delinquent official by the Inquiry officer at the close of the day's proceedings and before the delinquent
official himself is called upon to make his own statement before the Inquiry Officer. The matter has been considered in detail and it
has been decided that there should be no objection in supplying copies of the oral statements of witness recorded by the Inquiry

45
Officer to the delinquent official, before calling him to make his own statements, if a specific request to this effect is made by the
delinquent official before recording of oral statements starts.
(D.G., P.&T No. 20/26/25-Disc., dated the 17.9.1966 and Para 93, P.&T. Manual, Vol. III)
If an accused officer fails to turn up at the enquiry or refuses to participate in the enquiry, a copy of the various pieces of
oral or documentary evidence let in during the enquiry should be supplied to the accused officer.
(Rule 94, P.&T. Manual, Vol.III)

95. Forwarding a copy of inquiry officer report to delinquent before passing of final order:-
1. The issue as to whether in cases, where disciplinary authority itself is not the Inquiry officer, a copy of the inquiry report
should be furnished to the accused Government servant to enable him to make his submissions, if any before the disciplinary
authority in regard to the findings of the report, before such authority passes its final orders, has been examined. The constitutional
requirements laid down in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Rule 15 and 17 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 and rulings of the various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and of various courts on the matter have been kept in
view.

2. The full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Premnath Sharma, V. Union of India (represented by
Ministry of Railways) have held that to fulfill the constitutional requirement of affording a reasonable opportunity, it is necessary
that in all cases where the disciplinary authority is itself not the inquiry authority, a copy of the inquiry report shall be furnished to
the accused Government servant to enable him to make his submissions in regard to the findings of the inquiry, before the
disciplinary authority passes it order imposing the penalty. While giving its verdict, the Full Bench had taken into account rulings of
the various courts pronounced earlier on this issue. Although the special leave petition filed by the Ministry of Railways against the
aforesaid judgment has been admitted for hearing and a stay order has been granted by the Supreme Court against its operation, the
various benches of the Tribunal continue to follow the ratio laid down by the Full Bench. The special leave petitions filed by the
concerned Ministries and Departments in some of the subsequent cases have not been admitted by the Supreme Court. In another
similar case of E. Bashyam V. Department of Atomic Energy, in the special leave petition filed by the Department against the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Supreme Court has expressed its view in favour of the principle laid down by
the Tribunal, but directed that the matter be referred to a large bench of the court.

3. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs
and it has been decided that in all cases, where an inquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, the disciplinary authority, if it is different from the inquiry authority shall before making a final order in the case,
forward a copy of the inquiry report to the Government servant concerned with the following endorsement.
"The report of the inquiry Officer is enclosed. The Disciplinary Authority will take a suitable decision after considering the
report. If you wish to make any representation or submission, you may do so in writing to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days of
receipt of this letter.

4. The aforesaid instructions will operate prospectively from the date of issue and accordingly will apply only in case where
the disciplinary authority is yet to pass orders. Past cases need not be reopened for consideration. These instructions will be
reviewed after the final decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Premnath K. Sharma and E. Bashyam.
(DOPT O.M. No. 11012/13/85-Est.(A), dated 26.06.1989)

96. Disciplinary authority should communicate the reasons in case of disagreement with the views of inquiry officer.
Vide O.M. No.11012/13/85-Estt.(A) dated the 26th June, 1989, on the subject mentioned above wherein it has been
prescribed that in all cases, where an inquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the
disciplinary authority, if it is different from the inquiring authority shall, before making final order in the case, forward a copy of the
Inquiry report to the Government servant concerned requiring him to submit within 15 days, his representation, if any, on the report
of the inquiring authority.
2. It was also stated that the said instructions will be reviewed after the final decision of the Supreme Court in the matter.
The Supreme Court has decided the matter finally in its Judgment, dated 1-10-1993, in the case of Managing Director (ECIL),
Hyderabad Vs. B. Darunakar (JT 1993 (6) SC.I). It has been held by the Supreme Court that wherever the Service Rules contemplate
an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority; the delinquent employee
will have the right to receive the inquiry officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. Necessary amendment
providing for supply of copy of inquiry officer's report to the delinquent employee has been made in Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 vide Notification No. 11012/4/94-Estt. (A), dated 3-5-1995. All disciplinary authorities are, therefore, required to comply with
the above-mentioned requirement without failure in all cases.
3. A question has been raised in this connection whether the disciplinary authority, when he decides to disagree with the
inquiry report, should also communicate the reasons for such disagreement to the charged officer. The issue has been considered in
consultation with the Ministry of Law and it has been decided that where the Inquiring Authority holds a charge as not proved and
the disciplinary authority takes a contrary view, the reasons for such disagreement in brief must be communicated to the charged
officer along with the Report of Inquiry so that the charged officer can make an effective representation. This procedure would
require the Disciplinary Authority to first examine the report as per the laid down procedure and formulate its tentative views before
forwarding the Report of Inquiry to the charged officer.
(DOPT O.M. No. 11012/22/94-Estt. (A), dated 27.11.1995)

97. Principal CPMG/CPMG shall be the revising authority, where the appellate authority is subordinate to them

46
 In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (VI) of sub-rule (I) of Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby specifies that in the case of Government servant serving in the Department of
Posts for whom the appellate authority is subordinate to the authority designated as the Principal Chief Postmaster-General or the
Chief Postmaster-General (other than the Chief Postmaster General of Senior Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the said Principal
Chief Postmaster General or the said Chief Postmaster-General, as the case may be, shall be the revising authority for the purpose of
exercising the powers under the said Rule 29.
(DG (P) No. C-11011/1/2001-VP, dated 29.05.2001)

98. Officials under suspension can be allowed to function as defence assistants

A question has been raised whether under the provisions of Rule 14 (8) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a Government
servant under suspension, is eligible to function as defence counsel, if his services are required by an accused official. The reply to
the question is that he has ceased to be Government servant, and as such, an official under suspension has full right to work as
defence assistant. This question was recently examined by the Kerala High Court and it was opined that there is no rule that a person
under suspension is not entitled to assist another Government servant in enquiry proceedings.
The above ruling may be kept in view while deciding similar cases.
(DG (P&T) No. 201/45/75, Disc. 11, dated03.07.1975)

99. Action against absconding officials

The cases of loss and fraud are usually reported to the police and the officials involved are placed under suspension. A
scrutiny of these cases reveals that some of the departmental officials are involved in such cases absconds and is not apprehended
by the police. The official continued to be under suspension till they surrender or are apprehended by the police and prosecuted.
This result in two things, firstly, the cases drag on for a long time and secondly, if and when the absconding officials are apprehended
and proceeded against they are required to be paid the subsistence allowance if they produce a certificate of non-employment.
2. After careful consideration it has been decided that in such cases the competent disciplinary authorities may take the
following actions:-
(a) A certificate should be obtained from the local police authorities to the effect that the whereabouts of the officials
concerned are not known. This certificate should be placed on record in the concerned file.
(b) A brief statement of allegations and charges should be prepared and kept on the file.
(c) The disciplinary authority should himself record on the file the fact that the whereabouts of the officials concerned are not
known and that the police authorities have also certified to that effect and therefore it is not reasonably practicable to hold the
inquiry contemplated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority can then take recourse to Rule 19 (ii) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 wherein enquiry has to be dispensed with. Reasons for not holding enquiry should then be recorded in writing
and the disciplinary authority should issue orders imposing such penalty as it deems fit. The allegations and charges have to be
briefly discussed in the punishment order. Normally in such cases the punishment that could be meted out would be either removal
or dismissal from service.
(DG (P&T) No. 4-22/PT-72/INV dated 04.07.1972)

100. Redress of grievances-recourse to courts of law by Government servants.

Attention of the Ministry of Finance etc. is invited to this Ministry's OM No. 25/3/59-Ests (A) dated 1-4-1959, on the
subject, in which it is stated inter-alia that when a Government servant wants to sue the Govt. in a court of law for redressal of
grievances arising out of service matters, he may informed that such permission is not necessary and that if he decides to sue the
Government, he may do so on his own responsibility. On reconsideration, it has been decided that in such cases, it would be enough
if the Government servant is informed that permission to sue the Government is not necessary, and it should not be added that 'if he
decides to have recourse to a court of law, he may do so on his own responsibility.'
(MHA No.25/29/63-ESTS (A) dated 26.11.1963)

101. Nominated Govt. servant to present the/case of delinquent official under Rule 14(8) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 – Refusal by
Superior authority to grant permission would not amount to denying the right of representation
In supersession of the instructions contained in this office letter No. 6/4/66-Disc. dated the 8th August, 1966 on the above
subject, I am directed to state that the question as to whether under the existing rules a Government servant nominated under Rule
14(8) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to present the case of a delinquent official could be refused permission by the disciplinary
authority has been considered in detail in consultation with the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law and the Central Vigilance
Commission. The position is that under Rule 14(8) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 a Government servant to present the case on his behalf.
In other word the rules to not vest any discretion in the disciplinary authority in regard to the nomination of a Government servant
to present the case of the delinquent official. However, if for any compelling reasons it is not practicable for the controlling authority
of the assisting Govt. servant to relieve him without undue delay without serious detriment to the public interest to present the case
of the delinquent officials, he should inform the Inquiry officer about it with reasons for being communicated to the accused officials,
and the Government servant nominated to assist the accused well in time as stated in this officer letter no. 6/8/67-Disc.
dated24.01.1968, forwarding the CVCs Letter No. 61/3/67-C dated 03.01.1968. In that case the accused official could choose any
other Government servant to assist him in the presentation of his case before the Inquiry officer.
(DG (P&T) No. 10/1/68 Disc dated 23.07.1969)

102. Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 43/103/64-AVD, dated 16th November 1965

47
The undersigned is directed to say that recommendations No. 26(v) and 99, contained in paragraphs 6.13 and 10.33 respectively of
the report of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, have been carefully considered in the light of the comments received from
the Ministries/Departments. The recommendations are reproduced below: -

“26(v): A good deal of harm is done by vague talk about corruption. This can be reduced only if there are agencies which a person
with a genuine complaint can approach for redress, with the assurance that he will be fully protected and that prompt and adequate
action will be taken where found justified. The Central Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance Organisation should be able to meet
this need in matters relating to complaints of corruption harassment, etc. It is essential that bonafide complainants should be
protected from harassment or victimization. The Ministry of Home Affairs should consider itself as having a special responsibility in
this regard.”
“Informants and witnesses should be afforded sufficient protection and should be saved from harassment”.
2. With the setting up of the Central Vigilance Commission the first part of recommendation 26(v) may be deemed to have been
implemented. Any person having a genuine complaint of corruption or lack of integrity on the part of a Government servant, can
approach the Central Vigilance Commission with the assurance that prompt and adequate action will be taken when found justified.

3. The later part of recommendation 26 (v) viz. that bona fide complainants should be protected from harassment or victimization
and recommendation 99 Viz. that informants and witnesses should be afforded sufficient protection and should be saved from
harassment, have been accepted in principle. Ministries/Departments etc., are requested to ensure that appropriate measures are
taken accordingly.

4. Attention is, however, invited in this connection to this Ministry’s Office Memorandum No. 151/1/65-AVD, dated 19 February,
1965 in which it has been decided that no action is to be taken on any anonymous/pseudonymous compliant. Attention is also
invited to para 8 of this Ministry’s Resolution No. 25/7/64-AVD, dated 11th February, 1964, setting up the Central Vigilance
Commission, in which it has been stated that the Central Vigilance Commission will take the initiative in prosecuting persons who are
found to have made false complaints of corruption or lack of integrity against public servants.

The Ministries/Departments are requested to bring this to the notice of all concerned and appraise the Central Vigilance Commission
directly of the measures taken by the Ministries etc., in pursuance of paragraph 3 above.

70. Central Vigilance Commission letter No. 4/8/73-R dated 27th March 1973
The Fifth Orientation Course for the Chief Vigilance Officers held at the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration, Musoorie
recommended as follows:

“Privilege of documents asked for by the Commissioners for Departmental Enquiries should be claimed with the approval of the
Head of the Department”.
Rule 14(12) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the Inquiring Authority shall call for the documents asked for by the accused
officer for his defence from the authority in whose custody of possession the documents are kept. Under proviso to sub-rule (13)
ibid, if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing that the production of all or any of such documents would be against the public interest or the security of the State, it shall
inform the Inquiring Authority accordingly.

2. The Ministry of Law have held that under the existing frame work of the rules no authority other than the Head of Department can
be said to have the custody or possession may be “constructive”. In the circumstances a subordinate authority is not competent to
claim privilege in respect of the requisitioned documents. The Authority concerned should transmit the requisition to the Heads of
the Departments for his decision and communicate the same to the Inquiring Authority as soon as possible.

71. Central Vigilance commission letter No. 1/9/71-R, dated 29th March, 1973
Please refer to the Commission’s letter No. 1/7/66-Coord, dated the 14th April 1966 on the above subject. Certain
Ministries/Departments have enquired whether cases where officers commit procedural lapses in violation of the instructions laid
down in the Manuals of their officer procedure etc. resulting in extra expenditure or loss to Government need to be referred to the
Commission for advice.

2 It is clarified that if there is negligence on the part of the officer, which has resulted in substantial loss to the Government, then
irrespective of whether the case figures in the Audit Paras and also comes before the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament or
not, the case should be referred to the Commission for advice. If, however, it is a case of simple procedural lapse without involving
loss to the Government, it need not be referred to the Commission. In doubtful cases the administrative authority may seek further
clarification from the commission.
Amendment to CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 - Intimation about purchase of immovable property - Notification
G.S.R.....................(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the
Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to persons serving in the Indian
Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964, namely :-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Amendment Rules, 2011.
(2) They should come into force on the date of their publication in the Govt. Gazette.
2. In the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in rule 18,

48
(a) for sub-rule (3), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"(3) Where a Government servant enters into a transaction in respect of movable property either in his own name or in the
name of the member of his family, he shall, within one month from the date of such property exceeds two months basic pay of the
Government servant:
Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained by the Government servant if any such
transaction is with a person having official dealings with him".
(b) In Explanation I, in clause (1), in sub-clause (a), for the letters, figures and words "Rs 10,000, or one-sixth of the total
annual emoluments received from Government, whichever is less", the words "two months' basic pay of the Government servant,
shall be substituted.
(DOPT OM No. 11013/8/2010-Estt.(A) dated09.05.2011)

103. Appointment of Inquiry Officers (IOs) and Presenting Officer (Pos) in disciplinary cases.
The Government had constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM), on 6th January, 2011 with the approval of the Prime
Minister to consider measures that can be taken by the Government to tackle corruption. One of the terms of reference (ToR) of the
GoM was to consider and advise on "Fast tracking of all cases of public servants accused of corruption". The GoM, while considering
this ToR also considered certain important recommendations of the Hota Committee (Committee of Experts to review the procedure
of Disciplinary/Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their expeditious disposal) and recommended that
Departments/Ministries should primarily use serving officers as IOs & POs and that in important cases, they may request CVC to
appoint their CDI as IO. The GoM has also recommended that the CVC may also maintain a panel of IOs/POs from amongst retired
officers, whose services can also be utilized by various Ministries/Departments.
The above recommendations of the GoM have been accepted by the Government and accordingly all
Ministries/Departments are advised to use serving officers as IOs & POs and in important cases, request the CVC to appoint their CDI
as IO. They may also, in appropriate cases, utilize the services of IOs/POs who would be available on the panel to be maintained by
CVC, in consultation with CVC.
(DOPT OM No. 372/19/2011-AVD-III (Pt.I) dated 26.09.2011)

104. Acceptance of awards without prior approval of the Government.

Please find herewith a copy of D.O. No.1/1/2010-CS(A) dt. 18th May, 2010 received from Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi in
connection with the above subject for necessary information and compliance.
(D.O. No. 1/1/2010-CS (A) Dated 18.06.2010)
You must be aware that acceptance of awards without prior approval of the Government is a violation of the Conduct
Rules. The acceptance of awards attracts the provisions of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1972 and the
instructions issued there under. The provisions of Rules 14 provide that a Government servant shall not, except with the previous
sanction of the Government, receive any complimentary or valedictory address, or accept any testimonial or attend any meeting or
entertainment held in his honour or in the honour of any other Govt. servant.
2. However, it has been noticed that some officers have accepted awards in the past from the non-Governmental
organisations without the prior approval of the Government. I am directed to caution you against acceptance of any award in future
without prior sanction of the Government. Acceptance of awards without the prior approval of the Government will be viewed
adversely. The officers in your Ministry/Department and attached and subordinate offices may be apprised of this.
(DG (P) No. 25-14/2010-SPG dated 10.06.2010)

105. Disciplinary Cases-Need for issuing speaking orders by competent authorities – reiteration of orders regarding
The undersigned is directed to refer to the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee of the National Council (JCM) on
revision in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, held on 3rd May, 1985 and 8th July, 1985 and to send herewith a copy of this Department’s OM No.
134/12/85-AVD.I dated the 5th November, 85 for information.
(Copy of DOPT OM No. 134/12/85-AVD. I dated 05.11.1985)
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No. 134/1/81-AVD, I dated the 13th July, 1981 and to state that in spite
of the instructions contained therein, it has come to notice that speaking orders are not issued while passing final orders in
disciplinary cases. It is an essential legal requirement that, in the case of decisions by quasi-judicial powers, it is necessary that self-
contained speaking and reasoned orders should be issued while passing final orders in disciplinary cases.
2. The instructions contained in this Department’s OM dated the 13th July 1981, referred to above, are accordingly reiterated
and it is requested that the contents thereof may be brought to the notice of all concerned for their information and guidance.
(DOPT OM No. 134/1/81-AVD-I dated 13.07.1981)

106. Disciplinary cases-need for issuing speaking orders by competent Authorities

The undersigned is directed to state that as is well known and settled by courts, disciplinary proceedings against employees
conducted under the provisions of CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965, or other corresponding rules, are quasi-judicial in nature and as such, it is
necessary that orders in such proceedings are issued only by the competent authorities who have to be specified as
disciplinary/appellate/reviewing authorities under the relevant rules and the orders issued by such authorities should have the
attributes of a judicial orders. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs State of (UP) (AIP 1970 SCM 302) observed that
recording of reasons in support of decision by a quasi-judicial authority is obligatory as it ensures that the decision is reached
according to law and is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy, or reached on ground of policy or expediency. The necessity to record
reasons is greater if the order is subject to appeal.
2. However instances have come to the notice of this Deptt, where the final orders passed by the competent
disciplinary/appellate authorities do not contain the reasons on the basis whereof the decisions communicated by that order were
49
reached since such orders may not confirm to legal requirements, they may be liable to be held invalid, if challenged into court of
law. It is, therefore, impressed upon all concerned that the authorities exercising disciplinary power should issue self-contained
speaking and reasoned orders confirming to the aforesaid legal requirements.
3. Instances have also come to notice where, though the decision in disciplinary/appellate cases were taken by the
competent disciplinary/appellate authorities in the files, the final orders were not issued by that authority but only by a lower
authority. As mentioned above, the disciplinary/appellate/ reviewing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and as such, they
cannot delegate their powers to their subordinates. It is, therefore, essential but the decision taken by such authorities are
communicated by the competent authority under their own signatures, and the order, as issued, should apply with the legal
requirements as indicated the preceding paragraphs. It is only in those case where the President is the prescribed
disciplinary/appellate/reviewing authority and the Minister concerned has considered the case and given his orders that an order
may be authenticated by an officer who has been authorized to authenticate orders in the name of the President.
4. The contents of this OM may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for their information and guidance.
(DOPT OM No. 134/1/81-AVD-I dated 13.07.1981)

107. Communicating tentative reasons for disagreement under rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
The undersigned is directed to say that Rule 15(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 states that 'The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by
Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring
Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiry Authority on any article of
charge to the Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the
Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not, to the Government Servant.
2. The necessity of following the aforementioned Rule 15(2) both in letter and spirit is reiterated. The communication forwarding the
IO's report alongwith the tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, seeking comments / representation of the charged officer
should reflect this position. All Ministries / Departments are, therefore, requested to ensure that the communication forwarding 'the
IO's report etc. does not contain phrases such as 'Article of charge is fully proved' or 'Article of charge is fully substantiated' which
could be construed to mean that the disciplinary authority is biased even before considering the representation of the charged
officer and this would be against the letter and spirit of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. Ministry of Finance etc. may bring the contents of the above OM to the notice of all concerned.
(DOPT OM F.No.11012/12/2010-Estt. (A) dated 12.11.2010)

108. SLP(C) 3997/06 Union of India and OrsVsShri V.M. Choudhary

I am directed to enclose a copy of the judgement of Supreme Court of India dated 01.07.2011 in CA No. 2606/06 in SLP (C)
3997/06 Union of India and OrsShri V.M. Choudhary for information, guidance and necessary action.
(DG(P) No.18013/13/2005-VP dated 16.09.2011)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL, APPELATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2602 OF 2006
Union of India &Ors. …..Appellant (a)
Versus
Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari ...Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) This appeal by Union of India is directed against the final judgment and order dated 12.08.2005 passed by the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 16575 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the application of the
appellants herein upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 333 of 2004 wherein
the Tribunal by its-order dated 20.04.2005 had quashed and set aside Notification No. C-11011/1/2001-VP dated 29.05.2001.
2) Brief facts:
(a) On 08.06.2000, Vikrambhai Magnbhai Chaudhari, the respondent herein, while working as M.O. Postal Assistant, Bardoli,
refused to accept M.O. forms along with the amounts tendered by Shri P.N. Singh, Shri H.K. Tiwari and Shri R.C. Pande for booking of
money orders. Later, Mr. K.H. Gamit, Assistant Post Master, Bardoli and his immediate supervisor instructed him to accept the above
said Money Orders in writing through office order book but the respondent did not obey the orders. Accordingly, departmental
action was initiated against him and he was suspended by order of Superintendent of Post Office Bardoli vide Memo No. B-
1/PF/VMC/2000.
(b) However, on 23.06.2000, the suspension order of the respondent was revoked and disciplinary action was initiated against
the respondent under Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as.
"the Rules") Vide Memo No. P1/4(2)/05/01/-02 dated 17.10.2001, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of 'Censure' to the
respondent.
(c) Thereafter, the case was taken up for review by the Chief Post Master General, Ahmedabad under Rule 29 of the Rules and
he directed the Superintendent of Post Office, Bardoli to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under Rule 14 of
the Rules and on completion send the matter to him for further action. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the respondent.
(d) Challenging the proceedings, the respondent filed Original Application No. 333 of 2004 before the Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench, Ahmedabad. By order dated 20.04.2005, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the said
order the appellants herein filed Special Civil Application being No. 16575 of 2005 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad .
The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the said order and
judgment the appellants herein have filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

50
3) Heard Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned ASG for the appellants Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel filed appearance on behalf
of the respondent but none appeared at the time of hearing.
4) Mr. Chandhlok , learned ASG after taking us through Rule 29 of the Rules submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in
quashing the Notification dated 29.05.2001 and the High Court has also committed an error in confirming the same. He further
submitted that the High Court and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Notification in question does not become bad
merely because the time limit has not been provided and according to him, even though Rule 29(1) (vi) provides that such order shall
also specify the time within which this power should be exercised in view of Clause (v) which provides six months' outer limit for
reviewing the order, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal and the High Court cannot be sustained.
5) In as much as the Tribunal and the High Court granted relief in favour of the respondent on the basis of the interpretation
of Rule 29(1) (vi) and the Notification dated 29.05.2001, it is desirable to refer the same. The Notification reads as under:-

NOTIFICATION.dated the 29th May, 2001

No. so………. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (VI) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, the President hereby specifies that in the case of a Government servant serving in the Department
of Posts, for whom the appellate authority is subordinate to the authority designated as the Principal Chief Postmaster General or
the Chief Postmaster General (other than the Chief Postmaster General of Senior Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the said Principal
Chief Postmaster General or the said Chief Postmaster General, as the case may be, shall be the revising authority for the purpose of
exercising the powers under the said Rule 29,
[No. C-11011/1/2001/VP]
The relevant clauses of Rule 29 are as under:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules
i) the President; or
ii) the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the case of a Government servant serving in the India Audit and Accounts
Department; or
iii) the Member (Personnel ) Postal Services Board in the case of a Government Servant serving in or under the Postal Services
Board and (Adviser (Human Resources Development Department of Communication) in the case of Government Servant serving in or
under the Telecommunication Board; or
iv) the Head of a Department directly under the Central Government in the case of Government Servant serving in a
department or office (not being the Secretariat or the Posts and Telegraphs Board) under the control of such Head of a Department
or
v) the appellant authority, within six months of the date of order proposed to be (revised); or
vi) Any other authority specified in this behalf by the President by a general or special order and within such time as may be
specified in such general or special order;
may at any time either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under
these rules…
(2.) No proceeding for revision shall be commenced until after
(i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or
(ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred,"
6) As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the above sub-Rule (1) of Rule 29 indicates 6 categories of revisional authorities. If we
go further it shows that while no period is mentioned in sub-Clauses' (i) to (iv), sub-Clause (v) refers to a period of six months from
the date of order proposed to be revised. Since order was passed by exercising power under sub-Clause (vi), we have to see whether
in the Notification specifying an authority a time limit has been mentioned or even in the absence of the same. The outer limit can be
availed by exercising power under sub-Clause (v). According to learned ASG, there is no need to specify the period in the Notification
authorizing concerned authority to call for the record for any enquiry and revise any order made under the Rules. We are unable to
accept the said claim for the following reasons.
7) It is to be noted that in cases where the appellate authority seeks to review the order of the disciplinary authority, the
period fixed for the purpose is six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. This is clear from sub-Clause (v) of sub-
Rule 1 of Rule 29. On the other hand, Clause (vi) confers similar powers on such other authorities which may be specified in that
behalf by the President by a general or special order and the said authority has to commence the proceedings within the time
prescribed therein. Even though Rule 29(1) (vi) provides that such order shall also specify the time within which the power should be
exercised, the fact remains that no time limit has been prescribed in the Notification. We have already pointed out that no period
has been mentioned in the Notification. The argument that even in the absence of specific period in the Notification in view of clause
(v), the other authority can also exercise such power cannot be accepted. To put it clear, sub-Clause (v) applies to appellate authority
and Clause (vi) to any other authority specified by the President by a general or special order for exercising power by the said
authority under sub-Clause (vi). There must be specified period and the power can be exercised only within the period so prescribed.
8) In as much as the Notification dated 29.05.2001 has not specified any time limit within which power under Rule 29 (1) (v) is
exercisable by the authority specified. We are of the view that such Notification is not in terms with Rule 29 and the Tribunal
is fully justified in quashing the same. The High Court has also rightly confirmed the said conclusion by dismissing the Special
Application of the appellants and quashing the Notification on the ground that it did not specify the time limit. Consequently,
the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

109. Withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity in the case of Minor penalty proceedings.

I am directed to say that as per the DOP&T OM No. 110/9/2003-AVD-I dated 13.4.2009, the minor penalty proceedings cannot
establish the grave misconduct or negligence leading to the withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity as a result of

51
minor penalty proceedings instituted against a charged official during his service and which had continued after his retirement. The
above instructions of the DOP&T were circulated to all concerned by the Pension Section of this office vide letter No. 4-4/09-Pension
dated 4.6.2009 for information, guidance and taking necessary action.
2. However, some of the units have shown their unawareness of the above instructions of the DOP&T. Therefore, the same are re-
circulated to all units for information, guidance and taking necessary action.
(DG (P) No.5-1/07-WS-I dated 02.02.2012)

110. Withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity in the case of minor penalty proceedings

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No. 134/9/86-AVD-I dated 31st July 1987 wherein it was clarified that
the Central Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension even as a result of minor penalty proceedings instituted
against a charged officer during his service and which had continued after his retirement provided grave misconduct or negligence is
established. The underlying basis for this OM was that there can be circumstances wherein proceedings initiated for minor penalty
could result in establishment of grave misconduct or negligence on conclusion of the proceedings warranting a cut or withholding of
pension or recovery of pecuniary loss. The OM of 31st July 1987 was issued in cancellation of the earlier OM No. 134/10/80-AVD-1
dated 28th Feb 1981 which interalia, stated that grave misconduct or negligence cannot be established as a result of minor penalty
proceedings.
2. The OM of 31.07.1987 came for scrutiny before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Principal Bench, Delhi in OA No.
2068 of 2002 (RS Sagar, NOIDA, UP Vs Union of India), pertaining to the Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty. The
Hon’ble Tribunal was considering and application against the order of withholding of gratuity of a charged officer who had
retired from service. The Tribunal, while considering said case set aside the said OM of 31st July 1987 of this Department
holding it ultra vires the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The ration of the decision in this OA was applied to OA No. 162 of 2003 (I.K
RatogiVs Union of India) by Principal Bench, Delhi. This Department was neither a party nor impleaded in the said OAs at any
stage.
1. The implication of the judgment of Hon’ble CAT on this Division’s OM of 31.07.1987 was considered in consultation with
Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare and Departmental of Legal Affairs it was noted that the matter has attained legal
finality.
2. In view of the above and in the light of said order of Hon’ble CAT Principal Bench setting aside the OM of 31 st July 1987 this
Department’s OM No. 134/10/80-AVD-1 dated 28th Feb 1981 stands restored and the OM of 31st July 1987 stands withdrawn.
(DOPT OM No. 110/9/2003-AVD-1 dated 13.04.2009)

111. Item No. 9 (Earlier item No. 18) – Release the Pension/DCRG of employees against whom minor penalty proceedings
concluded after retirement
As per the DOP&T OM No. 110/9/2003-AVD-I dated 13.04.2009, the minor penalty proceedings cannot establish the grave
misconduct or negligence leading to the withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity as a result of minor penalty
proceedings instituted against a charged official during his service and which had continued after his retirement. The above
instructions of the DOP&T were already circulated to all concerned by the Pension Section of this office vide letter No. 4-4/09-
Pension dated 04.06.2009.

However, some of the units have shown their unawareness of the above instructions of the DOP&T. Therefore, the same have been
recirculated to all units vide this office letter of even number dated 09.02.2012 for information, guidance and taking necessary
action. A copy of the same is enclosed.
(DG (P) No. 14013/03/2010-VP dated)

112. Withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity in the case of Minor penalty proceedings.

I am directed to say that as per the DOP&T OM No. 110/9/2003-AVD-I Dated 13.4.2009, the minor penalty proceedings cannot
establish the grave misconduct or negligence leading to the withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity as a result of
minor penalty proceedings instituted against a charged official during his service and which had continued after his retirement. The
above instructions of the DOP&T were circulated to all concerned by the Pension Section of this office vide letter No. 4-4/09-Pension
dated 4.6.2009 for information, guidance and taking necessary action.
2. However, some of the units have shown their unawareness of the above instructions of the DOP&T. Therefore, the same are re-
circulated to all units for information, guidance and taking necessary action.
(DG (P) No.5-1/07-WS-I dated 02.02.2012)

113. Intimation by a Government Servant to the prescribed authority about acquiring or disposing of any immovable/movable
property either in his/her own name or in the name of any member of his/her family and submission of declarations-reg.
I am directed to refer to above mentioned subject and to say that rules 18(2) & (3) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 have
specific provisions for a Government Servant to intimate to his/her prescribed authority about acquiring or disposing of any
immovable or movable property either in his/her own name or in the name of any member of his/her family. Further, Rule 18(4) of
CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 bestows power to the Government or the prescribed authority to direct a Government servant to furnish
a full and complete statement of such movable or immovable property held or acquired by him/her or on his/her behalf or by any
member of his family including the details of the means by which, or the source from which, property was acquired.
2. The Government of India vide G.I. M.H.A. No. 25/11/68-Ests. (A) dated 05.08.1968 had declared the Heads of Departments
as “Prescribed Authorities” for Group ‘A’ officers and it was also mentioned in this circular that the powers exercisable by the
Central Government under sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 18 shall be exercisable by the Heads of Departments in respect of Group ‘A’
Officers serving under their control subject to the conditions that (a) in relation to the Heads of Departments themselves, the said
52
powers shall continue to be exercised by the Central Government; and (b) all cases of sanction accorded by the said Heads of
Departments shall be reported to the Central Government.
3. This order of the Government of India was circulated to all Heads of Circles / Units vide this Directorate’s letter No.
15/15/68-Disc. Dated 23.09.1968 for ensuring action accordingly. Subsequently, vide letter No. 84/3/70-STA-1/Disc. I dated
27.07.1972, this office informed all the Heads of Circles/Units that powers have been delegated to them to deal with these cases of
Group ‘A’ officers serving under their control and, thus, directed them that such cases should no longer be refereed to this
Directorate. It was further stated in the ibid communication that all cases of sanction accorded by the Heads of Circles/Units, in their
capacity as Heads of Departments in this regard, should be reported to this office. However, despite above instructions, Heads of
Circles/Units have been sending cases of immovable/movable property intimation of Group ‘A’ officers working under their control
to this office for consideration. Furthermore, some Group ‘A’ officers working in Circles are also directly referring cases of intimation
of property and seeking permission/acknowledgment from Directorate, which is avoidable too. The Circles/Units are only required to
report to this office the sanction accorded by them in all such cases of Group ‘A’ officers.
4. In case of officers of the Indian Postal Service, Group ‘A’ on deputation to other Ministries/Departments including Army
Postal Service (for Addl. DG APS only), they are required to send through their respective Ministries/Departments such
immovable/movable property related application for approval/intimation to this Department for consideration of the Competent
Authority.
5. I am directed to refer to this Directorate’s earlier communications No. 20-1/2014-SPG in the recent past in respect of the
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, under which the Government has notified the Public Servants (Furnishing of Information and
Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the limits for Exemption of Assets in Filing Returns) Rules, 2014. These Rules mandate
that “Every public servant shall file declarations, information or return, as the case may be regarding his assets and liabilities as on
the 31st day of March every year to the Competent Authority, on or before the 31 st day of July of that year. Here, the definition of
public servant covers all Central Government servants (Group A, B and C). Therefore, all Central Government servants are required to
file the declaration.”
6. Keeping in view the above instructions of the Government of India, it has been decided that :
(i) Immovable/movable property related transaction/intimation of Higher Administrative Grade (HAG) and above rank officers
will continue to be sent to the Postal Directorate (SPG Section of Personnel Division) for intimation/sanction to/of the Competent
Authority.
(ii) In case of the officers of the rank of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) including NFSG,
Senior Time Scale (STS) and Junior Time Scale of Indian Postal Service, Group ‘A’ officers viz. Sr./Manager in MMS etc., the Heads of
Circles/Chief General Managers/ Director, RAK NPA Ghaziabad, as the case may be, will acknowledge/accept the
immovable/movable property related communications reported by the aforesaid Group ‘A’ officers serving under their control and
also accord necessary sanction, wherever required under Rule 18 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Henc, such cases should not be
referred to this Directorate. Similar action shall be taken in case of Group ‘B’ & ‘C’ staff by their respective authority in the
Circle/Unit.
(iii) Chief Postmasters General will also exercise the above power in case of such Group ‘A’ officers working in Postal Training
Centre located in their Circle. Similar action shall be taken in case of Group ‘B’ & ‘C’ staff by the Director of Postal Training Centre
concerned.
(iv) All IPoS Group ‘A’ & Postal Service Group ‘B’ officers working in Postal Directorate (excluding BD&M and PLI Directorates)
will send their intimation/sanction applications on immovable/movable property to Personnel Division (SPG Section) os Postal
Directorate for consideration of the Competent Authority. Other Group ‘B’ officers (viz. ASPs and IPs) and Group ‘C’ (viz.
Postal/Sorting Assistants) officials of Postal side working in Directorate will send such intimation to SPB-II or SPB-I Section of
Personnel Division as the case may be.
(v) Heads of Circles/Chief General Managers/Director, RAK NPA Ghaziabad, as the case may be, will report to Postal
Directorate (SPG Section of Personnel Division) all the cases of sanction accorded by him/her in respect of immovable/movable
property related transaction of Group ‘a’ officers serving within their jurisdiction during the entire financial year (1st April to 31st
March) along with the annual declarations, information or return regarding their assets and liabilities ending on 31 st March, as per
the revised time-frame, latest by 15th August of the year. This will be an annual due document.
(vi) All Indian Postal Service, Group ‘A’ officers on deputation to other Ministries/Departments including Army Postal Service
(for Addl. DG APS only) will send through their respective Ministries/Departments such immovable/movable property related
application for approval/intimation to this Department for consideration of the Competent Authority. Further, they will also send
their annual declarations, information or return regarding their assets and liabilities ending on 31 st March, as per the revised time-
frame, latest by 15th August of that year. All IPoS Group ‘A’ officers working in APS will submit their declarations to the Postal
Directorate (SPG Section of Personnel Division) as per above time-frame.
(vii) Directorate/Prescribed Controlling Authority of an officer/official reserves the right to direct a Government servant to
furnish, within a period specified in the order, a full and complete statement of such immovable/movable property held or acquired
by him/her or on his/her behalf or by any member of his/her family as may be specified in the order including the details of the
means by which, or the source from which, immovable/movable property was acquired.
7. It is requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all Government Servants and ensure strict compliance.
(DG (P) No.20-15/2014-SPG dated 05.11.2014)

114. Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Disciplinary & Vigilance inquiries (Hota Committee) - Para 135 of the
Committee's Report on submission of draft charge sheet while seeking first stage advice of CVC, etc. - Acceptance by Government
-reg.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Government had appointed a Committee of Experts to review the procedure for
Disciplinary/Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their expeditious disposal. The Committee comprised the following:

53
(i) Shri P.C. Hota, Former Chairman, UPSC --Chairman
(ii) ShriArvindVarma, Former Secretary, DoPT --Member
(iii) Shri P. Shankar, Former CVC --Member.
2. The Expert Committee has, in para 135 of its Report, made the following recommendation:
"135. (a) We have noted that even after approval of the Disciplinary Authority to initiate a Disciplinary Inquiry, a lot of time is taken
by the Department/Ministry to frame the Articles of Charge against a delinquent Government Servant.
(b) We recommend that to eliminate delays in framing the Articles of Charge, the official file submitted to the Disciplinary Authority
to initiate a Departmental Inquiry must have a copy of the draft Articles of Charge along with the imputations in support and a list
of witnesses and documents. Such action before approval of the Disciplinary Authority is obtained to initiate a Departmental Inquiry
against a delinquent Government Servant, would ensure timely framing and service of the Articles of Charge. We also recommend
that when a case is sent to the CVC for its first stage advice, the Articles of Charge, complete in all respects, must be submitted to
the CVC.
3. The aforesaid recommendation of the Hota Committee was considered by a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the
chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary. The CoS has recommended acceptance of the aforesaid recommendation. Accordingly, the above
recommendation of the Hota Committee has been accepted by the Government and it has been decided that all
Ministries/Departments shall henceforth ensure that whenever a disciplinary case file is submitted to the Disciplinary Authority,
seeking the approval of the Disciplinary Authority for initiation of departmental proceedings against a government servant, a
draft of the articles of charge, complete in all respects, along with the imputations in support and the list of witnesses and
documents, shall be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority for its consideration. Similarly, whenever a case is referred to the
Central Vigilance Commission for its first stage advice, a draft of the articles of charge, complete in all respects, as proposed by the
Ministry/Department, shall be submitted to the CVC for its consideration.
4. The above decision of the Government is brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for strict compliance.
(DOPT OM No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol. 10) dated 14.10.2013)

115. Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Disciplinary & Vigilance inquiries (Hota Committee) - Para 48 of the
Committee's Report on conclusion of major penalty proceedings within a period of 18 months - Acceptance by Government -reg.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Government had appointed a Committee of Experts to review the procedure for
Disciplinary/Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their expeditious disposal. The Committee comprised the following:
(i) Shri P.C. Hota, Former Chairman, UPSC --Chairman
(ii) ShriArvindVarma, Former Secretary, DoPT --Member
(iii) Shri P. Shankar, Former CVC --Member.
2. The Expert Committee has, in para 48 of its Report, made the following recommendation:
"48, For major penalty Inquiries as envisaged in Article 311(2) of the Constitution, where the Inquiry Officer has to do a detailed
inquiry into the Articles of Charge by examination of witnesses both of the Presenting Officer and of the delinquent Government
Servant and where relevant documents have to be examined/exhibited for a just decision in the case, the maximum time could be
twelve months from the date of service of the Articles of Charge before the case records are referred to the UPSC for advice under
Articles 320(3)(c) of the Constitution. Hopefully, if the UPSC takes a maximum period of five to six months to give its considered
advice, the Disciplinary Inquiry for a major penalty can be concluded within a maximum period of eighteen months from the date of
service of Articles of Charge on the delinquent Government Servant till the date of the final order by the Disciplinary Authority, after
consultation with the UPSC. (Elsewhere in this Report, we have recommended that the CVC's second stage advice may be dispensed
with because of reasons mentioned by us. We would like to leave it to the best judgment of the UPSC to devise methods for reducing
the time taken by it in rendering its advice under Article 320(3) (c) of the Constitution.)".
3. The aforesaid recommendation of the Hota Committee was considered by a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the
chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary. The CoS has, inter alia, taken note of the fact that, vide DoPT's 0.M.No.372/19/2011-AVD-III (Pt.I)
dated 26th September, 2011, the second stage consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission has already been dispensed with
and that it is only in cases where consultation with UPSC is not required as per extant rules/instructions, the second stage
consultation with CVC is now necessary. The CoS also took note of the fact that the introduction of a single window system in the
UPSC to accept files regarding major penalty proceedings has led to considerable - reduction in time taken to conclude major penalty
proceedings. The CoS has accordingly recommended that the recommendation of the Hota Committee in para 48 of its report as
referred to above may be accepted. The recommendation has accordingly been accepted by the Government and it has been
decided that all Ministries/Departments shall ensure that all major penalty proceedings against government servants under their
control are completed and final orders are passed by the concerned Disciplinary Authority within 18 months from the date of
delivery of charge-sheet on the delinquent government servant.
4. The above decision of the Government is brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for strict compliance.
(DOPT No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol. 10) dated 14.10.2013)

116. Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Disciplinary & Vigilance Inquiries (Hota Committee) - Para 35 of the
Committee's Report on conduct of hearings on a day to day basis - Acceptance by Government - reg .
The undersigned is directed to say that the Government had appointed a Committee of Experts to review the procedure for
Disciplinary / Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their expeditious disposal. The Committee comprised the following:
(i) Shri P.C. Hota, Former Chairman, UPSC -Chairman
(ii) ShriArvindVarma, Former Secretary, DoPT -Member
(iii) Shri P. Shankar, Former CVC -Member.

54
2. The Expert Committee has, in para 35 of its Report, recommended that "as far as practicable, an Inquiry Officer should conduct
the hearing on a day-to-day basis to complete the Inquiry expeditiously. Each Inquiry Officer should be required to maintain an
order sheet to record proceedings of the Inquiry on the day of Inquiry and other relevant matters. If the Inquiry cannot be conducted
on a day-to-day basis, the Inquiry Officer should record in the order sheet the reasons why the Inquiry could not be held on a day-to-
day basis."
3. The aforesaid recommendation of the Hota Committee has been considered by a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the
chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary and, as recommended by the CoS, the recommendation has been accepted by the Government.
4. Accordingly, it has been decided that once a regular hearing in a departmental proceeding is started, such hearing should, as far
as practicable, be continued on a day to day basis, unless in the opinion of the IO, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, an
adjournment is unavoidable in the interest of justice.
5. The above decision of the Government is brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for strict compliance.
(DOPT No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol. 10) dated 14.10.2013)

117. Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Disciplinary & Vigilance Inquiries (Hota Committee) - Para 36(a) of the
Committee's Report to designate CDIs in CVC in numerical/alphabetical order - Government's decision thereon - reg .
'The undersigned is directed to say that the Government had appointed a Committee of Experts to review the procedure for
Disciplinary/ Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their expeditious disposal. The Committee comprised the following:
(i) Shri P.C. Hota, Former Chairman, UPSC -Chairman
(ii) ShriArvindVarma, Former Secretary, DoPT -Member
(iii) Shri P. Shankar, Former CVC -Member.
2. The Expert Committee has, in para 36(a) of its Report, recommended that "it would be expedient to designate CDIs under the CVC
in a numerical or alphabetical manner, viz., CDI-I, CDI-II or CDI-A, CDI-B and so on. Under such an arrangement, Departmental
Inquiries could be entrusted to CDI-I or CDI-II with the stipulation that CDI-II will take over if CDI-I is no longer available to conduct
the Inquiry due to his transfer or other reasons. If such an innovative practice is introduced in the order of appointment of CDIs as
Inquiry Officer in a particular Inquiry, there would be no need for fresh order of the Disciplinary Authority for appointment of the
successor CDI as the Inquiry Officer in the same Inquiry.".
3. The aforesaid recommendation of the Hota Committee was considered by a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the
chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary. The CoS, in this context, took note of the CVC's view that since there are only 4-5 CDIs available in
CVC and their primary role is to give vigilance advice and hence it may not be possible to designate them as IO automatically. The
CoS also took note of the fact that even after a CDI is designated as IO for a case, the Ministry/Department concerned takes a lot of
time in issuing orders appointing the IO. Considering the above facts, the CoS has recommended that whenever a particular CDI in
CVC becomes unavailable to conduct an inquiry on account of transfer, etc., CVC shall nominate an IO within 15 days and disciplinary
authorities shall issue orders appointing the IO, within another 15 days. The above recommendation of the CoS has been considered
by the Government and the Government has taken the following decision:-
Whenever a particular CDI in CVC becomes unavailable to conduct an inquiry on account of transfer, etc., CVC shall nominate
an IO in his/her place within 15 days and the concerned disciplinary authority shall issue orders appointing the IO, within another
15 days. However, CVC may also designate CDIs in numerical/alphabetical order. If a successor CDI is not appointed within 15 days
as prescribed, the case will be automatically assigned to the next CDI in numerical/alphabetical order on the 16th day.
4. The above decision of the Government is brought to the notice of Central Vigilance Commission and all Ministries/Departments
for strict compliance.
(DOPT OM No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol. 10) dated 14.10.2013)

118. Recommendations of the Committee of Experts on Disciplinary & Vigilance Inquiries (Hota Committee) - Para 38 of the
Committee's Report regarding payment of TA/DA to retired government servants appearing as witnesses in proceedings before
the CDI in CVC - Government's decision thereon - reg .
The undersigned is directed to say that the Government had appointed a Committee of Experts to review the procedure for
Disciplinary Vigilance Inquiries and recommend measures for their expeditious disposal. The Committee comprised the following:
(i) Shri P.C. Hota, Former Chairman, UPSC -Chairman
(ii) ShriArvindVarma, Former Secretary, DoPT -Member
(iii) Shri P. Shankar, Former CVC -Member.
2. The Expert Committee has, in para 38 of its Report, inter alia, recommended that "In case the witness is a retired Government
Servant and is appearing before the CDI in a Departmental Inquiry, the expenses would be borne, in the first instance, by the CVC
and subsequently be adjusted with the Department/Organisation concerned.".
3. The aforesaid recommendation of the Hota Committee has been considered by a Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the
chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary and the CoS has recommended acceptance of this recommendation. Government has accepted
the recommendation of the Hota Committee as endorsed by the CoS.
4. Accordingly, it has been decided that in cases where any of the witnesses in a departmental inquiry is a retired Government
Servant and is appearing before the CDI in the Central Vigilance Commission in the Departmental Inquiry, the expenses on
payment of admissible TA/DA to such witness would be borne, in the first instance, by the Central Vigilance Commission and
subsequently be adjusted with the Department/Organisation concerned.
5. The above decision of the Government is brought to the notice of all Ministries/Departments for information and compliance.
(DOPT OM No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol. 10) dated 14.10.2013)

119. Disciplinary proceedings against the officials/officers.

55
 This is regarding Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 against the officials’ upto the rank of
Asstt. Superintendent are being dealt with in the V.P. Division of this Directorate. During the examination of the cases, it has been
noticed that departmental proceedings are not conducted in accordance with provisions of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 and instructions/ clarifications issued there under from time to time,due to which disciplinary proceeding are
taking a long time, which defeats the very purpose of initiating the said proceedings. There are number of instances where penalty
orders have been set aside by the Hon'ble CAT/Court due to procedural/technical lapses or due to inordinate delay in finalizing the
disciplinary proceedings.
2. While examining one case under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 it has been noticed that a charge sheet in accordance
with the Rules 14 & 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued by Director Postal Service to delinquent official. But Chief Postmaster
who was also an Inquiry Officer in that case, had appointed Presenting Officer and issued disagreement note on I.O. report under his
signature, which is in violation of provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
3. While considering the case, the Minister of (C&IT) has taken serious view on such technical/procedural lapse in conducting
proceedings which lead to get benefit to the charged officer in disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, he has directed that all the circles
may be requested to ensure that delinquent staff does not get benefit of such procedural/technical lapses in disciplinary proceeding.
If such instances are brought to light, action may be taken against officers who allowed such technical/procedural deficiencies.
4. You are, therefore, requested that all the authorities under your control may be directed that provisions made under
CCS(CCA) Rule, 1965 and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and instructions therein issued from time to time may be followed properly and
strictly in all the disciplinary proceedings and ensure that no procedural/technical deficiencies occurred for which delinquent staff
may get benefit of such procedural/technical deficiencies. Such instances, if come to the notice, will be regarded as dereliction to the
duty and suitable action will be taken against the officers who found responsible for such technical/procedural lapses. It is also
requested that all the officer in your circle should be made familiarize with rules and essential procedure requirements of the
disciplinary proceedings, to avoid delay in finalizing the cases due to procedural lapses.
(DG (P) No.C-14016/26/2009-VP dated 13.10.2014)

120. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

G.S.R. 263-In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the
following rules further to amend the Fundamental Rules, 1922, namely:-
1.(1) These rules may be called the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2013.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. In the Fundamental Rules, 1922 in rule
29, for clause (2) the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
"(2) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower scale, the
authority ordering the reduction shall specify-
(a) The period for which the reduction shall be effective; and
(b) Whether, on restoration the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent.
(3) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the
service, grade or post from which he was reduced"
(DOPTF.No.6/2/2013-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 27.10.2013)

121. Supply of copy of UPSC advice to the charged Officer

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated 06-01-2014 and to say that it has
been decided, in partial modification of the above O.M., that a copy of the inquiry report may be given to the Government servant as
provided in Rule 15(2) of Central Secretariat Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965. The inquiry report together with
the representation, if any, of the Government servant may be forwarded to the Commission for advice. On receipt of the
Commission's advice, a copy of the advice may be provided to the Government servant who may be allowed to submit his
representation, if any, on the Commission's advice within fifteen days. The Disciplinary Authority will consider the inquiry report
advice of the Commission and the representation(s) of the Government servant before arriving at a final decision.
(2) Paragraph 4(i) and (ii) of this Department's O.M. of even no. dated 06-01-2014 stand modified as in paragraph I above.
3. All Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring this to the notice of all concerned.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/8/2011-Estt. (A) dated 05.03.2014)

122. Appointment of adhoc disciplinary authority for imposing penalty in disciplinary proceedings.
It has been observed that the proposals for appointment of ad-hoc disciplinary authority are submitted by the
Circles/Regions to this office in a casual manner resulting in various deficiencies in the proposal and references have to be made by
this office time and again to rectify the said deficiencies.
2. In one of the cases, it has been noticed that the name of an officer who was holding the post of SSPO's on adhoc basis in
the grade of Junior Time Scale in Group 'A' was proposed to function as adhoc disciplinary authority. By the time the proposal got
approved by the President and the approval was conveyed to the Circle/Region, the said officer was reverted to Postal Service Group
'B' Cadre. Therefore revised proposal was submitted to this office for change of adhoc disciplinary authority.
3. It is to state that once a proposal for appointment of adhoc disciplinary authority is approved by the MoC&IT, on behalf of
the President, the approval is conveyed to the Circle/Region. If the Circle/Region submit a revised proposal for change of adhoc
disciplinary authority on any ground the file has to put before the MoC&IT again for approval of the President and it creates an
embarrassing situation.
4. You are, therefore, requested to ensure that the bio-data of the adhoc disciplinary authority should be verified with the
records before submitting the proposal to this office. It should also be ensured that in future no officer who is holding the post on
ad-hoc basis in any cadre/grade should be recommended to function as adhoc disciplinary authority.
56
 (DG (P) No. C-14015/33/2014-VP dated 05.12.2014)

123. Importance of following the due process in disciplinary proceedings- regarding.

This Department has been emphasizing the necessity of conforming with the procedures prescribed in the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965] while dealing with the disciplinary proceedings
conducted in Ministries/ Departments. Many a times the Hon'ble Administrative Tribunals and Courts have held the proceedings
non-est for non-conformity of the procedure, without even going into the merits of the case. This issue was highlighted recently in
the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the B.V. Gopinath case in SLP No. 6348/2011.
2. Procedural lapses have also been noticed in a few cases referred to this Department for advice. Two areas where
procedural lapses are frequently noticed are : (i) not following the procedure prescribed in Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
while conducting the disciplinary inquiry; and (ii) not following the procedures laid down in Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in the
case or proceedings against retired Government servants.
3. Rule 14 (18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides that, "the inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his
case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him." This is a formal action required to be taken by the inquiry officer before closing the inquiry. It has been seen that many
a times this is not formally recorded and the inquiry gets vitiated. It is imperative that the inquiry is conducted strictly in accordance
with the procedures prescribed.
4. Attention is also invited to Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, while lays down that the departmental
proceedings, if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his/her retirement or during his re-
employment, shall, after his/her final retirement, be deemed to be proceedings under the rule and shall be continued and concluded
by the authority which commenced them, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. This rule also
stipulates that where the departmental proceeding is instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall
submit a report recording its findings to the President.
5. All Ministries/Departments are requested to please bring to the attention of all concerned the necessity of conforming to
the procedures prescribed for conduction departmental proceedings.
6. In this regard, attention is also invited to the ISTM publication 'Handbook for Inquiry Officers & Disciplinary Authorities,
2013' which can be used as a reference guide in such matters. The Handbook may be accessed under 'Publications/Reports' on this
Department's website: http://persrnin.nic.in//DOPT. asp.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/03/2015-Estt A-III dated 18.02.2015)

124. Regarding check list for tendering Rule 9 cases at the single Window of this office.
I am directed to refer to this office letter of even number dated 20-03-2014 on the above mentioned subject and to enclose a
copy of the check list for tendering Rule 9 cases.
It is requested that the cases may be examined with reference to the items mentioned in the check list thoroughly by the
Divisional Head concerned before tendering the Rule 9 cases at the Single Window of this office.
ITEMS BE CHECKED FOR TENDERING CASES UNDER RULE 9 OF CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972 AT THE SINGLE WINDOW OF THIS
OFFICE
(A) IN CASE OF CASES INITIATED UNDER RULE 9
1. Is Presidential sanction for initiation of Rule 9 proceedings available?
2. Whether IO was appointed by Presidential orders?
3. Whether the period of charges are within the period of limitation of 4 years prior to issue of the charge sheet?
(B) IN ALL CASES OF RULE 9 AND RULE 14 CONVERTED UNDER RULE 9
1. Is check list in proper proforma prescribed?
2. Is the check list signed by the head of the Circle/Region?
3. Is the case submitted in 13 folders?
4. Are all the documents in original and if photocopies are kept, are they attested?
5. Are the copies of documents legible and readable?
6. Are these translated version (in English) kept in respect of documents, statements, depositions etc. recorded in regional
language?
7. Are these translated copies attested by a Gazetted Officer?
8. Are all documents/papers in the folders serially numbered?
9. Are the serial number cross referenced in the check list?
10. Are serial numbers of documents kept in the folders cross referenced in annexure III to the charge sheet?
11. Are attested copies of the rules and rulings referred to in the charge sheet kept in the folder?
12. Is acknowledgement in respect of receipt of charge sheet by the CO available?
13. Are memos appointing IO and PO and change of IO and/or PO (if any) available?
14. Is reply to the charge sheet by the CO available?
15. Did he engage a defense assistant? If not, was he told of the facility?
16. Was the CO asked to file a statement of defense on conclusion of prosecution side?
17. Did the CO examine himself as a witness? Did he prefer to submit a written statement?
18. Did the IO generally question the CO on the circumstances appearing against the CO? (This is mandatory if the CO did not
examine himself as a witness)
19. Was the CO provided with a copy of IOs report? If so, is his acknowledgement for the same available?

57
20. Was the CO given mandatory time of 15 days to submit his representation?
21. Has the normal disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the IO? If not, has he made a disagreement note? Have the
points of disagreement communicated to the CO along with IO's report by the disc authority?
22. Has the disciplinary authority given his note on the findings and recommendations on penalty to be imposed?
23. Has he made a disagreement with IO's report in his findings, without communicating disagreement note? (This is not
permissible)
24. Has the case been reported to police? If so, whether details are available?
25. Is any judicial proceeding finalized against the official in this case? If so details are available?
26. Is any judicial proceeding pending against the official in this case? If so any details are available?
27. Is there any court/CAT case regarding finalization of this Rule 9 case? If so whether details available along with copy of
interim/final orders?
28. Was the proceedings under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if so, such cases cannot be taken up under Rule 9 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules 1972?
(DG (P) No. C-32016/09/2013 – VP dated 27.05.2014)
Notification for amendment of clause (2) of FR 29
The undersigned is directed to say that the FR 29(2) provided that if a Government servant is reduced as a measure of
penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time scale, the authority ordering the reduction may or may not specify, the
period for which the reduction shall be effective. The Rule 11(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 relating to this penalty was earlier
amended vide the Notification No. F. 11012/2/2005-Estt (A) dated the 2nd February, 2010. Vide the Notification No. G.S.R. 263 dated
27th October, 2013 published in the Gazette of India the FR 29(2) has now been amended, in line with the amended CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965, as follows:
"(2) If a Government Servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade of post or to a lower scale, the
authority ordering the reduction shall specify -
(a) The period for which the reduction shall be effective; and
(b) Whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent.
(3) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post on his restoration to the
service, grade or post from which he was reduced."
2. All the Ministries / Departments are requested to bring the contents of the aforementioned amendment to the notice of all
concerned for information and compliance.
3. Any existing provisions in Disciplinary Rules not in consonance with the above may be amended so that they are not in conflict
with the Fundamental Rules.
(DOPT OM No. 6/2/2013-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 10.12.2013)

125. Strengthening of administration - Periodical Review under FR 56 (j)/ FR 56 (I)/ Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - reg.
I am directed to refer to the above mentioned subject as also the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel &
Training (DOP&T) and by this office from time to time wherein various aspects of the provisions of FR 56 (j)/FR 56 (I)/ Rule 48 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 have been explained in detail. As already informed, the DOP&T has desired that all the Ministries/Departments
need to follow these instructions and periodically review the cases of Government servant as required under FR 56(j)/FR 56 (I)/Rule
48 (1) (b) of CCs (Pension) Rules, 1972.
2. It is further informed that Departmental Review/Representation Committees at different levels are required to be formed in
accordance with latest instructions of the DOP&T for reviewing the cases of the Government servants, who are covered by the
aforesaid provisions of Fundamental Rules and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, In this regard, attention is also invited to this
Directorate's letter No. 135-7/86-SPB- II dated 06.06.1991 and letter No. 135-5/94-SPB-II dated 20.12.1994 vide which Circle
Review Committees and Directorate's Representation Committee were formed. Keeping in view the latest instructions issued by
the DOP&T, the constitution of the Review Committees/ Representation Committee has been revisited and Competent Authority
has approved the formation of these Committees afresh as given below:

(A) Review Committees:

58
 SI. No. Cadre Chairperson Members
1. Group ‘A’ – For SAG and Secretary (Posts) 1. Member (Personnel)
above 2. Member, PSB – as nominated by
Secretary (Posts)
3. Sr. DDG (Vigilance)
2. Group ‘A’ – From JTS to JAG Secretary (Posts) 1. Member (Personnel)
(NFSG) 2. Sr. DDG (Vigilance)
3. DDG (Personnel)
3. Postal Service Group ‘B’ and CPMG 1. PMG of the Circle/ neighbouring
Equivalent Circle
2. DPS (HQ)
4. Assistant Superintendent of CPMG 1. PMG of the Circle/ neighbouring
Posts and equivalent Circle
2. DPS (HQ)
5. Inspector (Posts) and CPMG 1. PMG of the Circle/ neighbouring
equivalent Circle
2. DPS (HQ)
6. For Group ‘C’ staff under the CPMG 1. DPS (HQ)
jurisdiction of CPMG 2. APMG/AD (Staff)
7. For Group ‘C’ staff under the PMG 1. DPS of the Region
jurisdiction of PMG 2. AD (Staff)

(B) Representation Committee for the Government Servants belonging to cadres mentioned at SI. 4 to 7:

1. Member (Personnel) Chairperson

2. Sr. DDG (Vigilance) Member
3. DDG (Personnel) Member

3. In addition to the above, following has also been decided:

(i) In respect of the officers of Postal Service Group 'B' and equivalent cadres (SI. No. 3), Circle will issue the notice for
premature retirement to the officer concerned in accordance with the recommendations of the Circle Review Committee. However,
the said premature retirement notice shall take effect only after approval of the Secretary (Posts)/DG (Posts), who will be assisted by
an Internal Committee of the Postal Directorate comprising of Member (Personnel), Sr. DDG (Vigilance) and DDG (Personnel).
(ii) Circle will send the recommendations of the Review Committee in respect of the Government servants (cadres mentioned
at SI. No. 4 to 7), who are recommended for premature retirement, along with his/her representation, if any, and the Circle's
detailed report & relevant documents of the case to the Postal Directorate for consideration of the Representation Committee and
for final decision by the Secretary (Posts)/DG(Posts).
(iii) In respect of the Review Committees at SI. No. 3 to 7, in case of Government servants, where premature retirement would
be on account of doubtful integrity, association of appropriate officer dealing with the Vigilance cases of the Circle will be necessary.
4. This is issued in supersession of the instructions issued by this office vide letter No. 135-7/86-SPB- II dated 06.06.1991 and
letter No. 135-5/94-SPB-II dated 20.12.1994.
5. It is requested to ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid instructions and these may also be brought to the notice of all
concerned.
This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.
(DG (P) No. 4-16/2015-SPG dated 09.12.2015)

126. Revision of Financial powers to Heads of circles in the Department of Posts.

A reference is invited to this Department OM No. 6-1/2005-FC (Posts) dated 6th June 2016 and No. 6-1/2005-FC (Posts)
dated 29th July on the subject cited above.
2. In this regard, some circles have sought for clarification with reference to OM No. 6-1/2005-FC (Posts) dated 6th June 2016
and OM No.6-1/2005-FC (Posts) dated 29th July 2005.
3. The issue is clarified as under:

Schedule II of Schedule of Financial Powers of the Heads of Circle

59
 Serial No. of Item of Expenditure Existing Financial Powers Revised Financial Powers
Schedule-II
1 2 3 4
14. Write off: Rs. 10,000/- subject to the No change.
same conditions as
(a) Cash : applicable to DG at present.
Write off of the irrecoverable
losses of cash or stamps by
accident, fraud, robbery, (As per order dated (As per order dated
negligence or other causes. 26.03.2001) 26.03.2001)
14 (b) Stores : Rs. 50,000/- for loss of stores Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of
not due to theft, fraudor stores not due to theft, fraud
negligence. In other causes or negligence. In other
the power should only be Rs. cases the power should only
(i) Irrecoverable losses by
20,000/- be Rs. 20,000/-
fraud, theft or
negligence.
(As per order dated (As per order dated
29.07.2005) 06.06.2016)
Rs. 25,000/- in each case. Rs, 50,000/- in each case.
(ii) Irrecoverable losses in (As per order dated (As per order dated
other cases.
26.03.2001) 06.06.2016)

4. All other conditions shall remain same.

(DG (P) No. 6-1/2005-FC (Posts) dated 31.08.2016)

127. Voluntary retirement under FR 56(k), etc. and amendment of Rules.

The provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(k), 56(m) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 relating to acceptance of request of
voluntary retirement have been revisited as per the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Judgement dated 4th August,
2010 in O.A. No. 1600/2009 filed by ShriGopal Singh PurohitVs UOI & Others to bring them at par with each other.
2. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare and the Ministry of Law. FR
56(k) and 56(m) have been amended vide Extra Ordinary Gazette Notification No GSR. 27(E) dated 17th January 2014. It shall be
open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under FR 56(k) or 56(m) in
the following circumstances :
(i) If the Government servant is under suspension, or
(ii) If a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending, or
(iii) If judicial proceeding on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.
Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police
officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, has been made or filed in a criminal proceedings.
3. Copy of the Gazette Notification No. G.S.R.E. (27) dated 17-01-2014 amending FR 56(k) and FR 56(m) is enclosed.
4. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the contents of this O.M. to the notice of all concerned.
(DOPT No. 25013/3/2010-Estt. (A) dated : 27-02-2014)
NOTIFICATION
G.S.R.27(E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, and in consultation with the
Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby
makes the following rule further to amend the Fundamental Rules, 1922, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 2014.
(2) They shall came into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In the Fundamental Rule, 1922, in rule 56-
(a) in clause (k), in sub-clause (I), for item (c), the following shall be substituted namely:-
"(c) is shall be open to the appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to retire under this
clause, if,-
(i) The Government servant is under suspension: or
(ii) A charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending: or
(iii) If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police
officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, has been made or filed in a criminal proceedings"
(b) for clause (m), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"(m) A Government servant in Group 'C' post who is not governed by any pension rules, may, by giving notice of not less than three
months in writing to the Appropriate Authority, retire from service after he has completed thirty years’ service:
Provided that it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to retire
proceedings."

60
(i) The Government servant is under suspension: or
(ii) A charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending: or
(iii) If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police
officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, has been make or filed in a criminal proceedings."
(DoPT No. 6/3/2013-Estt. (Pay-I) dated 06.02.2014)

128. CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Clarification regarding effect of warning, censure etc on promotion.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No.11012/6/2008-Estt.(A) dated 7th July, 2008 on the
above mentioned subject and to say that vide para 2(iii) of the said OM, it was instructed that where a departmental proceeding has
been instituted, and it is considered that a Government servant deserves to be penalized for the offence/misconduct, one of the
prescribed penalties may only be awarded and no warning, recordable or otherwise, should be issued to the Government servant.
However, while considering cases for empanelment, the ACC has observed that in many cases, rather than exonerating the officer or
imposing a penalty on him, administrative warning is issued even when disciplinary proceeding were drawn against him.
Administrative warning is not recognized as a penalty.
2. In view of the above, the following position as contained in various instructions issued so far on warning/Censure etc. are
reiterated for strict compliance:-
(i) As clarified in the Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 39/21/56-Estt.(A) dated 13th December 1956, warning is
administrated by any authority superior to a Government employee in the event of minor lapses like negligence, carelessness, lack of
thoroughness, delay etc. It is an administrative device in the hands of superior authorities for cautioning the Government employees
with a view to toning up efficiency and maintaining discipline. There is, therefore, no objection to the continuance of this system.
However, where a copy of the warning is also kept in the Confidential Report dossier, it will be taken to constitute an adverse entry
and the officer so warned will have the right to represent against the same in accordance with the existing instructions relating to
communication of adverse remarks and consideration of representations against them.
(ii) Where a departmental proceeding has been instituted under the provisions of CCS(CC&A) Rules 1965, after the conclusion
of disciplinary proceedings, the officer is either exonerated or where it is considered that some blame attaches to the officer, he
should be awarded on of therecognized statutory penalties as given in Rule 11 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 i.e. at least 'Censure'
should be imposed. In such a situation, a warning, recordable or otherwise, should not be issued.
(iii) Warning, letter of caution, reprimands or advisories administered to Government servants do not amount to a penalty and,
therefore, will not constitute a bar for consideration of such Government servants for promotion.
3. All the disciplinary authorities in Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to keep in view the above guidelines while
dealing with disciplinary case against the Government servants.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/12/2016-Estt.A-III dated 06.12.2016)

129. Instructions on sealed cover procedure - where Government servant has been acquitted but appeal is contemplated/pending
- clarification regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No. 22011/4/91-Estt.A dated 14.09.1992 issued in the light of the
Judgment dated 27.08.1991 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v/ s K.V. Janakiraman etc. (AIR 1991 SC 2010).
References have been received seeking clarification with regard to the course of action in cases where the Government servant is
acquitted by trial court but an appeal against the judgment is either contemplated or has been filed. This issue has been examined in
the light of various court judgments including Bank of India and another vs. DegalaSuryanarayana, Appeal (Civil) 3053-54 of 1997,
(1999) 5 SCC 762 in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs and it is clarified as following:

i. Where the recommendation of DPC has been kept in sealed cover solely on account of pendency of the criminal case, the sealed
cover may be opened in case of acquittal of the Government servant provided it has not been stayed by a superior court.
ii. In the order of promotion a mention may however be made that the promotion is provisional subject to the outcome of appeal
that may be filed against, the acquittal of the Government servant. The promotion thus will be without prejudice to the action that
may be taken if the judgement of the trial court acquitting the Government servant is set-aside.
iii. In case on appeal the Government servant stands convicted, following action will be taken:
a. The provisional promotion shall be deemed non est, and the Government servant shall stand reverted;
b. In case of the Government servant being sentenced to imprisonment exceeding 48 hours, he will be deemed to be under
suspension in terms of rule 10(2)(b) from the date of conviction;
c. Action under rule 19 (i) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, read with OM No. 11012/11/85-Estt (A) dated the 11th November, 1985 and
4th April, 1986 shall be taken.
2. All Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring the aforesaid instructions to the notice of all concerned and take action
accordingly.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/6/2016-Estt.A-III dated 19.01.2017)

130. Amendment in Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 regarding fixing of timelines for finalizing
disciplinary proceedings - regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that it has been proposed to amend the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 by introducing stringent timelines
for completing Disciplinary proceedings in a time bound manner. The proposed draft Notification for amending CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 is enclosed herewith. Before framing the Rules, all stakeholders, Ministries / Departments are requested to offer their
comments/views, if any, in this regard at the e-mail address poulose.ev13@ nic.in latest by 21st March, 2017.

61
 [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA,
EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION-(I)]
Notification
Dated : March, 2017

G.S.R……(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution, and
after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965, namely :-

1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amendment Rules, 2017.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, -
1. In rule 14,-
(i) for sub-rule (4), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely :-

"(4) (a) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge,
the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article or
charges is proposed to be sustained.

(b) On receipt of the articles of charge, the Government servant shall be required to submit his written statement of defence, if he so
desires, and also state whether he desires to be heard in person, within a period of fifteen days, which may be further extended for a
period not exceeding fifteen days at a time for reasons to be recorded in written by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority
authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf:

Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time for filing written statement of defence shall exceed forty-five days from
the date of receipt of articles of charge";

(ii) for sub-rule (13), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-
"(13) On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (12), every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned
documents shall produce the same or issue a non-availability certificate before the Inquiring Authority within one month of the
receipt of such requisition: Provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production of all or any of such documents would be against the public interest or
security of the State, it shall inform the Inquiring Authority accordingly and the Inquiring Authority shall, on being so informed,
communicate the information to the Government servant and withdraw the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of
such documents.";
(iii) after sub-rule (23), th following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-
"(24) (a) The Inquiring Authority should conclude the Inquiry and submit his report within a period of six months from the date of
receipt or order of his appointment as Inquiring Authority.

(b) Where it is not possible to adhere to the time limit specified in clause (a), the Inquiring Authority may record the reasons and
seek extension of time from the disciplinary authority in writing, who may allow an additional time not exceeding six months for
completion of the Inquiry.

(c) The extension for a period not exceeding six months at a time may be allowed for any good and sufficient reasons to be recorded
in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf."

II. in rule 15, sub-rule (3) for clause (b), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:- "(b) The Disciplinary Authority shall
forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the commission received under clause (a) to the Government servant, who
shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the advice of the Commission, which may be extended for a further period not exceeding
fifteen days by recording the reasons in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorised by the Disciplinary
Authority on his behalf: Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time shall exceed forty-five days from the date of
receipt of advice of the Commission by the Government servant."

III. In rule 16,- (i) in sub-rule (1),- (A) in clause (b), for the words brackets and figure "sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14", the words,
brackets and figure "sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14" shall be substituted;
(B) for clause (d), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-

"(d) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be
forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his
written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the advice of the
Commission, which may be extended for a further period not exceeding fifteen days by recording the reasons in writing by the
Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorised by the Disciplinary Authority:

62
Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time shall exceed forty-five days from the date of receipt of advice of the
Commission by the Government servant.";
(ii) in sub-rule(1-A), for the words brackets and figure "sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14", the words, brackets and figure "sub-rules (3)
to (24) of rule 14" shall be substituted.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/9/2016-Estt.A-III dated 07.03.2017)

131. Clarification of the Definition of "Members of Family" in the context of Rule 4 regarding.
The undersigned is directed to say that as per rule 4 (1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, no Government servant shall use his
position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any member of his family in any company or firm. Further, rule
4(3) reads as follows:
"No Government servant shall in the discharge of his official duties deal with any matter or give or sanction any contract to
any company or firm or any other person if any member of his family is employed in that company or firm or under that person or if
he or any member of his family is interested in such matter or contract in any other manner and the Government servant shall refer
every such matter or contract to his official superior and the matter or contract shall thereafter be disposed of according to the
instructions of the authority to whom the reference is made."
2. As per rule 2 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the definition of "Members of Family" may differ from that given in the rule
2, sub clause (c) in the context of a rule. For removal of doubts it is clarified that in the context of rule 4(1) and 4(3) "Members of
family" in relation to a Government servant include the wife or husband, son or daughter, parents, brothers or sisters or any person
related to any of them by blood or marriage, whether they are dependent on the Government servant or not.
3. All Ministries/ Departments/Offices are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities
under their control.
(DOPT OM No.11013/4/2016-Estt (A-III) dated 20.07.2016)

132. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965-instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet -
regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP&T's O.M. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.A-III dated 3rd July, 2015 on the above
mentioned subject and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudharyvs Union of India Civil Appeal No. 1912 of 2015 dated
16/02/2015, the Apex Court has directed as follows:
"14 We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this
period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of
Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the
Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever
any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The
Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to
prepare his defence. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation
departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
2. In compliance of the above judgement, it has been decided that where a Government servant is placed under suspension,
the order of suspension should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the charge-sheet is not served to the charged
officer. As such, it should be ensured that the charge sheet is issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. As the
suspension will lapse in case this time line is not adhered to, a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that charge sheets
are issued in time.
3. It should also be ensured that disciplinary proceedings are initiated as far as practicable in cases where an investigating
agency is seized of the matter or criminal proceedings have been launched. Clarifications in this regard have already been issued vide
O.M. No. 11012/6/2007-Estt.A-Ill dated 21.07.2016.
4. All Ministries/ Departments/Offices' are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all Disciplinary
Authorities under their control.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/04/2016-Estt.(A) dated 23.08.2016)

133. Amendment in the Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on introduction of Postmaster Cadre in the Postal Wing and
prescribing Appointing Authority, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority for the cadre of Postmaster Grade I, Grade II,
Grade III and Senior Postmaster (Gazetted).
I am directed to enclose a copy of the Gazette Notification No. C-32016/10/2006-VP dated 26-9-2012 issued by this Department and
published in the weekly Gazette of India on 13-10-2012 in Part II- Section 3- Sub-section (ii) as S.O. 3104 regarding prescribing
Appointing Authority, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in the Schedule
to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on introduction of Postmaster Cadre in the Postal Wing for information, guidance and necessary action.
(DG (P) No C-32016/10/2006 – VP dated 05.04.2013)
Notification Dated : 26th September, 2012
S.O.3104—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) or rule 9, clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule (1) and sub-rule (1) of rule 24
of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1965 and in pursuance of introduction of Post-Master Cadre in
the Postal Wing by the Postal Service Board vide Directorate’s Order No. 13/2/2010-TE-I dated the 3rd February, 2010, the President
hereby makes the following amendments in the order of Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Communications
(Department of Posts) number S.O. 2454 dated the 27th August, 1990, namely

In the schedule to the said order, for part I & II, the following Part shall be substituted, namely: -

63
“PART-I GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GROUP “B”

Description of Appointing Authority competent to impose Penalties Appellate Authority

the Posts Authority penalties and the penalties
which it may impose, (with
reference to item numbers in
rule 11)
1 2 3 4 5
(i) Sr. Postmaster Director General Director General (Posts) All President
(Group ‘B’ (Posts)
Gazetted
Head of Circle (i) to (iv) Director General (Posts)
(ii) Postmaster Director Postal Director Postal Services of All Head of Circle or
Grade III (Group Services Director (General Post Office) Regional Postmaster
‘B’ Non-Gazetted) General

Head of Division or Deputy (i) to (iv) Director Postal Services

Director (PO) or Deputy Chief (concerned) or Director
Postmaster or Senior Postmaster (General Post Office) or
Chief Postmaster
(iii) Postmaster Director Postal Director Postal Services or All Head of Circle or
Grade II (Group Services Director (General Post Office) Regional Postmaster
‘B’ Non-Gazetted) General

Head of Division or Deputy (i) to (iv) Director Postal Services

Director (PO) or Deputy Chief or Director (General
Postmaster or Senior Postmaster Post Office) or Chief
in Group ‘B’ Postmaster

“PART-II GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES, GROUP ‘C’

(i) Postmaster Director Postal Director Postal Services or All Head of Circle or
Grade-I (Group Services Director (General Post Office) Regional Postmaster
‘C’ Non-Gazetted) General

Head of Division or Deputy (i) to (iv) Director Postal Services

Director (PO) or Deputy Chief or Director (General
Postmaster or Senior Post Office) or Chief
Postmaster in Group ‘B’ Postmaster
(No. C-32016/10/2006-VP)

NOTIFICATION (Department of Personnel and Training), dated the 27th November, 2014
G.S.R. 845 (E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution, and
after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to Persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964,
namely :-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Conduct) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2014.
(2) They shall come into forcc on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
2. In rule 3 of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964, in sub-rule (1), after clause (iii), the following clauses shall be
inserted, namely :-
(iv) commit himself to and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic values;
(v) defend and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality;
(vi) maintain high ethical standards and honesty;
(vi) maintain political neutrality;
(vii) promote the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties:
(viii) maintain accountability and transparency;
(ix) maintain responsiveness to the public, particularly to the weaker section;
(x) maintain courtesy and good behavior with the public;
(xi) take decisions solely in public interest and use or cause to use public resources efficiently, effectively and economically;
(xii) declare any private interests relating to his public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts in a way that protects the
public interest;
(xiii) not place himself under any financial or other obligations to any individual or organization which may influence him in the
performance of his official duties;
(xiv) not misuse his position as civil servant and not take decisions in order to derive financial or material benefits for himself,
his family or his friends;
(xv) make choices, take decisions and make recommendations on merit alone;
(xvi) act with fairness and impartiality and not discriminate against anyone, particularly the poor and the under-privileged
sections of society;
(xvii) refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices;

64
(xviii) maintain discipline in the discharge of his duties and be liable to implement the lawful orders duty communicated to him;
(xix) maintain confidentiality in the performance of his official duties as required by any laws for the time being in force,
particularly with regard to information, disclosure of which may prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security
of the State. strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, friendly relation with foreign countries or lead to incitement of an
offence or illegal or unlawful gain to any person;
(xx) perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities.”
(Notification (DOPT) No. 11013/6/2014-Estt (A) dated 27.11.2014)

134. Improving vigilance administration Action on anonymous/ Pseudonymous complaints.

The undersigned has been directed to refer to the Commission’s communication No. 3 (v)/99/2 dated 29.06.1999 and the
letter of even number dated 31.01.2002, on the above subject, and to say that the Commission has reviewed the instructions
contained in the aforesaid communication and reiterates that no action is to be taken by the departments/organizations, as a
general rule, on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints received by them. However, if any department/organization proposes to
look into any verifiable facts alleged in such complaints, it may refer the matter to the Commission seeking its concurrence through
the CVO or the head of the organization, irrespective of the level of employees involved therein.
(CVC No. 98/DSP/9 dated 11.10.2002)

135. Reiteration of Provisions of CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972 in the matter of irregularly withholding of Gratuity / Pensionary
benefits on account of disciplinary proceeding etc-clarification thereon.
A large No. of grievances and petitions are being received in the Directorate from retired postal employees stating that their
gratuity/regular pension etc. have been withheld, and not being paid to them after retirement on account of some complaint and /or
preliminary investigation/ enquiry instituted against them while no chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965/Rule 9 of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has been issued to them.
On examination of these cases, it was found that in many cases only on the basis of a complaint where a preliminary inquiry has
been instituted, the regular pension/gratuity has been withheld after retirement. In some other cases, it was seen that the employee
while in service had been found primary offender or subsidiary offender during inquiry although no chargesheet (either under Rule
16 or under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965) had been issued to him. In some cases, the pensionary benefits had been withheld as
the Rule 16 (Minor penalty chargesheet) that had been issued to him/ her while in service had not been decided. In all these cases,
the withholding of pensionary benefits is against the provisions.
In this connection. I am directed to bring to your notice for ready reference the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on the
subject. These rules may be brought to the notice of all concerned authorities under your control so that in future the pensionary
benefits are not wrongly withheld.
(A) Rule 9 (2) (b) provides that the Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Govt servant was in service, whether
before his retirement, or during his re-employment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President
(ii) shall not be in respect any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure
applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government
service during his service.
(B) Rule 9 (6) further clarifies that Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the
statement of charge is issued to the Government servant or Pensioner, or if the Government Servant has been placed under
suspension from an earlier date, on such date :
(C) Rule 9, GOI decision (6) further provides that since ‘grave misconduct or negligence cannot be established as a result of
minor penalty proceedings, action under Rule 9 ibid for withholding or withdrawing pension, etc cannot be taken against a pensioner
in respect of whom minor penalty proceedings had been instituted and have been continued after retirement.
This aspect should be kept in mind by Disciplinary authority and he/she must ensure that minor penalty (under Rule 16 of CCS
(CCA) Rule) proceedings instituted against a Govt servant have to be finalized before the date of retirement.
(D) Rule 69 (1) (c) – No gratuity shall be paid to the Government Servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial
proceedings and issue of final orders thereon-
Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for imposing any
of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid
to the Government Servant.
It is clear from the above that if departmental proceeding under Rule 14 (Major Penalty proceedings) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965/
Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 have not been instituted before the officers’ retirement, they cannot be instituted after
retirement except with the sanction of the President. Also Departmental proceedings cannot be instituted against retired employees
in respect of any event that took place more than 4 years before the date of institution of proceedings.
It is also clear from above that if an officer has been served with minor penalty chargesheet i.e. under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
the proceedings have to be completed before the date of retirement for imposing any of the minor penalties. This again cannot
result in withholding of pensionary benefits.
These provisions may be brought to the notice of all concerned authorities under your control so that in future the pensionary
benefits of postal employees are not wrongly withheld.
(DG (P) No. 4-1/2014-Pen dated 25.03.2014)

65
136. Adherence to Time-Limit in Processing of Disciplinary cases
It has been observed that the schedule of time-limit in conducting investigation and departmental inquiries laid down in
Commission’s letter of even number, dated the 23rd May 2000 are not being strictly adhered to. In this context attention is invited to
Department of Personal and Training O.M. No. 11.013/2/2004-Estt. (a) dated the 16th February, 2004, regarding accountability for
delay in decision making.
Delay in decision – making by authorities in processing of vigilance cases would also be constructed as misconduct under the relevant
Conduct Rules and would be liable to attract penal action. All administrative authorities are requested to take note and strictly
adhere to the prescribed schedule of time –limit in dealing with disciplinary cases.
(CVC No. 51/08/2004, dated 10.August 2004)
(DG P&T letter No. 35/7/37-SPB.II dated 22-12-67)

137. Procedure for empanelment of retired officers as the Inquiry Officers for conducting Departmental Inquiries-reg.
The undersigned is directed to state that the issue of utilizing the services of retired officers for conducting departmental
inquiries had been under consideration of the Department. It has now been decided that panels of retired officers from the
Ministries/Departments under Government of India and PSUs would be created and maintained by the respective Cadre Controlling
Authorities for conducting Departmental Inquiries against the delinquent officials.
2. Procedure for empanelment of retire officers as the Inquiry Officers- Panels of retired officers not below the rank of
Deputy Secretary in Central Government and equivalent officer in the State Governments/PSUs to be appointed as the Inquiry
Officer for the purpose of conducting departmental inquiries would be maintained level/rank wise and place-specific by each cadre
controlling authority where its offices are located.
3. Validity of the panel - The panel of the retired officers created for the purpose of appointing Inquiry Offices for conducting
departmental inquiry will be valid for a period of three years. The respective Cadre Controlling Authority will ensure that a panel of
retired Inquiry Officers is available with them.
4. Following are the eligibility conditions for appointment of willing retired officers as the Inquiry Officers to conduct
departmental inquiries:-
(i) The retired officers willing to serve as the Inquiry Officer should not be more than 65 years of age as on the 1st April of the
year of his/her empanelment.
(ii) He/she should be in sound health-both physically and mentally.
(iii) He/she should not be an accused officer in any pending inquiry and should be of impeccable integrity.
5. The respective Cadre Controlling Authority will immediately take necessary action for inviting applications from willing and
eligible retired officers to serve as the Inquiry Officer for conducting departmental inquiry. In this regard, a format for inviting
applications is annexed.
6. A three-member committee consisting of Joint Secretary level officers including CVO of the concerned
Ministry/Departments/PSUs would be constituted by the respective cadre controlling authority. The other two members can be from
the same Ministry/Department or from the attached or subordinate office. After receipt of willingness of the retired officers, names
of the officers will be screened by the committee so constituted and panel of officers (Database) will be created rank-wise viz.,
Deputy Secretary, Director, Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Secretary, etc. Approval of Minister-in-charge may be solicited for
making the panel of the officers. Appointment of Inquiry Officer, from the panel of eligible retired officers, will be done by a random
draw of lot. The Committee constituted for making panels of retired officers as the Inquiry Officer has to keep in mind that
applications of retired officers willing to serve as an Inquiry Officer should be scrutinized carefully to ensure that the applicant meets
the eligibility criteria.
7. The number of disciplinary cases assigned to an Inquiry Officer may be restricted to 20 cases in a year, with not more than
4 cases at a time.
8. Terms and conditions for appointment of retired officers as the Inquiry Officer.
The designated Inquiry Officer shall require to give an undertaking as follows:-
(i) that he/she is not a witness or a complainant in the matter to be inquired into or a close relative or a known friend of the
delinquent Government officer.
(ii) shall maintain strict secrecy in relation to the documents he/she receives or information/data collected by him/her in
connection with the inquiry and utilize the same only for the purpose of inquiry in the case entrusted to him/her.
9. No such documents/information or data shall be divulged to anyone during the Inquiry or after presentation of the Inquiry
Report. All the records, reports etc. available with the Inquiry Officer shall be duly returned to the authority which appointed
him/her as such, at the time of presentation of the Inquiry Report.
10. The Inquiry Officer shall conduct the inquiry proceedings in the official premises provided by the Department/Organization,
which engages him/her.
11. The Inquiry Officer shall undertake travel for conducting inquiry (in unavoidable circumstances) with the approval of the
Disciplinary Authority.
12. The Inquiry Officer shall submit the inquiry report after completing the inquiry within ninety days from the date of his/her
appointment as the Inquiry Officer. Extension of time beyond ninety days can be granted only by the Disciplinary Authority.
13. The rates of honorarium and other allowances payable to the Inquiry Officer will be as under:-

66
 Particulars/Details Rate per case (in Rupees)
Items Category Time taken to Dy. Joint Secretary
complete the Secretary/Director and above
inquiry
proceedings
Honorarium ‘I’ Within 45 days Rs. 60000 Rs. 75000
‘II’ Within 90 days Rs. 40000 Rs. 50000
‘III’ Beyond 90 days Rs. 30000 Rs. 40000
Transport Rs. 40000/- per case
Allowance
Secretarial Rs. 30000 per case if no secretarial assistance is
Assistance provided by the Ministry/Department concerned

Particulars/Details Rate per case (in Rupees)

Items Category Time taken to complete Dy. Joint Secretary
the inquiry proceedings Secretary/Director and above
Honorarium ‘I’ Within 45 days Rs. 60000 Rs. 75000
‘II’ Within 90 days Rs. 40000 Rs. 50000
‘III’ Beyond 90 days Rs. 30000 Rs. 40000
Transport Allowance Rs. 40000/- per case
Secretarial Assistance Rs. 30000 per case if no secretarial assistance is provided by the
Ministry/Department concerned

Payment will be made to the Inquiry Officer only when the report is accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. In case it is not possible
to proceed with the matter due to stay by courts etc., the Inquiry Officer may be discharged from his/her duties and payment of
honorarium and other allowances will be made on pro rata basis.
14. Before the payment is received by the Inquiry Officer, it will be his/her responsibility to ensure that:-
(a) All case records and inquiry report (two ink signed copies) properly documented and arranged is handed over to the
Disciplinary Authority.
(b) The report returns findings on each of the Articles of Charge which has been enquired into should specifically deal and
address each of the procedural objections, if any, raised by the charged officers as per the extant rules and instructions.
(c) There should not be any ambiguity in the inquiry report and therefore every care should be taken to ensure that all
procedures for conducting departmental inquiries have been followed in accordance with the relevant rules/instructions of
disciplinary and appeal Rules to which the delinquent Government officials are governed.
15. Letter regarding engaging a retired officer as the Inquiry Officer will only be issued with the approval of the Disciplinary
Authority of the Ministry/Department/ Office concerned.
16. The Department of Personnel & Training (AVD.I) may be consulted in case of clarification(s) on any of the issues related to
empanelment of retired officer as an Inquiry Officer for conducting departmental inquiries.
17. The services of Inquiry Officers whose performance is not upto the mark will be terminated with the approval of
appointing authority.
(DOPT F.No.142/40/2015-AVD.I dated 07.01.2016)

138. Consolidate instructions on suspension

At present instructions regarding suspension are spread over a number of Rules such as CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, 1965, Fundamental
Rules etc. In addition, a number of orders covering different aspects of suspension have been issued from time to time. A need has
been felt for bringing at one place all these orders.
2. The guidelines on suspension have been consolidated and are placed as appendix to this O.M. for facility of Ministries /
Departments.
(DoPT O.M. No 11012/17/2013 – Estt (A) dated 02.01.2014)
APPENDIX
SUSPENSION
Suspension, in the context of disciplinary proceedings, may be defined as temporary withdrawal of duties from a government
servant, pending inquiry into his/ her conduct, with simultaneous reduction in pay and withdrawal of some rights/ privileges.
2. The provisions relating to suspension are scattered across several rules. The main provisions are contained in Rule 10 of CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965 (or corresponding rules governing the Governing the Government servant concerned) and FR 53, 54 and 55.
3. Suspension, though not a penalty, is to be resorted to sparingly. Whenever a Govt. Servant is placed under suspension not
only does the Govt. lose his services but also pays him for doing no work. It also has a stigma attached to it. Therefore the decision to
place a Govt. servant under suspension must be a carefully considered decision and each case would need to be considered on
merits. A Govt. servant may be placed under suspension, in the following circumstances:
(a) Where, a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending:

67
or
(b) where, in the opinion of the competent authority, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the
security of the state:
or
(c) where, a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
4. A Disciplinary Authority may consider it appropriate to place a Government servant under suspension in the following
circumstances. These are only intended for guidance and should not be taken as mandatory:-
(i) Cases where continuance in office of the Government servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (e.g.
apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents):
(ii) where the continuance in office of the Government servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the
public servant is working;
(iii) where the continuance in office of the Government servant will be against the wider public interest [other than those covered
by (i) and (ii)] such as there is public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant suspension to demonstrate the
policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals, particularly corruption ;
(iv) where allegations have been made against the Government servant and preliminary inquiry has revealed that a prima facie
case is made out which would justify his prosecution or is being proceeded against in departmental proceedings, and where the
proceedings are likely to end in his conviction and / or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service.
NOTE :
(a) In a first three circumstances the disciplinary authority may exercise his discretion to place a Government servant under
suspension even when the case is under investigation and before a prima facie case has been established.
(b) Suspension may be desirable in the circumstances indicated below:-
(i) any offence or conduct involving moral turpitude:
(ii) corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money, possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of
official powers for personal gain;
(iii) serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to Government;
(iv) desertion of duty;
(v) refusal or deliberate failure to carry out written orders of superior officers. In respect of the types of misdemeanour
specified in sub clauses (iii) and (V) discretion has to be exercised with care.
5. Reasons for Suspension, if not indicated in the suspension order itself, should be communicated within three months.
6. Deemed Suspension
A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority –
(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period
exceeding forty-eight hours;
(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of
imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such
conviction.
EXPLANATION – The period of forty-eight hours referred to in clause (b) shall be computed from the commencement of the
imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.
(c) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under
suspension is set aside in appeal or on review and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the
order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders.
(d) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside
or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration
of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under
suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall
continue to remain under suspension until further orders :
Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order
purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.
Rule 10 (2), (3) and (4) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
7. Authority competent to place a Govt. servant under suspension
The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered
in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension.
Provided that, except in case of an order of suspension made by the Comptroller and Auditor – General in regard to a member of the
Indian Audit and Accounts Service and in regard to an Assistant Accountant General or equivalent (other than a regular member of
the Indian Audit and Accounts Service), where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority,
such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.
Rule 10 (1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
8. Review of Suspension
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made may at any time be modified or revoked by the authority which made
or is deemed to have made the order or any authority to which that authority is subordinate.
Rule 10 (5) (c) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

68
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the
suspension, before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee
constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before
expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty
days at a time.
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after
review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension, if the Government servant
continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will
count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his
release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.
[Rule 10 (6) & (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965]
9. Subsistence Allowance
A Govt. servant under suspension is not paid any pay but is allowed a Subsistence Allowance at an amount equivalent to the leave
salary which the Government servant would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or half pay and in addition
dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary.
FR 53 1(ii) (a)
Subsistence allowance to be reviewed after 3 months and may be increased by upto 50% of the allowance during the first 3 months
or reduced by upto 50 % of the allowance during the first 3 months
FR 53 1 (ii) (a) – (i) & (ii)
10. Headquarters during Suspension
An officer under suspension is regarded as subject to all other conditions of service applicable generally to Government servants and
cannot leave the station without prior permission. As such, the headquarters of a Government servant should normally be assumed
to be his last place of duty. The order placing an officer under suspension should clearly indicate what his headquarters would be.
However, where an individual under suspension requests for a change of headquarters, there is no objection to a competent
authority changing the headquarters, if is satisfied that such a course will not put Government to any extra expenditure like grant of
T.A. etc. or other complications.
11. Promotion during suspension
Officer under suspension shall be considered by the DPC along with others. However the recommendations in respect of those
under suspension shall be placed in a sealed cover. The sealed cover shall be opened/ not acted upon depending on the outcome of
the disciplinary proceedings.
In an officer is suspended subsequent to the meeting of the DPC but before he is actually promoted, then the recommendations
would be deemed to have been placed in the sealed cover.
DoPT O.M.No.22034/4/2012-Estt (D) dated 02-11-2012
12. LTC
A Govt. servant under suspension cannot avail of LTC as he cannot get any leave including casual leave during the period of
suspension. As he continues to be in service during the period of suspension, members of his family are entitled to LTC.
13. Leave
Leave may not be granted to a Government servant under suspension.
[FR55]
14. Recoveries from subsistence Allowance
A. Compulsory Deductions to be enforced
a) Income Tax
b) House Rent (Licence Fee) and allied charges
c) Repayment of loans and advances taken from Government – rate
d) CGHS contribution
e) CGEGIS subscription
B. Deductions at the option of the suspended officer

· PLI premia
· Amounts due to Co-op stores / Societies
· Refund of GPF advance

C. Deduction NOT to be made

· GPF subscription
· Amounts due to court attachments
· Recovery of loss to Government

15. Forwarding of applications etc.

Application of a Government servant for appointment, whether by Direct Recruitment, transfer on deputation or transfer, to any
other post should not be considered / forwarded if he is under suspension.
(DoPT OM No.AB14017/101/91-Estt (RR) dated 14th July, 1993)
Vigilance clearance may not be granted to an officer under suspension for deputation, empanelment etc.
(DoPT O.M No.11012/11/2007-Estt (A) dated 14-12-2007 & 21-06-2013)

69
16. Voluntary Retirement / Resignation
(a) Notice of Voluntary Retirement Under FR 56 (k) or Rule 48 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

It shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government Servant under suspension who seeks to retire
under either of these rules.
Proviso (c) of FR 56 (k) (1) (c) and second proviso to Rule 48 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972

(b) Voluntary Retirement under rule 48-A of Pension Rules

A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of twenty years’ qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing
authority if the date of retirement on the expiry of the notice would be earlier than the date on which the Government servant
concerned could have retired voluntarily under the existing rules applicable to him [e.g., FR 56 (k), Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972, Article 459 of CSRs or any other similar rule]. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except those (a) in which
disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant concerned for the imposition of a major
penalty and the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that the imposition of the
penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case, or (b) in which prosecution is contemplated or may
have been launched in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned. If it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary
retirement even in such cases, approval of the Minister-in-charge should be obtained in regard to Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’
Government servants and that of the Head of the Department in the cases of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ Government servants. Even
where the notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the
Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless, the
competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice.
GOI Decision below Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
(c) Resignation
The competent authority should examine, with reference to the merit of the disciplinary case pending against the Government
servant, whether it would be in the public interest to accept the resignation. Normally, as officers are placed under suspension only
in cases or grave delinquency, it would not be correct to accept the resignation of an officer under suspension. Exceptions would be
where the alleged offence does not involve moral turpitude or where the evidence against the officer is not strong enough to justify
that departmental proceedings, if continued would result in removal from service / dismissal or where departmental proceedings are
likely to be so protracted that it would be cheaper for the exchequer to accept the resignation.
(d) Retirement
A Government servant who retires while under suspension is entitled to provisional pension equal to the maximum pension on the
basis of qualifying service up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.
Gratuity will not be paid until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings except where the proceedings are under Rule 16 of CCS
(CCA) Rules (for imposition of minor penalty [Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972]
17. Revocation of Suspension
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made may be modified or revoked at any time by the authority who made it
(or deemed to have made) or any authority to which such authority is subordinate.
Rule 10 (5) (c) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after
review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.
Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension, if the Government servant
continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will
count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his
release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later.
Rule 10 (7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
18. On Conclusion of Proceedings
If Exonerated
a) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant may be
paid full pay and allowances.
b) Where the Competent Authority is of the opinion that the proceedings were delayed for reasons directly attributable to the Govt.
servant, it may after notice to the Govt. servant and considering his representation – if any, order a reduced amount to be paid.
c) The period of suspension will be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes.
[FR 54 –B (3) & (4)]
B. Minor Penalty is imposed
Where the proceedings result only in minor penalty being imposed, then the suspension is treated as wholly unjustified.
DoPT O.M. No. 11012/15/85 – Estt (A) dt. 3-12-1985
C. Other than exoneration / minor penalty
(a) The competent authority shall determine the amount to be paid, after notice to Govt servant and considering his representation-
if any.
[FR 54 –B (5)]
(b) The period of suspension shall not be treated as duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated
for any specified purpose.
(c) If the Govt servant so desires, the period of suspension may be converted into leave of the kind due and admissible.
(Note : Such leave can be in excess of 3 months in case of temporary Govt servants of 5 years in case of permanent Govt servants)
[FR 54 –B (7)]

70
NOTE : As per FR 54-B (9) wherever the amount allowed is less than full pay and allowances it shall not be less than the Subsistence
Allowance already paid.
D. Death while under suspension
Where a Govt. servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary proceedings or the court proceedings against him are
concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family
shall be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, for that period subject to
adjustment of subsistence allowance already paid.
[FR 54 –B (2)]
19. Serving of Charge Sheet etc.
a) Suspension order should normally indicate the grounds for suspension.
b) Where the suspension is on grounds of contemplated proceedings, charge sheet should be served upon the Govt servant within
3 months.
c) Where charge sheet is not served within 3 months, the reasons for suspension should be communicated to the Govt servant
immediately on expiry of 3 months from the date of suspension.
(DOPT OM No.11012/17/2013-Estt (A) dated 02.01.2014)

139. Timely completion of disciplinary proceedings/departmental inquiry proceedings-improving vigilance administration.

Ref:
(i) Commission’s Circular No. 8(1)(g)/99(2) dated 19.02.1999.
(ii) Commission’s Circular No. 8(1)(g)/99(3)dated 03.03.1999
(iii) Commission’s Circular No. 3(v)/99(7) dated 06.09.1999
(iv) Commission’s Circular No. 000/VGL/18 dated 23.05.2000
(vi) Commission’s Office Order No. 51/08/2004 dated 10.08.2004
The Commission has noted with serious concern that the administrative authorities are not adhering to the time-schedules
prescribed for completion of disciplinary proceedings. In a recent study conducted by the Commission, it has been noticed that while
the average time taken by the administrative authorities in finalisation of disciplinary proceedings is more than 2 years, the
maximum time taken in a particular case was eight (8) years and at least in 22% cases the inquiry took more than two years. The
Commission vide its Circular Jar No. 8( I )(g)/99(3) dated 03.03.1999 and No. 000/VGL/18 dated 23.05.2000 has laid down the time
limits for various stages of disciplinary proceedings right from the stage of investigation to finalisation of the disciplinary case. The
time-limit for completion of departmental inquiry is six months from the date of appointment of the JO. Thus, it appears that this
time limit is not being adhered to by a majority of the Departments/Organ is at ions. Such long delays not only are unjust to officials
who may be ultimately acquitted, but help the guilty evade punitive action for long periods. Further, they have an adverse impact on
others who believe that “nothing will happen”. The Commission has been emphasizing from time to time on the need for expeditious
completion of disciplinary proceedings.
2. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 16.12.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 958 of20JO PremNath Bali Vs. Registrar,
High Court of Delhi &Anr has viewed the delay in handling of disciplinary cases adversely. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing
the said appeal in favour of the Appellant Employee has observed as follows:
“29. One cannot dispute in this case that the suspension period was unduly long. We also find that the delay in completion of the
departmental proceedings was not wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally attributable to the respondents as well.
Due to such unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and his family had to survive only on suspension
allowance for a long period of 9 years.
30. We are constrained to observe as to why the departmental proceeding, which involved only one charge and that too
uncomplicated, have taken more than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No justification was forthcoming from the
respondents’ side to explain the undue delay in completion of the departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the appellant’s
conduct which we feel, was not fully justified.
31. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated
against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the
delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer
to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of
the delinquent employee.
32. As a mailer of experience, we often notice that after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an
end because if the findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against the delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the issue in
Court to ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for its final conclusion.
33. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make
sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a
reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer
limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the
time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of
inquiry but not more than a year. “
3. The Commission has observed that a number of factors contribute to the delay in the conduct of departmental inquiries and with
prudent management this needs to be checked. The departmental inquiry is often delayed due to laxity on the part of IO, lack of
monitoring by DA & CVO, non-availability of listed or additional documents, delay in inspection of original or certified documents,
frequent adjournments, non-attendance of witnesses, especially private witnesses, faulty charge-sheets and frequent change of
IO/PO and non-monitoring of progress of inquiry. The Commission suggests that the following steps may be ensured and complied
strictly by the IOs/administrative authorities:

71
(i) In cases where investigation has been conducted by the CBI/ other investigating agency and the documents have been seized by
them for prosecution in courts and RDA is also contemplated, it is the responsibility of the CVO/DA to procure from the
CBI/investigating agency legible certified copies of seized documents required for RDA. In cases investigated by CVOs it must be
ensured that certified legible photocopies of al 1 documents are made available at the time of preparation of draft charge-sheet
itself
(ii) While drafting the charge-sheet it may be ensured that all the relied upon documents as well as copies of relevant
rules/instructions are in the custody of CVO. After issue of charge-sheet and submission of defence statement, the DA is required to
take a decision within 15 days for appointment of IO/PO in major penalty cases.
(iii) As far as practicable, the 10 should be chosen from amongst the serving officers/retired officers in the same station where the
charged officer is posted, who is likely to continue till the conclusion of inquiry.
(iv) It may be ensured that the PO is appointed simultaneously. Changes in IO/PO be resorted to only in exceptional cases under
intimation to the Commission (in respect of officers within the jurisdiction of the Commission).
(v) In cases involving more than one charged officer, it may be ensured that, as far as practicable, same IO/PO is appointed in all
cases.
(vi) The PO must keep copies of relevant Rules/Regulations/Instructions etc. readily available with him. Departments/Organisations
should also ensure online availability of all their Rules/Regulations/Instructions etc. so that it can be downloaded during the inquiry
proceedings without any loss of time.
(vii) It may be ensured that the defence documents are made available within the time allowed by the IO. Responsibility should be
fixed on the custodian of such documents for any undue delay/not producing it in time or loss of these documents.
(viii) The IO should normally conduct Regular Hearing on a day to day basis and not grant more than one adjournment for
appearance of witnesses. It may be ensured that all the prosecution or defence witnesses are summoned and examined in separate
but simultaneous batches expeditiously.
(ix) If witnesses do not appear in response to notices or are not produced by PO/CO as the case may be, powers conferred under the
Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 be exercised to request
the Competent Court to pass orders for production of the witness through summons issued by the Court.
(x) The IO should, as far as practicable, desist from allowing interlocutory documents sought either by the PO or the CO as additional
documents during the deposition of witnesses.
(xi) The time-limit for various stages of inquiry, as prescribed by the Commission vide its Circular No. 8(1 )(g)99(3) dated 03.03.1999,
may be complied with strictly by the disciplinary authorities and the inquiry officers.
(xii) Where the CO or PO do not co-operate in the manner of attendance, production of documents, witnesses etc., IO may after
affording reasonable opportunity, proceed to give a report ex-parte based on facts, documents, witnesses produced before him.
4. The suggested time limits for conducting departmental inquiries prescribed by the Commission for various stages is annexed for
ready reference. Timely completion of departmental inquiry/departmental proceedings is the prime responsibility of the Disciplinary
Authority. Therefore, the disciplinary authorities in each Ministry/ Department/ Organisation may regularly monitor the progress of
inquiry on regular basis and ensure that the inquiry/departmental proceedings are completed within the time-limit prescribed as laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited case. The CVO concerned would assist the disciplinary authority in monitoring
the progress of departmental proceedings. The Commission may recommend adverse action against the concerned
disciplinary/administrative authority who
is found responsible for any unexplained delay observed in any case. In appropriate cases wherein the IO delays the proceedings, DA
may not hesitate to take necessary and appropriate action against the JO.
(CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION Circular No. 02/01/2016
No.000-VGL-18 Dated : 18.01.2016)

140. Simultaneous action of prosecution and initiation of departmental proceedings.

The undersigned is directed to refer to the Department of Personnel and Training OM of even number dated the 1st August, 2007 on
the above subject and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudharyvs Union Of India Through Its Secretary & Anr, Civil Appeal
No. 1912 of 2015, (JT 2015 (2) SC 487), 2015(2) SCALE, the Apex Court has directed that the currency of a Suspension Order should
not extend beyond three months if within this period a Memorandum of Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent
officer/employee;
2. It is noticed that in many cases charge sheets are not issued despite clear prima facie evidence of misconduct on the ground that
the matter is under investigation by an investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation. In the aforesaid judgement the Hon
‘ble Court has also superseded the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental
proceedings are to be held in abeyance.
3. In the subsequent paras the position as regards the following issues has been clarified:
(i)Issue of charge sheet against an officer against whom an investigating agency is conducting investigation or against whom a charge
sheet has been filed in a court;
(ii) Effect of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental inquiry
(iii)Action where an employee convicted by a court files an appeal in a higher court
Issue of charge sheet against an officer against whom an investigating agency is conducting investigation or against whom a charge
sheet has been filed in a court
4. It has been reaffirmed in a catena of cases that there is no bar in law for initiation of simultaneous criminal and departmental
proceedings on the same set of allegations. In State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 417 =AIR 1997 SC 13 = 1997 (1)
LW 746 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasised the need for initiating departmental proceedings in such cases in these
words:

72
It must be remembered that interests of administration demand that the undesirable elements are thrown out and any charge of
misdemeanour is enquired into promptly. The disciplinary proceedings are meant not really to punish the guilty but to keep the
administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements. The interest of the delinquent officer also lies in a prompt
conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. If he is not guilty of the charges, his honour should be vindicated at the earliest possible
moment and if he is guilty, he should be dealt with promptly according to law. It is not also in the interest of administration that
persons accused of serious misdemeanour should be continued in office indefinitely, i.e., for long periods awaiting the result of
criminal proceedings.
5. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.:., (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Supreme Court has observed that
departmental proceedings and proceedings m a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar m their being conducted
simultaneously, though separately.
Effect of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental inquiry
6. The question as to what is to be done in the case of acquittal in a criminal case has been answered by the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court
in R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 787 (a five Judge benchjudgement) as follows:
If the trial of the criminal charge results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow against the public servant so
convicted. Even in case of acquittal proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable.
7. The issue was explained in the following words by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following words in Ajit Kumar Nag v GM, (PJ),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764:
Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with Rules and Regulations in force.
The two proceedings criminal and departmental are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal
with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service Rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating
statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules
of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a
conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation
of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In
departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of
‘preponderance of probability’. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from
the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation.
8. The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank vs State of Gujarat (2006) 5 SCC 446 has reaffirmed the principles laid
down in R.P. Kapur (supra). In G.M. Tank case, Court observed that there was not an iota of evidence against the appellant to hold
that he was guilty. As the criminal case and the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts and evidence, the
Court set aside the penalty imposed in the departmental inquiry also.
9. Ratio in the G.M. Tank judgement should not be misconstrued to mean that no departmental proceedings are permissible in all
cases of acquittal or that in such cases the penalty already imposed would have to be set aside. What the Hon’ble Court has held that
is no departmental inquiry would be permissible when the evidence clearly establishes that no charge against the Government
servant may be made out.
Action where an employee convicted by a court files an appeal in a higher court
10. In many cases Government servants who have been found guilty by lower courts and have filed appeals in higher courts
represent for reinstatement/ setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965. In such cases, the
following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C. Sareenvs C.B.l.,Chandigarh,2001 (6) sec 584 are to be kept in view:
When a public servant was found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness
demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or
revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once
again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold · public office
and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially · absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of
conviction it is public interest which suffers and sometimes even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is
allowed to continue to hold public office it impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would
erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants
who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders
from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction the fall out would be one of shaking the system
itself.
11. Thus action against a convicted Government servant should be taken straight away under Rule 19(1). An appeal against the
conviction or even a stay on the sentence will have no effect unless the conviction itself is stayed.
12. In view of the law laid down in various judgements, including the ones quoted above, in cases of serious charges of misconduct,
particularly involving moral turpitude, the Ministries/Departments should keep the following points in view to take prompt action:
(i) All incriminating documents should be seized promptly to avoid their tempering or destruction of evidence.
(ii) Particular care needs to be taken for retention of copies of such documents while handing over the same to an investigating
agency. These documents may be attested after comparison with the originals.
(iii)In case the documents have been filed in a court, certified copies of documents may be obtained.
(iv)Documents and other evidence must be examined to see whether any misconduct, including favour, harassment, negligence
or violation of rules/instructions has been committed. If there is a prima facie evidence of misconduct, charge sheet under the
appropriate rule must be issued.
(v) Court judgements should be promptly acted upon:
(a) in cases of conviction action is to be taken under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965;

73
(b) in cases of acquittal also, if the Court has not acquitted the accused honourably, charge sheet may be issued;
(c) an acquittal on technical grounds or where a benefit of doubt has been given to the accused will have no effect on a penalty
imposed under CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965, as while in a criminal trial the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the
departmental inquiry the standard of evidence is preponderance of probability.
(vi)An appeal by the accused against conviction, but where the conviction has not been overturned/ stayed, will have no effect on
action taken under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965, even if Court has directed stay/ suspension of the sentence.
13. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all concerned officials for compliance.
(DOPT F.No.11012/6/2007-Estt (A-III) dated 21.07.2016)

141. DOPT NOTIFICATIONS dated the 17th January, 2014

G.S.R.27€ - In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the constitution, and in consultation with the
comptroller and Auditor General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the president hereby
makes the following rule further to amend the fundamental Rules. 1922, namely:-
1. (1) These rules may be called the Fundamental (First Amendment) Rules, 2014.
(2) They shall came into force on the date of their publication in the official Gazette.
2. In the fundamental Rule, 1922 in rule 56,-
(a) in clause (k), in sub-cause (1), for item (c), the following shall be substituted namely:-
“(c) it shall be open to the appropriated authority to withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to
retire under this clause, if,-
(i) the government servant is under suspension: or
(ii) a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending: or
(iii) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.
Explanation :- For the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police
officer, of which the magistrate takes cognizance, has been made or filed in a criminal proceedings.”

(b) For clause (m), the following shall be substituted, namely:-

“(m) A Government servant in Group “c” post who is not governed by any pension rules, may, by giving notice of not
less than three months in writing to the Appropriate Authority, retire from service after he has completed thirty years’
service:

Provided that it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a government servant, who seeks to retire
proceedings.”
(i) the Government servant is under suspension; or
(ii) a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or
(iii) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.
Explanation:- for the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police
officer, of which the magistrate takes cognizance, has been made or filed in a criminal proceedings.” [No. 25013/3/2010-Estt. (A.IV)]
Note: The principal Rules, 91922 were published and came into force with effect from 1st January, 1922 and were subsequently
amended vide following notification namely:-
Ministry of Finance:
1. Notification No. 12(2)-E V. (C)-63 dated 21-7-1965
2. Notification No. 7(10)-E.V/63 dated 23-7-1966
3. Notification No. 7(6)-E.V/68 dated 8-7-1968
4. Notification No. 7(2)-E.V/67-I dated 17-5-1969
5. Notification No. 7(2)-E.V/69-I dated 26-5-1969
6. Notification No. 7(14)-E.V/67 -I dated 26-5-1969
7. Notification No. 7(7)-E.V(A) 74 dated 7-2-1975
8. Notification No. 7(8)-E.V(A) 77 dated 20-8-1977
Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and A.R.:
9. Notification No. 19017/1/79-Esst. (A) dated 30-11-1979
10. Notification No. 25013/4/80-Esst. (A) dated 11-9-1981
11. Notification No. 15013/4/80-Esst. (A) dated 12-6-1982
12. Notification No. 26012/14/83-Esst. (A) dated 11-10-1983
13. Notification No. 25013/25/83-Esst. (A) dated 25-02-1984
Department of Personal and Training:
14. Notification No. 25013/25/83-Esst. (A) dated 2-7-1985
15. Notification No. 25013/10/87-Esst. (A) dated 7-10-1988
16. Notification No. 25013/11/87-Esst. (A) dated 11-5-1989
17. Notification No. 25012/2/86-Esst. (A) dated 30-8-1993
18. Notification No. 28020/1/96-Esst. (C) dated 9-2-1998
19. Notification No. 25012/2/97-Esst.(A) dated 13-5-1998 (GSR. No.248 (E) dated. 13.5.1996
20. Notification No. 25012/2/97-Esst. (A) dated 27-5-1998 [GSR. No. 276 (E) dated 27-5-1998]
21. Cordgm.No. 25012/2/97-Esst.(A)(i) dated 12-11-1998
22. Cordgm. No. 25012/2/97-Esst. (A)(ii) dated 12-11-1998
23. Notification No.25012/2/97-Esst. (A) dated 8-12-1998 [GSR.No.724(E)dated 8-12-1998]

74
 24. Notification No. 25012/2/97-Esst. (A) dated 25-1-1999 [GSR.No.49(E)dated 25-1-1999]
25. Notification No. 24012/4/2001-Esst. (A) dated 04-07-2001 [GSR.No.506(E)dated 4-7-2001]
26. Notification No.25012/6/2001-Esst. (A) dated 27-02-2002 [GSR.No.117(E)dated 27-2-2002]

142. CCS (CCA) RULES - Suspension of Government Servants (15-A) Suspension of Government servants – Review of – Instructions
reg.
The undersigned is directed to say that Rule 10 (Suspension) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is being amended to provide that an order
of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this Rule shall be reviewed by the competent authority on
recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose. It is also being provided in the Rules that an order of
suspension made or deemed to have been under sub-Rules (1) or (2) of rule 10 shall not be valid after 90 days unless it is extended
after review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. It is further being provided that extension of suspension shall not be
for a period exceeding 180 days at a time.

2. It is, therefore, necessary to constitute Review Committee(s) to review the suspension cases. The composition of Review
Committee(s) may be as follows:-
(i) The disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and another officer of the level of disciplinary/appellate authority from the
same office or from another Central Government office, (in case another officer of same level is not available in the same office), in a
case where the President is not the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.
(ii) The disciplinary authority and two officers of the level of Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary who are equivalent or higher
in rank than the disciplinary authority from the same office or from another Central Government office, (in case another officer of
same level is not available in the same office), in a case where the appellate authority is the President.
(iii) Three officers of the level of Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretary who are higher in rank than the suspended official from
the same Department/Office or from another Central Government Department/Office, (in case another officer of same level is not
available in the same office), in a case where the disciplinary authority is the President.

The administrative ministry/department/office concerned may constitute the review committees as indicated above on a permanent
basis or ad-hoc basis.

3. The Review Committee(s) may take a view regarding revocation/continuation of the suspension keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case and also taking into account that unduly long suspension, while putting the employee concerned to undue
hardship, involve payment of subsistence allowance without the employee performing any useful service to the Government.
Without prejudice to the foregoing, if the officer has been under suspension for one year without any charges being filed in a court
of law or no charge-memo has been issued in a departmental enquiry, he shall ordinarily be reinstated in service without prejudice
to the case against him. However, in case the officer is in police/judicial custody or is accused of a serious crime or a matter involving
national security, the Review Committee may recommend the continuation of the suspension of the official concerned.

4. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these instructions are issued in
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

5. All Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all disciplinary authorities under their
control and ensure that necessary Review Committees are constituted accordingly. It may also be impressed upon all concerned that
lapsing of any suspension order on account of failure to review the same will be viewed seriously.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) dated 07.01.2004)

143. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet –
regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP&T O.M. of even no. dated 2nd January, 2014 regarding consolidated
instructions on suspension and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudharyvs Union of India Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015
dated 16/02/2015 the Apex Court has directed as follows:
We, therefore, direct that the currency of Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period
the Memorandum of Charges/ Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee;
2. It is noted that in many cases charge sheets are not issued despite clear prima facie evidence of misconduct on the ground that
the matter is under investigation by an investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation etc. In the aforesaid judgement the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has superseded the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation
departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance.
3. In this connection, attention is invited to this Department O.M. No.35014/1/81- EsttA dated 9.11.1982 which contained the
guidelines for timely issue of charge-sheet to Charged officer and to say that these instructions lay down, inter-alia, that where a
Government servant is placed under suspension on the ground of “Contemplated” disciplinary proceedings, the existing instructions
provide that every effort would be made to finalise the charges, against the Government servant within three months of the date of
suspension. If these instructions are strictly adhered to, a Government servant who is placed under suspension on the ground of
contemplated disciplinary proceedings will become aware of the reasons for his suspension without much loss of time. The reasons
for suspension should be communicated to the Government servant concerned at the earliest, so that he may be in a position to
effectively exercise the justify of appeal available to him under Rule 23 (i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, if he so desires. The time-

75
limit of forty five days for submission of appeal should be counted from the date on which the reasons for suspension are
communicated.
4. All Ministries/ Departments are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all concerned officials for compliance
(DOPT O.M.F.No.11012/17/2013-Estt.(A)dated 03.07.2015)

144. Regarding delegation of powers of revision to the Heads of Circles (other than the Heads of Circles of Senior Administrative
Grade) under Rule 29 Sub – rule (1) of clause (VI) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
It has been observed that some of the Head of the Circles are submitting revision petitions to this office for consideration by
the Member (P) on the plea that they are not competent to exercise the powers of revision after expiry of the period of six months
from the date of the order sought to be revised under Rule-29 Sub (1) of clause (vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
2. The plea taken by the Circles is not correct in view of the Gazette Notification dated 18.4.2012 under which the president has
delegated the powers of revision to the Heads of Circles (other than the Heads of the Circles of SAG) by issuing a Gazette Notification
No. C-11011/01/2001-VP dated 18.4.2012 under Rule-29 sub-rule (1) of clause (VI) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which was published in
the weekly Gazette of India on 28.4.2012 in Part II – Section 3 – Sub section (ii) as SO 1441 and communicated to all Heads of the
Circles/Regions vide this office letter No. C-11011/01/2001-VP dated 31.5.2012.
3. In other words, the Gazette Notification dated 18-4-2012 need to be read in conjunction with rule-29 Sub-rule (1) of clause
(vi) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as the amendment to the Rule-29 (1) (vi) has been issued to specify the time limit within which power
under the said rule is exercisable by the CPGM. The time limit of six months has been specified to comply with the orders of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 2602 of 2006 in the case of the Union of India &OrsVsVikrambhaiMaganbhaiChoudhari.
(DG (P) No. C-11011/01/2001-VP dated 17.07.2012)
DOPT NOTIFICATION dated the 2nd January, 2015
G.S.R. 6(E).---In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution, the president hereby makes
the following rules further to amend the Fundamental Rules, 1922, namely:---
1. (1) These rules may be called the Fundamental (Amendment) Rules, 2014.
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force on the 27th October, 2013.
2. In the Fundamental Rules, 1922, in Rule 29, for clause (2), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:---
“(2) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale, the
authority ordering the reduction shall specify,---
(a) the period for which the reduction shall be effective;
(b) whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future
increments and, if so, what extent; and
(c) whether the Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher service, grade or post or time-scale on his
restoration to the service, grade or post
or time-scale from which he was reduced.” [F. No. 6/2/2013-Estt. (Pay-I)]

145. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Submission of Declaration of immovable Property Returns by the Government
servants – regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the office Memorandum of even number dated the 26 th October, 2015 on the above
subject and to say that the Annual Property Returns required to be filed under the Central Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1964 for the
year 2015 which is required to be filed by the 31st January, 2016, may be filed in the forms prescribed under the CCS (Conduct) Rules,
1964. It is reiterated that the returns are required to be filed by all the Government servants belonging to Group ‘A’,’B’.’C’ and
erstwhile Group ‘D’, in terms of Rule 18(4) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which empowers the Government to require a
Government servant to submit a statement of movable or immovable property as may be specified in the order.
(DOPT OM. No. 11013/7/2014-Estt.A-III dated 05.1.2016)

146. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965-Advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
to be communicated to the delinquent Government servant – when a penalty is set aside-clarification
Undersigned is directed to refer to the Department of Personnel and Training OM No. F. No.11012/8/2011-Estt.(A) dated the
19th November, 2014 on the above subject and to say that Hon’ble Supreme Court had in Union Of India & Orsvs S.K. Kapoor, 2011
(4) SCC 589 decided that where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority, then a
copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the concerned employee.
3. Representations received from Government servants against penalty in such cases may be dealt with in the following manner.
Cases decided before the date of this judgement, i.e., 16th March, 2011 need not be reopened. In cases decided after 16 th March,
2011, where a penalty was imposed after relying upon the advice of UPSC, but where a copy of such advice was not given to the
Charged Officer before the decision, the penalty may be set aside and inquiry taken up from the stage of supply of copy of the advice
of UPSC.
4. In cases where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement has been imposed, the Charged Officer, if he has not
reached the age of superannuation, shall be deemed to be under suspension from the date of original penalty as per rule 10(4) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
5. Cases where the Government servant has retired shall be dealt with as per rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In the cases
of any other penalties, only the penalty will be set aside, but no consequential benefits like arrears of pay shall be allowed. This will
be decided by the Competent Authority after conclusion of the further inquiry. Similarly, in a case where a penalty of recovery has
been imposed, if the recovery is being made in instalments, the recovery shall be suspended pending finalisation of the further
inquiry. No refund of the recovery already effected will be made. Whether the money already recovered has to be refunded will
depend on the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Where a penalty of withholding of increments has been imposed, if a withheld

76
increment has become due, the same may be released. There is no question of release of any arrears till finalisation of the
proceedings.
(DOPT OM No.11012/05/2015-Estt (A-III) dated 14.7.2016)

147. Standard operating procedure regarding legal cases where Central Vigilance Commission has been made respondent along
with the organizations concerned.
The Central Vigilance Commission, under the provisions contained in Section-8(1) (g) and Section-17(2) of the CVC Act, 2003 has the
mandate to tender advice to the Central Government, corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies,
societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government, regarding the officers covered under its advisory
jurisdiction s defined under Section 8(2) of the CVC Act, 2003.
2. The Central Vigilance Commission takes a considered view regarding the further course of action to be taken in respect of
officers/cases as mentioned above, based on the records/evidence/material available with it and should advise either prosecution of
the Suspected Public Servant or initiation of appropriate disciplinary proceedings or for imposition of appropriate penalty as the case
should be, based on the irregularities noticed on their part.
3. The officers concerned, against whom action has been advised by the Central Vigilance Commission, sometimes feel aggrieved
by the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission and approach either Central Administrative Tribunal or other Courts of Law with
the prayer to get the advice tendered by Central Vigilance Commission and subsequent disciplinary action against them quashed.
The Central Vigilance Commission and/or its officers, along with the organization concerned to whom the officer belongs and the
Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner officer are made respondents by them.
4. In such cases, where the Central Vigilance Commission has been named as a respondent along with the organization
concerned/other respondents, the authorities concerned in the organization, immediately on receipt of a notice from the respective
court or on receipt of advance copy of the petition/application/paint etc. should bring the same to the notice of the Chief Vigilance
Officer of the organization. The Chief Vigilance Officer of the organization should inform the Central Vigilance Commission
immediately about the court case. The Chief Vigilance Officer should also forward a self-contained note containing a summary about
the issues raised in the petition/application/plaint etc., indicating the paras where Central Vigilance Commission’s actions have been
described/questioned and also quoting the Central Vigilance Commission’s references/correspondences exchanged with the
organization concerned relating to the case mentioned before the Court/Central Administrative Tribunal etc., if any.
5. During the intervening period, when correspondence is being made by the Chief Vigilance Officer of the organization with the
Central Vigilance Commission and prior to receipt of its specific advice/directions, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the organization
concerned should ensure that the Central Vigilance Commission’s and its officers’ interest are duly protected before the Court, if the
case comes up for hearing. The Chief Vigilance Officer and/or any other authority concerned of the organization, should suitably brief
the counsel/advocate of the organization about Central Vigilance Commission’s functions and powers and its advisory jurisdiction, as
mandated under Section 8 and 17 of the CVC Act, 2003 to suitably apprise the court accordingly. provisions contained under Section
15 of the CVC Act, 2003 stating that “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Commission, the Central
Vigilance Commissioner, any Vigilance Commissioner, the Secretary or against any staff of the Commission in respect of anything
which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act” should also be brought to the notice of respective Courts, through
the organization’s counsel/advocate in order to get the name of the Central Vigilance Commissioner or its officers deleted from the
list of respondents.
6. Many a times, petitioners/applicants/plaintiffs approach the Courts alleging corrupt/inappropriate activities against various
Govt. organizations and/or by public servants and seek investigation about such inappropriate activities through Central vigilance
Commission. In case they had made complaint to the Central Vigilance Commission earlier regarding the issues mentioned before the
court, they point out this fact in their petition/prayer and sometimes express dissatisfaction about the action taken by the Central
Vigilance Commission on their complaints, as should have been intimated to them. In such cases also, immediately on receipt of a
notice from respective court or on receipt of advance copy of the petition/application/plaint etc., the authorities concerned in the
organization should bring the same to the notice of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the organization immediately. The procedure as
prescribed in paras (4) and (5) above should be followed in respect of such cases also.
7. Where a need arises to debate or argue, before the respective Courts, the merits of specific advice tendered by the Central
Vigilance Commission in a particular case or action taken by it on an individual complaint or any other action of Central Vigilance
Commission, the organization should seek specific comments and advice of Central Vigilance Commission before informing/apprising
the court through their counsel/advocate.
8. The Chief Vigilance Officer should suitably sensitise/inform the officers of their organization about the guidelines as given
above.
9. This issues with the approval of the Commission.
(CVC Circular No.11/09/2016)

148. Declaration of Assets and Liabilities by public servants under amended section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 –
reg.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM of even number dated 29th July, 2016 (copy enclosed) regarding
the furnishing relating to assets and liabilities by public servants under section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (the Act.)
2. In this regard it is stated that with the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016 (copy enclosed), the Public
Servant (Furnishing of Information and Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the Limits for Exemption of Assets in Filing
Returns) Rules, 2014 and all the amendments made thereto have become redundant.
3. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016, as referred to above, substitutes the provision of section 44 of the
Principal Act by the following new provision:-

77
 ”44. On and from the date of commencement of this Act, every public servant shall make a declaration of his assets and
liabilities in such form and manner as may be prescribed”.
4. Thus, under the Public Servants (Furnishing of Information and Annual Return of Assets and Liabilities and the Limits for
Exemption of Assets in Filing Returns) Rules, 2014 there is no requirement for filing of declarations of assets and liabilities by public
servants now. The Government is in the process of finalising a fresh set of rules. The said rules will be notified in due course to
prescribe the form, manner and timelines for filing of declaration of assets and liabilities by the public servants under the revised
provision of the said Act. All public servants will henceforth be required to file the declarations as may be prescribed by the fresh set
of rules.
(DOPT OM No.407/16/2016-AVD-IV (LP) dated 01.12.2016)

149. Strengthening of administration – Periodical review under FR 56(j) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No.25013/01/2013-Estt.(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the periodical
review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules.

2. Various instructions issued on the deal with compulsory retirement under the above mentioned provisions. The Supreme Court
has observed in State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001 (3) SCC 314 as follows:
i. Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsory
retired for the sake of public interest.
ii. Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the
Constitutions.
iii. “For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after
having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.”
iv. Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
v. Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
vi. The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more
desirable.
vii. If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is fact in favour of the
officer.
viii. Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

3. In every review, the entire service records should be considered. The expression service record’ will take in all relevant records
and hence the review should not be confined to the consideration of the ACR/APAR dossier. The personal file of the officer may
contain valuable material. Similarly, the work and performance of the officer could also be assessed by looking into files dealt with by
him or in any papers or reports prepared and submitted by him. It would be useful if the Ministry/Department puts together all the
data available about the officers and prepares a comprehensive brief for consideration by the review Committee. Even
uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs/APARs may be taken into consideration.

4. In the case of those officers who have been promoted during the last five years, the previous entries in the ACRs may be taken
into account if the officer was promoted on the basis of seniority cum fitness, and not on the basis of merit.

5. As far as integrity is considered, the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court may, while upholding compulsory
retirement in a case, may be kept in view:

The officer would live by reputation built around him. In an appropriate case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive
disciplinary action of removal from service. But his conduct and reputation is such that his continuance in service would be a menace
to public service and injurious to public interest.
S. RamachandraRaju vs. State of Orissa [(1994) 3 SCC 424]

Thus while considering integrity of an employee, actions or decisions taken by the employee which do not appear to be above board,
complaints received against him, or suspicious property transactions, for which there may not be sufficient evidence to initiate
departmental proceedings, may be taken into account. Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shri K. Kandaswamy, I.P.S.
(TN:1966) in K.Kandaswamyvs Union of India &Anr, 1996 AIR 277, 1995 SCC (6) 162 is relevant here. There were persistent reports of
ShriKandaswamy acquiring large assets and of his getting money from his subordinates. He also indulged in property transactions
which gave rise to suspicion about his bonafides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld his compulsory retirement under provisions of
the relevant Rules.

6. Similarly, reports of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant may also form basis for compulsory retirement. As per the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Of U.P. And Othersvs Vijay Kumar Jain, Appeal (civil) 2083 of 2002:

If conduct of a government employee becomes unbecoming to the public interest or obstructs the efficiency in public services, the
government has an absolute right to compulsory retire such an employee in public interest.

7. Many changes in the nomenclature and in the areas of responsibility of various departments/Ministries have taken place. In
order to simplify and speed up the procedure of review, a need is felt to reconstitute the Review Committees. In partial modification
of the OM 25013/15/86-Estt(A0 dated 27/06/1986, it has been decided that the Secretaries of the Cadre Controlling Authorities will

78
constitute Review Committees consisting of two Members at appropriate level. The Review Committees in the case of various levels
of employees will be as under:

(A) In case of officers holding Group A posts:

(a) In r/o ACC appointees:

Review Committee may be headed by the Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department as Cadre Controlling Authority.
(b) In r/o Non-ACC appointees:
(i) Where there are Boards viz CBDT, CBEC, Railway Board, Postal Board, Telecom Commission, etc, the Review Committee may be
headed by the Chairman of such Board.
(ii) Where no such Boards/Commissions exist, the Review Committee may be headed by Secretary of the Ministry/Department.
(B) In case of Group B (Gazetted) officers:
Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary level officer will head the Review Committee.
(C) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees:
(i) An officer of the level of Joint Secretary will head the Committee. However in case the Appointing Authority is lower in rank
than a Joint Secretary, then an officer of the level of Director/Deputy Secretary will be the head.
(ii) In the case of Non-Gazetted employees in other centralised cadres, Head of Department/Head of the Organisation shall decide
the composition of the Review Committee.

8. CVO in the case of gazetted officers, or his representative in the case of non-gazetted officers, will be associated in case of record
reflecting adversely on the integrity of any employee.

9. In addition to the above, the Secretary of the Ministry/Department is also empowered to constitute internal committees to
assist the Review Committees in reviewing the cases. These Committees will ensure that the service record of the employees being
reviewed, along with a summary bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the Cadre Authorities at least three months
before the due date of review.

10. The procedure as prescribed from time has been consolidated and enclosed as Appendix to the OM issued by this Department
on 21/03/2014. As per these instructions the
cases of Government servant covered by FR 56(j), FR 56(l) m or Rule 48 (l) (b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 should be reviewed six
months before he/she attains the age of 50/55 years, in cases covered by FR 56(j) and on completion of 30 years of qualifying under
FR 56(l)/Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as per the following calendar:

Sl No Quarter in which Cases of employees who will be attaining the age of 50/55 years
review is to be made or will be completing 30 years of service or 30 years of service
qualifying for pension, as the case may be, in the quarter.
1. January to March July to September of the same year
2. April to June October to December of the same year
3. July to September January to March of the next year
4. October to December April to June of the next year

11. All Ministries/Departments are requested to follow the above instructions and periodically review the cases of Government
servants as required under FR 56(j)/FR 56(l)/Rule 48 (l)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

12. Instructions on composition of the Representation Committees will be communicated separately.

(DOPT OM No. 25013/01/2013-Estt.A-IV dated 11.09.2015)

150. Expeditious disposal of cases involving public servants due to retire shortly
Attention is invited on Commission’s circular of even No. dated 27.09.2007 wherein all
Ministries/Departments/Organizations were impressed on the need for expeditious completion of disciplinary proceedings/action,
particularly against officials likely to retire. Commission has of late observed that some Departments/organizations have a marked
tendency to refer the vigilance cases to the Commission seeking its advice at the last moment and sometimes even an few days
before retirements of officers.
2. The Commission has taken a serious note of such lax attitude on the part of CVO’s/DAs in making such references which
leaves no option for the Commission, except to examine the case in a hurry. Such delayed references ultimately result in situations
which either serve to the advantage of the suspect public servants/ charged officers (SPS/COs) or initiations of disciplinary
proceeding at the fag end of service of an officer.
3. While reiteration its earlier instructions in this regard, the Commission emphasizes that the vigilance functionaries as well
as administrative authorities concerned should priorities their activities of conducting investigation and disciplinary action so as to
avoid such late references to the Commission. Undue delays on part of administrative authorities in dealing with vigilance
matters/disciplinary cases will henceforth be viewed seriously by the Commission and it would be constrained to take and adverse
view of CVOs/Administrative authorities for such avoidable delays.
4. All CVOs/Administrative Authorities should ensure strict compliance to the above instructions.
(CVC No. 007/VG/052 dated 11.03.2011)

151. Clarification of the Definition of "Members of Family" in the context of Rule 4 regarding.
79
 The undersigned is directed to say that as per rule 4 (1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, no Government servant shall use his
position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any member of his family in any company or firm. Further, rule
4(3) reads as follows:
"No Government servant shall in the discharge of his official duties deal with any matter or give or sanction any contract to
any company or firm or any other person if any member of his family is employed in that company or firm or under that person or if
he or any member of his family is interested in such matter or contract in any other manner and the Government servant shall refer
every such matter or contract to his official superior and the matter or contract shall thereafter be disposed of according to the
instructions of the authority to whom the reference is made."
2. As per rule 2 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the definition of "Members of Family" may differ from that given in the rule
2, sub clause (c) in the context of a rule. For removal of doubts it is clarified that in the context of rule 4(1) and 4(3) "Members of
family" in relation to a Government servant include the wife or husband, son or daughter, parents, brothers or sisters or any person
related to any of them by blood or marriage, whether they are dependent on the Government servant or not.
3. All Ministries/ Departments/Offices are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities
under their control.
(F.No.11013/4/2016-Estt (A-III) dated 20.07.2016)

152. THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(i)] – NOTIFICATION New Delhi, dated the 2nd June, 2017
G.S.R. 548(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to article 309 and clause (5) of article 148 of the Constitution, and
after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts
Department, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965, namely:-

1. (1) These rules may be called the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amendment Rules, 2017.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965,-

1. in rule 14,—
(i) for sub-rule (4), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely :-

“(4) (a) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge,
the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article or
charges is proposed to be sustained.
(b) On receipt of the articles of charge, the Government servant shall be required to submit his written statement of defence, if he so
desires, and also state whether he desires to be heard in person, within a period of fifteen days, which may be further extended for a
period not exceeding fifteen days at a time for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority
authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf: Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time for filing written
statement of defence shall exceed forty-five days from the date of receipt of articles of charge.”;

(ii) for sub-rule (13), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:—

“(13) On receipt of the requisition referred to in sub-rule (12), every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned
documents shall produce the same or issue a non-availability certificate before the Inquiring Authority within one month of the
receipt of such requisition: Provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that the production of all or any of such documents would be against the public interest or
security of the State, it shall inform the Inquiring Authority accordingly and the Inquiring Authority shall, on being so informed,
communicate the information to the Government servant and withdraw the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of
such documents.”;

(iii) after sub-rule (23), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:—

“(24) (a) The Inquiring Authority should conclude the inquiry and submit his report within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of order of his appointment as Inquiring Authority.

(b) Where it is not possible to adhere to the time limit specified in clause (a), the Inquiring Authority may record the reasons and
seek extension of time from the disciplinary authority in writing, who may allow an additional time not exceeding six months for
completion of the Inquiry, at a time.

(c) The extension for a period not exceeding six months at a time may be allowed for any good and sufficient reasons to be recorded
in writing by the Disciplinary Authority or any other Authority authorised by the Disciplinary Authority on his behalf.”;

II. in rule 16,-

(i) in sub-rule (1), in clause (b), for the words, brackets and figure “sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14”, the words, brackets and figure
“sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14” shall be substituted;

80
(ii) in sub-rule (1-A), for the words, brackets and figure “sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14”, the words, brackets and figure “sub-rules (3)
to (24) of rule 14” shall be substituted;

III. in rule 19, in the second proviso, after the words “against the advice of the Commission”, the words “within the time limit
specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15,” shall be inserted;

IV. in rule 27, in sub-rule (2), in the proviso, in clause (i) after the words “against the advice of the Commission”, the words “within
the time limit specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15,” shall be inserted;

V. in rule 29, in sub-rule (1), in the first proviso, after the words “against the advice of the Commission”, the words “within the time
limit specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15,” shall be inserted;

VI. in rule 29-A, in the proviso, after the words “against the advice of the Commission”, the words “within the time limit specified in
clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15,” shall be inserted.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/9/2016-Estt.A-111 dated 02.06.2017)

153. Amendment to the provisions of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 regarding review of suspension.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the provisions of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 and to say that the provisions regarding deemed suspension have since been reviewed by this Department.

2. The provisions in Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules have been modified and amendment to the same have been notified in Notification
No. GSR 105, dated 06-06-2007 published in the Gazette of India dated 16-06-2007.

3. As per the original provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the provisions for review within ninety days was applicable
to all types of suspensions. However, in cases of continued detention, the review becomes a mere formality with no consequences,
as a Government servant in such a situation has to continue to be under deemed suspension. It has, therefore been decided that a
review of suspension shall not be necessary in such cases. Accordingly, a provision has now been added to sub-rule (7) of the said
Rule 10 as follows:
“Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), if the
Government servant continues to be under detention at the time of completion of ninety days’ of suspension and the ninety days
period for review in such cases will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or
the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his Appointing Authority, whichever is later.”

4. In deemed suspension under sub-rule (2), the date of order of suspension may be much later than the deemed date of suspension.
With a view to making these provisions explicit, sub rule (6) of the aforesaid Rule 10 has now been amended to substitute the words
“ninety days from the date of order of suspension”. Consequent upon this amendment, it would henceforth be necessary to
specifically indicate in the orders of suspension the effective date of suspension.

5. Sub-rule (7) of the aforesaid Rule 10 stipulates that” Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a), an order of
suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub –rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days
unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days.” “Sub-rule (5) (a) of the aforesaid Rule 10 has,
therefore, now been amended to read as follows:
“Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this
rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.”

Consequently, the words “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a)” stated in sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 have become
redundant and have therefore been deleted.

6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these amendments have been made in
consultation with the Controller and Auditor General of India.

7. All Ministries/Departments are requested to please bring the aforementioned amendments of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965 to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities under their control and ensure that review of the orders of suspension is conducted
strictly in conformity with the amended provisions thereof.

154. Guidelines regarding grant of vigilance clearance to members of the Central Civil Services/Central Civil Posts.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. of even number dated 14.12.2007 on the above subject and
to say that it has been decided to modify Para 2(c) thereof as under:
"(c) Vigilance clearance shall not be withheld unless (i) the officer is under suspension (ii) the officer is on the Agreed List,
provided that in all such cases the position shall be mandatorily revisited after a period of one year (iii) a charge sheet has been
issued against the officer in a disciplinary proceeding and the proceeding is pending (iv) orders for instituting disciplinary proceeding
against the officer have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority provided that the charge sheet is served within three months from
the date of passing such order (v) charge sheet has been filed in a Court by the Investigating Agency in a criminal case and the case is
pending (vi) orders for instituting a criminal case against the officer have been issued by the Disciplinary Authority provided that the
81
charge sheet is served within three months from the date of initiating proceedings (vii) sanction for investigation or prosecution has
been granted by the Competent Authority in a case under the PC Act or any other criminal matter (viii) an FIR has been filed or a case
registered by the concerned Department against the officer provided that the charge sheet is served within three months from the
date of filing / registering the FIR / case (ix) the officer is involved in a trap / raid case on charges of corruption and investigation is
pending."
(DOPT No. 11012/11/2007-Estt.A dated 21.06.2013)

155. Revision of Financial Powers of Heads of Circles to write off losses and Revision of monetary limits of loss/fraud cases to be
reported to Police Proposal regarding.
The Delhi circle has sent the following proposals:
1. The power of Head of Circles (HOC) to write off amount under item 14(a) of Schedule II of Schedule of Financial powers should
be enhanced from Rs.20000 at present to Rs.100000 for loss of stores, not due to theft, fraud or negligence. In other cases, the
powers should be enhanced from the present Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
2. Monetary limits prescribed in rule 176-A of postal Manual Vol-V for reporting to cases to Police is proposed to be revised from
the present Rs.5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- to bring it at par with provisions of Rule-34 of GFRs 2005.
3. Circles are requested to forward the considered views in this regard for further processing of the case.
(DG (P) No.8-3/ Ruling/Inv-2014dated 21.01.2015)
Instructions under GID (13) reiterated
Vide GID (13) above, instructions were issued emphasizing the need for Government servants, especially those holding positions of
trust and responsibility, remaining not only honest and impartial in the discharge of their duties but also having the reputation of
being so. Despite these instructions, it is not uncommon that complaints of favouritism or ill will shown by officers in supervisory
positions towards their subordinates or other members of public are received every now and then.
2. While reiterating the instructions issued in the Ministry of Home Affairs’ OM referred to [G.I., M.H.A., O.M. No. 41/2/55 (II)-Ests.
(A), dated the 23rd April, 1955, it is again stressed that a Government servant must be impartial and must not show undue favour or
ill will in his official dealings. If a Government servant is found to misuse his official position or to abet and connive at improper and
illegal acts, he would render himself liable for disciplinary action for violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(DOPT O.M. No. 11013/10/93-Estt. (A), dated 06.10.1993)

156. Action against employees who are later found ineligible for their initial recruitment
Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited to Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 39/1/67-Ests. (a) dated 21.02.1967, wherein
it was clarified that departmental action can be taken against Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his
employment. Attention is also invited to the Ministry of Home Affairs. OM No. 5/1/63-Estt. (d) dated 30.4.1965, wherein
Ministries/Departments were requested to make use of the provision of ‘warning’ inserted in the Attestation Form for taking action
against Government servant furnishing false information at the time of appointment.
2. A question has arisen as to whether a Government servant can be discharged from service where it is discovered later that the
government servant was not qualified or eligible for his initial recruitment in service. The Supreme Court in its judgement in the
District Collector, Vizianagaram vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990 (4) SLR 237) went into this issue and observed as under.
“It must further be realized by all concerned that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is
made in disregard of the same, it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved
are all those who and similar or better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because
they didn’t possess the qualification mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a fraud on public to appoint a person with
inferior qualifications in such circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualification are relaxable. No court should be a party
to the perpetuation of fraudulent practice”.
The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and justice and it has now been decided that wherever it is
found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules, etc., for initial recruitment in
service or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained
in service. If he is a probationer or a temporary Government servant, he should be discharged or his service should be terminated. If
he has become permanent Government servant, he enquiry as prescribed in Rule 14 of (CCA) Rules 1965, may be held and if the
charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service. In no circumstances should any other
penalty be imposed.
Such discharge, termination, removal or dismissal from service would, however be without prejudice to the right of the Government
to prosecute such Government servants.
(G.I Dept. of per &Trg. O. M. No. 11012)

IX. DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR NOT WEARING UNIFORMS

157. Disciplinary action against those officials who are supplied uniforms and not wearing them while on duty
I am directed to inform you that the staff who are supplied uniforms should be required to put on those uniforms on duty.
It was also stated that the wearing of proper uniforms by the staff should be insisted upon and any failure on their part in this regard,
without adequate reasons, should be treated as an act of misconduct and dealt with accordingly.
2. It has, however, been observed for some time that in spite of above orders and several other repeated instructions on the
subject issued from time to time, many of the officials who are required to wear uniforms on duty do not wear uniforms and also
escape without action against them.
3. The growing tendency on the part of the officials to avoid the wearing of uniforms on duty has, to some extent, inculcated
a sense of indiscipline among them thereby leading to several other problems. This has caused inconvenience to the public.
82
4. It is hereby ordered that officials, after three defaults should be liable for disciplinary action and may not be accepted on
duty and can, in addition, be debarred from supply of uniforms. An entry must be made in their record. Supervisory staff should carry
out periodical weekly or bi-weekly kit inspections and take action against the defaulting officials.
5. You are, therefore, requested to take necessary steps to ensure that the officials who are supplied with uniforms wear
them while on duty and take disciplinary action against the erring officials. This can only be ensured by insisting on regular
inspections and taking personal interest. Therefore, the supervisory officials who fail to carry out the inspections properly and at
regular intervals need also be taken to task for dereliction of duty.
(DG (P) No. 26-2/2002-UPE, dated 27.03.2002)

158. Non-wearing of uniforms by Group C &D while on duty – Action regarding

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s OM No. 19/4/86-JCA dated 13.09.1989 and OM of even number dated
1.4.1992 indicating steps to be taken to ensure that the Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees who are supplied uniforms should be in clean
and proper uniforms while duty.
The above instructions inter-alia provided that …………………….
(i) Departments should designate and Inspecting officer to conduct periodic inspections
(ii) The matter should be discussed in the respective office councils to apprise the union representatives that they should
persuade the employees to wear uniforms.
(iii) Non-wearing of uniforms by individual staff should be viewed seriously and further supply of uniforms discontinued apart from
disciplinary action if any employee is found to be without uniforms regularly.

2. It is a matter of great concern that in spite of the above instructions. Majority of the employees are not found to be in uniforms
while on duty. It is accordingly suggested that the position may be reviewed and necessary steps taken to ensure that employee
wear uniforms while duty. Receipt of this OM may please be acknowledged.
(DG (P) No. 1/3/88-JCA dated 21.09.1993)

159. Guidelines for monitoring and expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceeding cases-reg.
Instructions have been issued in the past for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings against delinquent
government servants. However, it has been observed that disciplinary proceedings are generally taking a long time which defeats the
very purpose of initiating the said proceedings. Therefore, it has been considered necessary to issue the following guidelines for
monitoring and expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings:-
i) There are a number of instances where the courts have set aside the order of penalty due to inordinate delay in initiating
action. Therefore, it has to be ensured that disciplinary proceedings are initiated without undue delay.
ii) The Administrative Department/Competent Authority should study the allegations more carefully and resort to minor
penalty proceedings instead of initiating major penalty proceedings, where the circumstances involve minor infringements or cases
of procedural irregularities. It has to be kept in mind that a minor penalty swiftly but judiciously imposed by a Disciplinary Authority
is much more effective than a major penalty imposed after years spent on a protracted enquiry.
iii) There is undue delay due to repeated requests of the charged officer for time to give his written statement in reply to the
charge sheet. As per existing instructions, the charged officer is allowed 10 days to submit his written statement. The charged officer
may be allowed 3-4 days absence by the Controlling Officer for preparing his written statement in which case, no extension of time
should be allowed beyond the stipulated period of 10 days. (DoPT's OM No. 142/5/2003-AVD.I dated 6th April, 2004)
iv) If vigilance angle is involved in a complaint, the case should be referred to CVC for their 1st stage advice within one month
from the date of receipt of investigation report. If vigilance angle is not involved, case should be put up to the disciplinary authority
for taking decision to initiate disciplinary action for major or minor penalty against delinquent officer under CCS(CCA) Rules within
one month from the date of receipt of investigation report.
v) After receipt of first stage advice of CVC, the case should be put up to the disciplinary authority for taking decision to
initiate disciplinary action for major or minor penalty against delinquent officer under CCS(CCA) Rules within one month from the
date of receipt of 1st stage advice of CVC.
vi) The chargesheet should be issued to the charged officer within a week from the date of receipt of decision of the
disciplinary authority to initiate major or minor penalty proceedings against him. In any case, it should be ensured that the
chargesheet is issued within one month from the date of receipt of the 1st stage advice of CVC.
vii) Simultaneously with the issuance of chargesheet, names of suitable officer to be appointed as IO & PO may be selected
tentatively. If the charged officer, in his written statement of defence, denies the charges leveled against him, orders regarding
appointment of IO & PO should be issued immediately after receipt and consideration of defence statement. Copies of all the
relevant papers/documents should also be provided to IO/PO along with the order.
viii) The charge sheet should be drafted with utmost accuracy and precision based on the facts revealed during the
investigation or otherwise and the misconduct involved. It should be ensured that no relevant material is left out and at the same
time no irrelevant material or witnesses are included. (DOP&T's DO No. 134/2/83-AVD.I dated 2nd May, 1985)
ix) As far as possible, copies of all the documents relied upon and the statements of witnesses cited on behalf of the
Disciplinary Authority should be supplied to the Government servant along with the charge sheet, so that the time taken by the
charged officer to submit his written statement of defence is reduced. (DoP&T's DO No.134/2/83-AVD.I dated 2nd May, 1985)
x) IO should submit his report within six months from the date of receipt of order of his appointment as IO. Where it is not
possible to adhere to this time limit, the IO should submit reasons for delay to the disciplinary authority in writing.
xi) A copy of the inquiry report and also disagreement of the disciplinary authority, if any, on it should be provided to the
charged officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of Inquiry Report alongwith reasons for disagreement of the Disciplinary

83
Authority with IO's findings, if any, (CVC Circular No. 000/VGL/18 dated 23rd May, 2000). The charged officer may be allowed 15 days
to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority irrespective of whether the report is
favourable or not to the Government servant (DoP&T's O.M. No. 11012/13/85-Estt. Dated 26th June, 1989)
xii) After the receipt of the representation of charged officer on Inquiry Report, the case may be sent to CVC, wherever
required, for their second stage advice, or to UPSC for their advice, as the case may be, within one month. (CVC's Circular No.
000/VGL/18 dated 23rd May, 2000)
xiii) Penalty order should be issued within a month from the date of advice of UPSC. (DoP&T's DO No. 134/2/83-AVD.I dated
2nd May, 1985)
xiv) The time-limits indicated above should be strictly adhered to. The CVO concerned would be directly responsible to adhere
to these time limits.
xv) Each Ministry/Department may keep ready a panel of IO/PO from their retired Government officers which may be used
when no serving Government servant is available for appointment of IO/PO. The services of IOs/Pos who would be available on the
panel maintained by CVC may also be utilized in consultation with CVC.
xvi) In some Departments a large number of oral inquiries are pending. In order to expedite completion of inquiries within a
specified time limit, some officers on a full time basis may be earmarked by the concerned Department to act as IO/PO.
xvii) In order to ensure expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings, vide DoP&T's OM No.372/19/2011-AVD-III) (Pt.I) dated
26.09.2011, the second stage consultation with CVC in disciplinary matters has been dispensed with except in those cases where
consultation with UPSC is not required as per extant rules/instructions. This may be followed. Since there will be only one
consultation after receipt of IO's report (either with CVC or the UPSC, as the case may be), it is expected that the new procedure
would substantially reduce the time taken in finalizing disciplinary proceedings after receipt of the IO's report.
xviii) Wherever a Departmental officer is appointed as the IO in Departmental Proceedings, the officer concerned may be relived
from his normal duties for a period up to 20 days in two spells during which he should complete the inquiry and submit the report.
During this period so allowed, he will attend to the inquiry on full time basis. These time spells may depend on the need and the
feasibility of conducting full-time hearings on a day to day basis. (DoP& T's OM No.142/5/2003-AVD.I dated 6th April, 2004)
xix) For effective monitoring of the disciplinary proceedings cases, the Vigilance set up must be strengthened in every
Ministry/Department. Instructions issued vide DOPT OM No. 372/19/2011-AVD-III (Pt.I) dated 26.09.2011 are hereby reiterated. All
Ministries/Departments are requested to take appropriate action in the matter.
All the Ministries/Departments are requested to follow the above guidelines in letter and spirit so that disciplinary proceedings are
concluded expeditiously.
(DOPT OM No.425/04/2012-AVD-IV(A) dated 29.11.2012)
X. REGULATION OF PAY AFTER PUNISHMENT

160. Regulation of pay on imposition of a penalty under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
The undersigned is directed to say that the following penalties prescribed in the Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, have a
bearing on the pay of the officer:
11. Penalties
Minor Penalties -
(iii) a) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative
effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
(iv) Withholding of increments of pay
Major Penalties -
(v) save as provided for in clause (iii) (a), reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further
directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether
on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay.
(vi) reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty, which shall be a
bar to the promotion of the Government servant during such specified period to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service from
which he was reduced, with direction as to whether or not, on promotion on the expiry of the said specified period.
(a) The period of reduction to time-scale of pay, grade, post or service shall operate to postpone future increments of his pay, and
if so, to what extent, and
(b) The Government servant shall regain his original seniority in the higher time scale of pay, grade, post or service.
2. Consequent upon implementation of the recommendations of 6th CPC under the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 pay scale of a post/grade
for below HAG level means the Pay Band and Grade Pay specified for that post. Under the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 a Pay Band may cover
Government servants in more than one Grade Pay or posts in the hierarchy. As per Rule 9 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the
rate of increment in the revised pay structure is 3% of the sum of the pay in the Pay Band and Grade Pay applicable, which is to be
rounded off to the next multiple of 10. Further, as per Rule 10 to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, there is now a uniform date of
increment, that is, 1st July of the year.
3. The mode of implementation of these penalties has been clarified to individual Ministries/Departments wherever references
have been received. It is now proposed to issue detailed guidelines on the issue. The regulation of pay on imposition of these
penalties is in the subsequent paras:
A. Reduction to a lower stage of pay by one stage {Rules 11 (iii a)}
On imposition of a penalty under this Rule, the pay would be fixed at the next lower stage in the Pay Band. In other words, in
case of reduction by one stage, the revised pay would be the pay drawn in the Pay Band at the stage before the last increment.
Grade Pay attached to the post would remain unchanged. The pay will be fixed by reversing the mode of allowing increments given
in Rule 9 of the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. The formula would be:-
Reduced Pay In Pay Band = {Pay in Pay Band +Grade Pay) x 100/103} less (Grade Pay) (rounded off to next 10)
84
Pay would be pay in Pay Band as above + Grade Pay
B. Withholding of increment {Rule 11 (iv)}
As the uniform date of increment now is 1st July, on imposition of a penalty of withholding of increment, the increment(s) due
on the 1st of July falling after the date of imposition of the penalty would be withheld. In case where penalty of withholding of more
than one increment is imposed, increments due on 1st of July in the subsequent years would similarly be withheld. The increment
would be restored at the end of the period for which the penalty is imposed.
This also applies to cases where the penalty is imposed for part of a year. For instance, if the penalty of withholding of one
increment for six months is imposed on a Government servant in April 2013, then the increment falling due on 01-07-2013 will be
withheld for a period of six months, that is, till 31-12-2013. The increment would be released w.e.f. 01-01-2014. In this case the next
increment falling due on 01-07-2014 will also be allowed.
C. Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period {Rule 11 (v)}
The process of imposition of penalty of reduction by one stage under Rule 11(iii a) explained above shall be repeated for every
additional stage of reduction by taking the pay arrived at notionally as pay for the second reduction, and so on. Grade Pay shall
remain unchanged.
NOTE 1:- It is not permissible to impose a penalty under this rule if the pay after imposition of the penalty would fall below the
minimum of the Pay Band attached to the post.
NOTE 2:- A pay Band may cover Government servants in different Grade Pays or holding posts at several levels in the hierarchy. It
needs to be kept in mind that reduction to lower pay scale or grade is a distinct penalty, under Rule 11(vi). Therefore, while imposing
a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay under Rule 11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Disciplinary Authorities
should weigh all factors before deciding upon the quantum of penalty, i.e., the number of stages by which the pay is to be reduced.
D. Reduction to lower time-scale of pay under Rule 11(vi)
As a result of imposition of a penalty of reduction to lower time-scale of pay, the pay of the Government servant would be
reduced to the stage of pay he/she would have drawn had he/she continued in the lower post for the period of penalty. The mode of
fixation of pay in this case is similar to reversing the mode of fixation of pay on promotion. Therefore, both pay in Pay Band and
Grade Pay would be reduced.
However, Disciplinary Authority has the power, in terms of FR 28, to indicate the pay which the Government servant on whom a
penalty of reduction in rank has been imposed, would draw. The Government servant will be entitled to the Grade Pay of the post to
which he has been reduced. Thus, the power of the Disciplinary Authority under FR 28 is limited to indicating the pay in the Pay Band
applicable to the lower rank/post.
In some cases imposition of a penalty under Rule 11(vi) may also involve a change in Pay Band. For instance a Government
servant holding a post in PB-2 with Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- may be reduced to a post in PB-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-
It may also be noted that a Government servant cannot be reduced in rank to a post not held earlier by him in the cadre. For
example, an LDC who qualifies as Assistant as a Direct Recruit and is later promoted as Section Officer cannot be reduced to the rank
of LDC but only to that of an Assistant.
4. Some illustrations on pay fixation in above types of cases are annexed.
(DOPT No. 6/3/2013 -Estt. (A) pay I) dated 06.02.2014)
ANNEXURE TO OM DATED 6.2.2014

ILLUSTRATIONS
Reduction to a lower stage in Pay Band

Example: 1

Pay in Pay Band (Rs.) Grade Pay (Rs.) Total (Rs.)

On the date of Penalty 20460 4800 25260
Reduction Pay in Pay Band (Rs.) Grade Pay (Rs.) Total (Rs.)
By 1 stage 19730 4800 24530
By 2 stages 19020 4800 23820
By 3 stages 18330 4800 23130
By 4 stages 17660 4800 22460
By 5 stages 17010 4800 21810

Note: There may be some difference when the process is reversed i.e. when increment is allowed. This is because of rounding off of
pay in Pay Band to next 10.

Example: 2

Reduction Pay in Pay Band (Rs) Grade Pay (Rs.) Total (Rs.)
On the date of penalty 10140 4200 14340
Reduction Pay in Pay Band (Rs.) Grade Pay (Rs.) Total (Rs.)
By 1 stage 9730 4200 13930
By 2 stage 9330 4200 13530
By 3 stage 8940** 4200** 13140**
By 4 stage
By 5 stage

85
** In the above illustration, a penalty of reduction by more than two stages would take the pay in the Pay Band below the minimum
of the Pay Band, such a penalty would therefore not be implementable in view of Note 2 under para 3C.

Case 1 : Reduction to a lower stage

The penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year, without cumulative
effect and not adversely affecting his pension is imposed on a Government servant w.e.f. 13.03.2013. The Government servant was
drawing Rs. 15440+GP Rs. 4200 in Pay Band 2 (Rs. 9300-34800)
A. Pay when penalty imposed = Rs. 15440+ 4200=19640
B. Reduced Pay} = {(15440+4200) x 100/103 less (4200) rounded off to next 10in Pay Band}= 19067 -4200 = 14867 rounded
off to Rs. 14870
C. Reduced Pay w.e.f. 13-3-2013= Rs. 14870 + GP Rs. 4200 = 19070

Increment (notional) 1-7-2013 = Rs. 15440 + (19640 x 3%)@@ + 4200

= 15440+590@@+4200

Pay after increment = 16030+4200=20230

@@ rounded off to next 10

D. Pay w.e.f. 13-3-2014 = Rs 16030+4200=Rs.20230

E. Pay w.e.f. 1-7-2014 = Rs 16640+4200= Rs 20840

Case2: Reduction to a lower stage

The penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by two stages for period of one year is imposed on a
Government servant w.e.f. 13-03-2013. It is further directed that the Government servant would earn increment during the period
and the reduction will not have the effect of postponing future increments of pay.

The Government servant was drawing Rs. 15440+GP Rs.4200 In Pay Band 2 (9300-34800)

(same as in Case 1 but reduction by 2 stages)

A. Pay when penalty imposed = Rs.15440+4200=19640

B. Reduced Pay in Pay Band

Step - 1 First stage reduction

={ (15440+4200) * 100/103 less (4200) rounded off to next 10
=19067-4200 = 14867 rounded off to Rs 14870

Pay = 14870 + 4200 = 19070

Step-2 Second stage reduction

={(14870+4200) * 100/103 less (4200) rounded off to next 10
= 18514-4200= 14314 rounded off to Rs 14320

C. Reduced Pay w.e.f.13-3-2013 = Rs. 14320+GP Rs. 4200=18520

Increment (notional) 1-7-2013 = 15440+ (19640*3%) @@ +4200

=15440+590@@+4200
Pay after increment =16030+4200=20230

@@ rounded off to next 10

D. Pay w.e.f. 13-3-2014 = Rs 16030+4200=Rs.20230

E. Pay w.e.f. 1-7-2014 = Rs.16640+4200=Rs.20840

Case 2-A: Reduction to a lower stage

The penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by two stages for a period of one year imposed on a
Government servantw.e.f. 13.03.2013. It is further directed that the Government would not earn increment during the period and
the reduction will not have the effect off postponing future increments of pay.
The Government servant was drawing Rs. 15440+GP Rs.4200 in Pay Band 2 (Rs.9300-34800)
(same as in Case 2 but no increments during penalty period)

A. Pay when penalty imposed =15440+4200=19640

B.Reduced Pay in Pay Band

86
 Step-1 First stage reduction
={ (15440+4200)x 100/103 less (4200) rounded off to next 10
= 19067 – 4200 = 14867 rounded off to Rs.14870
Pay = 14870 + 4200 = 19070

Step = 2 Second stage reduction

= {(14870 + 4200) X 100/103 less (4200) rounded off to next 10
= 18514 – 4200 = 14314 rounded off to Rs.14320

C.Reduced Pay w.e.f.13-3-2013 =Rs.14320+GP Rs.4200=18520

NO INCREMENTS DURING THE PERIOD OF PENALTY

D.Pay w.e.f. 13-3-2014 =Rs. 15440+4200 =19640

E.Pay w.e.f. 1-7-2014 =Rs. 16030+4200= 20230
(Note: The Government servant has drawn Rs. 15440 for six months including broken periods)

Case 3: Reduction to a lower stage

The penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of two years, without
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension is imposed on a Government servant w.e.f. 13.03.2013. The Government
servant was drawing Rs. 15440+GP Rs.4200 in Pay Band 2 (Rs.9300-34800)

A. Pay when penalty imposed =Rs.15440+4200=19640

B.Reduced Pay}= {(15440+4200)x 100/103 less (4200) rounded off to next 10
In Pay Band}
=19067-4200=14867 rounded off to Rs 14870

C. Reduced Pay w.e.f. 13-3-2013= Rs.14870+GP Rs.4200=19070

Increment (national) 1-7-2013 =15440+ (19640x3%)@@ +4200

=15440+590+4200
Pay after increment = 16030+4200=20230

@@Increment (national) 1-7-2014 = 16030+ (20230x3%) @@ +4200

=16640+4200=20840
@@rounded off to next 10

D. Pay w.e.f. 13-3-2015 =Rs 16640+4200 = Rs 20840

E. Pay w.e.f. 1-7-2015 = Rs. 17270+4200 = Rs 21470

Case 4: Withholding of increment

The penalty of Withholding of one increment for a period of six months, without cumulative effect and not adversely
affecting his pension is imposed on a Government servant on 13-03-2013. The Government servant was drawing Rs. 15440+GP Rs.
4200 in Pay Band 2 (Rs.9300-34800)

A. Pay when penalty imposed =Rs. 15440+4200=19640

Increment (due) 1-7-2013 = 15440+(19640x3%)@@+4200

=15440+590+4200
=16030+4200=20230
@@rounded off to next 10

This increment is to be withheld for six months l.e. form 1-7-2013 to 31-12-2013

B. Pay w.e.f. 1.7.2013to 31-12-2013 =Rs. 15440+4200=19640

C. Pay w.e.f. 1.1.2014 = Rs. 16030+4200 =20230
D. Pay w.e.f. 1.7.2014 = Rs.16640+4200= 20840

Case 5 : Reduction to lower grade

The penalty of reduction to the post carrying Grade pay of Rs 4200 for a period of two years is imposed on Government
servant in Grade Pay Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 13.03.2013, with further directions that the reduction shall not postpone his future increment
and on the expiry of the period he shall regain his original seniority in the higher grade.

87
 On 13.03.2013 the Government servant was drawing Rs. 17540 + GP Rs. 4600 in Pay Band 2 (Rs. 9300-34800). The
Government servant had been promoted to the post in Grade Pay Rs. 4600 on 1-8-2009. At that time his pay was Rs. 15070 + GP
4200 in Pay Band 2.
In this case the pay in GP 4200 would need to be fixed w.e.f. 13.03.2013 to 12.3.2015 as if he had continued in GP 4200.
Pay would be regulated as under:

Date Pay in GP 4200 Pay in GP 4600

1.8.2009 15070+4200=19270** 15650+4600=20250
1.7.2010 15650+4200=19850** 16260+4600=20860
1.7.2011 16250+4200 = 20450** 16890+4600=21490
1.7.2012 16870+4200=21070** 17540+4600=22140
13.3.2013 16870+4200=21070
1.7.2013 17510+4200=21710
1.7.2014 18170+4200=22370
13.3.2015 18210+4600=22810@@
1.7.2015 18900+4600=23500

NOTE:
1. **Notional pay I GP 4200 from 1-8-2009 to 12-03-2013
2. @@One increment would be allowed on the Pre Penalty pay as the Government servant would have drawn that pay for
more than six months as on 1-7-2013
3. In case the higher and lower grades are in different Pay Bands then also the same method would be followed.
4. Under FR-28, the authority which orders the transfer of a Government servant as a penalty from a higher to a lower grade
or post may allow him to draw any pay, not exceeding the maximum of the lower grade or post which it may think proper. Provided
the pay allowed to be drawn by a Government servant shall not exceed the pay which he would have drawn by the operation of FR
22 read with clause (b) or (c) as the case may be of FR 26. This illustration is where no such orders have been passed. Where the
disciplinary authority has specified the pay to be drawn in the lower post pay will be drawn as per those direct.
(DOPT OM No.6/3/2013 – Estt (Pay I) dated 06.02.2014)

XI. SELECTIVES – IN SHORT FORM

161. Disciplinary Rules - Selective

i) When disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and it is found that punishment is to be given, at least 'censure' should be
awarded.
(Min. of Home Affairs OM NO. 22011/1/79-Estt (A) dt. 30.01.1982)
ii) Disciplinary proceedings should be closed immediately on the death of the alleged employee during the pendency of the
inquiry.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/7/99 &Estt. (A) dt. 20.10.1999)
iii) In vineetNarain VS UOI, the Supreme Court has directed that the time limits of three months for grant of sanction for the
prosecution must be strictly adhered to. However additional one month may be allowed where consultation with the Attorney
General, or any Law officer is required.
(DOPT OM No. 399/33/2006-AVD III dt. 6.11.06 & 20.12.2006)
iv) If an employee is found ineligible or not qualified, after he is appointed,
(i) His service shall be terminated if he is temporary/probationer.
(ii) If he is a permanent employee, disciplinary action should be started and if found guilty, penalty of dismissal/removal only
should be imposed.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt (A) dated 19.05.1993)
v) Two penalties should not be imposed for the same offence. But recovery can be ordered alongwith any other penalty.
(D.G P&T No. 105/26/81-Vig III dated 30.03.1981)
vi) If two punishments, one of lower order and another of higher order are given, the later order should normally state whether
the two punishments will run concurrently or separately. If nothing is stated, the two punishments will run concurrently.
(DG P&T No. 154/5/78-Disc II dated 30.07.1981)
vii) When disciplinary proceedings are initiated against a person officiating in higher post on an adhoc basis, he shall be reverted if
the period of adhoc appointment is less than one year.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/9/86-Estt (A) dt. 24.12.1986)
viii) Even in minor penalty proceedings, an accused employee may be permitted to inspect the document, if he so requests.
(Rule 77 P&T Manual vol. III)
ix) The number of cases a retired employee can handle as Defence Assistants at any point of time is restricted to seven.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/11/2002-Estt (A) dt. 05.02.2003)
x) The charged officer may be allowed 3 or 4 days absence, counting it as a duty, for preparing a reply to charge sheet issued for
imposing a major penalty. In such cases, no extension of time will be allowed.
(DOPT OM No. 142/5/2003-AVD dated 06.04.2004)
xi) A final decision on Inquiry Report should normally be taken by the disciplinary authority within three months.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/2/98 dated 11.11.98)
xii) All Ministries/Departments should adhere to the prescribed time limits and cut down abnormal delays in finalizing the
disciplinary cases to avoid harassment to the concerned officials.
88
 (DOPT OM No. 11012/6/2001-Estt (A) dated 20.04.2001)
xiii) Specific accountability should be fixed on the officer (s) responsible for framing the charges for ensuring issuance of charge
sheet within a set time frame. Responsibility shall also be fixed for the inordinate delay in framing charges in cases where there are
no valid reasons such as a stay of the proceedings in court.
(DOPT OM No. 142/5/2003-AVD I. dated 06.04.2004)
xiv) In case of bribery, corruption, other criminal misconduct resulting in the loss of substantial public funds, prosecution should
proceed departmental action. In other cases of less serious offences, departmental action only should be taken.
(MHA OM No. F39/30/54-Estt dt. 07.06.55 read with OM No. F 39/8/64-Estt (D) dated 04.09.1964)
xv) The entire loss sustained is to be recovered from the delinquent official but the recovery may be spread over till entire loss is
recovered.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt (A) dated 06.09.2000)
xvi) An employee cannot be reduced to a lower grade or post which he had never held earlier.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/2/8-Estt (A) dated 02.02.1989)
xvii) Failure on the part of CGHS card holder to get a name of a child deleted from the CGHS token card when the child is no more
dependent on him will attract action under CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 .
(OM NO. D 12011/2/78-Desk II dated 07.04.1978)

xviii) Subletting a Government residence allotted to a Government official or any portion thereof in contravention of the allotment
rules will merit action for imposing one of the major penalties.
(Dte. of Estates OM No. 12032/2/83-POL II dated 26.08.99)
xix) An officer cannot exercise statutory powers while on current duties
As per G.I., MHA, OM No. F7/14/61-Estt (A) Dated 24.01.1963 and G.I. M.F., O. M No. F. 12 (2) - E II (A)/60 dated 15.10.1960,
that an officer appointed to perform the current duties of an appointment can exercise administrative or financial powers vested in
the full-fledged incumbent of the post, but he cannot exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived direct from act
of Parliament or rules and regulations and by-laws made under various Articles of Constitution. It is also stated that where the
appointment to hold the current duties of a post involves the exercise of statutory or such other power conferred on the holders of
the post, the appointment should also be notified in the Gazette.
(GI, MF OM No. F 12 (2) - E II A (60) dated 15.10.1960)
xx) Promotion to a higher Grade or Post - Clarification regarding effect of warning etc. on promotion
Warnings, letters of caution, reprimands or advisories administered to Government servants do not amount to a penalty and
therefore, will not constitute a bar for consideration of such Government servants for promotion.
(DG (P) No. 11012/6/2008-Estt (A) dated 07.07.2008)
xxi) Recovery of pay not a bar to promotion
"There is no bar for promotion while the recovery is in progress because such promotion will not affect the enforcement of the
penalty."
(DGP&T No. 35/7/37-SPB dated 22.12.1967)
xxii) Revised time limit for grant/refusal of permission under the provisions of CCS (conduct) rules
The following time limits for granting or refusing permission has been prescribed with immediate effect.

S.N. Rule Provision relating to Time limit

1. 8 (2) Connection with press or radio
Gifts
13 (4) Transaction in movable and 30 days
18 (2) Immovable property.
18 (3)
2. 19 (1) Vindication for acts and character of 6 weeks
Government servant
3. 18 (a) Transactions in immovable property 60 days
outside India or with foreigners.

In the event of failure on the part of competent authority to communicate its decision within the time limits, the employee
shall be free to assume that permission has been granted to him.
(DOPT OM No. 11013(2)/88-Estt. (A), dt. 7-7-88)
xxiii) Where more than one penalty of withholding increments is imposed, one after the other, the first penalty order is given effect
for the period specified in the order. Thereafter, the increments due to the employee will be allowed and then next penalty order
will be implemented from the date of next increment due to him; and so on for third and subsequent penalties.
(OM No. 230/38/75-DISc.II dated 3.5.1976)
xxiv) If a departmental officer is appointed as Inquiry Officer, he may be relieved from normal duties for a period upto 20 days in two
spells, to complete the enquiry on a full time basis and submit a report.
(OM No. 142/5/2003-AVD-I dated 6.4.2004)
xxv) The communication forwarding the IO's report etc. should not contain phrases such as article of charge is fully proved or article
of charge is fully substantiated which could be constructed to mean that the Disciplinary Authority is biased even before considering
the representation of the charged officer and this would be against the letter and spirit of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
(OM No. 11012/12/2010-Estt (A) dated 12.11.2010)

89
xxvi) A final decision on Inquiry report should normally be taken by the Disciplinary Authority within 3 months. In cases where it is
felt that it is not possible to adhere to this time-limit, a report may be submitted to the next higher authority indicating the
additional period of required and the reasons for the same.
Consultation with CVC in the disciplinary cases under Rule 19 (i) is not necessary/required in cases where Government
employees are convicted by Courts of Law on a criminal charge.
(OM No. 118/1/2005-AVD III dated 8.4.2005)

xxvii) The administrative Department/Competent Authority/CVC should study the allegation more carefully and resort to minor
penalty proceedings instead of initiating major penalty proceedings, where the circumstances involve minor infringements or cases
of procedural irregularities.
(OM No. 142/5/2003-AVD I dated 06.04.2004)
xxviii) Withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity in the case of Minor penalty proceedings
As per the DOP&T OM No. 110/9/2003-AVD-I dated 13.4.2009, the minor penalty proceedings cannot establish the grave
misconduct or negligence leading to the withdrawal/withholding/recovery of pension/gratuity as a result of minor penalty
proceedings instituted against a charged official during his service and which had continued after his retirement.
However, some of the units have shown their unawareness of the above instructions of the DOP&T. Therefore, the same are re-
circulated to all units for information, guidance and taking necessary action.
(DG (P) No.14013/03/2010-VP dated 09.02.2012)
xxix) Action against Government servants who get appointment on the basis of false SC/ST/OBC certificates.
It has been observed that disciplinary proceedings in the cases involving appointments on the basis of false/fake caste
certificates take considerable time and the persons who have secured employment on the basis of false caste certificates enjoy the
benefits of Government service whereas such Government servants should be removed/ dismissed from the service at the earliest.
Disciplinary enquiries involving the matter of securing jobs on the basis of false/fake certificates should be completed in a time
bound manner and unscrupulous persons who have got appointment on the basis of fake/ false caste certificates should not be
retained in service and should be dismissed/ removed thenceforth.
(No.1/33/2012-P&PW (E) dated : 16.01.2013)
xxx) Representation from relatives is also treated as outside influence and is not to be entertained except when the employee is
deed or disabled. Submission of representations directly to higher authorities by passing the prescribed channel of communication,
may be treated as unbecoming conduct under Rule 3(1) (iii). This would include all forms of communications including through e-
mails or public grievances portal etc.
(DOPT OM No. 11013/08/2013&Estt (A III) dated 31.08.2015)
xxxi) Every employees belonging to any service or holding Group A, B & C or erstwhile Group ‘d’ posts should submit and annual
return of immovable property, Full particulars should be given in the proforma as on 31st December of the year.
(DOPT OM No. 11013/3/2011-Estt (A) dated 23.09.2013)
xxxii) Disciplinary proceedings should be initiated as per as practicable in cases where and investigating agency is seized of the
matter or criminal proceedings have been launched. Departmental proceedings and Criminal proceedings can proceed
simultaneously. If the criminal trial results in conviction, disciplinary proceedings are bound to follow, even in case of acquittal,
disciplinary proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other then honourable. However no departmental enquiry is permissible
when the evidence clearly establishing that no charge against the Government servant is made out.
(OM No. 11012/6/2007-Estt (A-III) dated 21.07.2016)
xxxiii) The DOPT vide its letter Om No. F 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-III) dated 16.07.2015 has issued a guide on steps for conduct of
inquiry in complaints about sexual harassment.
xxxiv) A retired Government employee who is considered for notional promotion from the date of promotion of his next junior after
opening the sealed cover would also be entitled to fixation of pension on the basis of such notional pay on his notional promotional
(OM No. 22011/3/2013-Estt (D) dated 23.11.2015)
xxxiv) Anonymous complaints are such complaints which do not carry both, name and address of the complainant and need to be
dealt with the in terms of para 3 (i) of OM dated 18.10.2013 irrespective of the nature of allegations.
(DOPT OM No. 104/76/2011-AVD I dated 18.06.2014)
xxxv) if a Government servant is found to misuse his official position or to abet and connive at improper and illegal acts, he would
render himself liable for disciplinary action for violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (conduct) Rule 1964.
(DOPT OM No. 11013/10/93-estt (A) dated 06.10.1993)
xxxvi) Warning, letter of caution of reprimands or advisories administered to Government servants do no amount to a penalty and,
therefore, will not constitute a bar for consideration of such Govt. servants for promotion.
(DOPT OM No. 11012/12/2016-Estt-A III dated 06.12.2016)
5. Relax, Refresh the rulings on Discipline
 Divisional head who is the witness or party should not issue charge sheet.
 No punishment should be issued with retrospective effect.
 If the punishments awarded not become operative, promotions can be considered.
 Minor punishment of reduction of pay should not affect the pension.
 Punishment will not affect the seniority.
 Any transaction in respect of immovable property exceeding the value to two months basic pay shall be intimated within a
month.
 Reduction in Pay/Grade is a bar for promotion.
 Joint representation from Govt servants will be viewed as subversive of discipline.

90
 Taking active part in holding rally in support of political parties will be construed as participation in the activities of the
political party.
 No indoor game should be played in office building after 7 pm.
 No reduction below the lower rank appointed.
 On the acquittal from the court, the department shall not proceed with the same charges.
 No officer below the rank of the appointing authority shall issue major punishments.
 Officers holding current duties should not award any major punishments.
 Two penalties cannot be imposed for one lapse/offense except the recovery of loss caused.
 Censure is a statutory punishment issued after following procedure.
 Minor penalty proceedings have to be finalized before retirement.
 Major penalty proceedings will be continued in form of Rule 9 after retirement.
 Disc Authority empowered to impose minor penalties can initiate Rule 14 charges for imposing major penalties.
Criminal prosecution and departmental inquiry can be conducted simultaneously.
 Charges can be dropped at the stage of initial written statement of defence.
 Retired officers can be appointed as IO/PO and also function as Defence Assistants.
 Bias petition can be moved at any stage before the completion of enquiry.
 Bias petition will have no effect if the inquiry is completed.
Bias application to be given to disciplinary authority. Review application can be given to the Reviewing Authority
 Charged official can ask for copies of documents/statements for perusal.
 Unconditional admission/pleading guilty of the charges will be suicidal. Always contest than awaiting for uncertain mercy.
 It is always safe and advisable to deny the charges at the initial stage and seek a personal hearing.
 Appeal against punishment to be submitted within 45 days. In respect of GDS, it is three months.
Revision petition can be submitted at any time after the disposal of appeal within 6 months.
 Charge sheet can be dropped if technically found defective and an order should be passed if so decided. If it is proposed to
issue a fresh charge sheet, the reason for dropping the original one and the proposal to issue a fresh charge sheet should
be indicated in the order.
 Written warning should not be placed on records unless there is good and sufficient reason to do so. If kept in APAR,
official has the right to represent against this.
 Omission of an act but not prescribed under rules cannot be a subject matter of inquiry.
 The issue of second charge sheet after the receipt of reply by cancelling the first charge sheet is not permissible.
 If an officer signs on good faith on the basis of records and the claim is bogus, the officer cannot be charge sheeted in the
absence of allegation of personal gains and corrupt activities.
 Once a case is closed, it should not be reopened. Reviewing authority can alone exercise.
 Dies non can be awarded only on three occasions i. Absent ii Leaves without permission iii. Remain office and refused to
perform.
 Dies non shall not be awarded for late attendance.
 Habitual late attendance is viewed as conduct unbecoming and liable for disciplinary action.
 Habitual failure to perform tasks within time will amount to lack of devotion of duty.
 When the charged official dies, the case automatically closed. The benefits shall be granted in full.
 If the suspended official is awarded with minor penalty, he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period.
 Withdrawal of resignation before its acceptance is deemed to have been withdrawn.
 Censure or recovery of pecuniary loss will not be a bar for promotion
 Without any review, no suspension can be continued beyond 90 days. If no charge sheet is issued within one year, the
suspension will be revoked.
 Instead of suspension, it is better to transfer the officials.
 Till the disposal of representation against APAR entry, it will not the come into force.
 No difference in death or suicide. Family pension is entitled.
 Non vacation of Govt quarters shall not be construed as a misconduct.
 Recovery of arrears due to the Govt quarters shall not be recovered from the pension.
 No disciplinary proceedings be initiated on anonymous complaints.
 Corrigendum can be issued for the Memo of charges already issued.
 No penalty can be imposed on receipt of written statement accepting the charges unconditionally.
 No memo can be reissued once the memo of charges dropped without assigning the reasons.
 During the examination of one witness, no other witness can be present in the same room.
 Preliminary report cannot be claimed as privileged document by the disciplinary authority.
 A witness already examined can be recalled again for inquiry.
 It is not legally valid to issue charge sheet on the spot for any irregularity found during the visit of higher officer.
 During the perusal of listed documents, no Xerox copy shall be produced for perusal. If so it is legally invalid.
 During cross examination of a prosecution witness, the presenting officer should not advise the witness.
 No fresh document/witness can be included by the Presiding officer to fill up some gap in the evidence.
 Inquiry officer should not question the CGS during the preliminary inquiry.
 Facts that are not materials in the inquiry shall not be placed on conclusion of oral inquiry and put questions to the CGS.
 Appellate authority has no right to initiate proposal for modification of the penalty imposed by the D.A. after six months of
the issue of the order.
 Suspended official can act as Defence Asst. whereas, a person compulsorily retired cannot act.

91
 Disciplinary Authority has no power to order denovo inquiry if he is not satisfied with previous inquiry.
 But the Appellate Authority can order. But the penalty will be decided only the disciplinary authority.
 Denovo inquiry shall not be conducted afresh with the charge sheet already issued by the disciplinary authority.
 Denovo Inquiry shall not be ordered without set asiding the order of penalty already awarded.
 The statement given by the GS can be changed at a later date.
 If a Government servant refused to be a witness, it can be construed as a sufficient reason for initiating disciplinary action
against him.
 Reason for cancellation of original charge should be mentioned if a fresh charge sheet is issued.
 No successor communicating the order alter the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority.
 No appeal lies for
(i) any order made by the President
(ii) Any order of an inter locator nature or nature of a step in aid of the final disposal of a disciplinary proceedings other
than suspension.
(ii) order passed by an Inquiry Authority in the course of an inquiry under suspension.
 Appeal/Petition is allowed to be withdrawn at the discretion of the competent authority.
 Appeal should not contain any disrespectful or improper language.
 Appeal may not be withheld in any case.
 Appellate Authority can allow personal hearing in major penalty case.
 Revision proceedings can be commenced only after the period of limitation of appeal is over or the appeal, if any made is
disposed.
 The change of head quarters of a suspended official can be ordered in the interest of service or at the request of the
suspended officer.
 Recovery of over pay can be made from subsistence Allowance at the discretion of competent authority.
 Subsistence Allowance can be remitted by Service money orders.
 Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated for a misconduct allegedly committed at a time when he was not a Government
servant.
 Charge sheet will be issued only in English or Hindi. It is for the delinquent to get translated to his language.
 Now APAR should be maintained for MTS Group C officials.
 APAR numerical Grading.
Between 8 to 10 – Outstanding.
Between 6 to 8 – Very good
Between 4 to 6 – Good
Below 4 - Zero
Submission of Self Appraisal – 15th April
Report by the reporting officer to reviewing officer – 30th June.
Report Completed - 31st July
End of entire process - 30th November
 If an official is arrested for alleged death dowry, he shall be placed under immediate suspension. 48 hours conditions will
not apply.
 Withholding increment for his failure to pass any exam will not be treated as a penalty.
 If one produced false certificate in order to secure appointment, the temporary Govt. Servant should be terminated
immediately.
 The officer working on adhoc promotion should be reverted to his substantive post before taking disciplinary action. If he
holds the adhoc promotion for more than one year, he need not be reverted to his substantive post.
 Reduction to a lower stage in a time scale as a permanent measure is not permissible.
 Penalty of recovery may be spread over any number of years till the entire loss is recovered.
 The Complaint Committee is competent to hold an enquiry when there is a complaint of sexual harassment.
 If bias petition is moved, the proceedings should be stayed and the petition should be sent to reviewing authority for
orders.
 Retired Government servant shall act as Defence Assistants in seven cases at a time.
 Refusal of promotion is not a fit case for imposition of major penalty.
 In Rule 14 cases, everything to be completed within 18 months from the date of issue of charge sheet.
 Appeal should be forwarded within 45 days from the date of recept of appeal.
 Review petition should be forwarded within 60 days of its receipt.
 When appeal is pending, no suo-motto review of punishment can be initiated under review.
 Order on Review shall be exercised within six months of the punishment order.
 No action can be initiated against pensioner who committed mistakes four years earlier.
 GDS put off also should not be extended beyond 90 days without review.
 For Rule 9 punishments, no appeal, only petition can be preferred to President of India.
 ACR/APAR can be obtained after two years of retirement, if there is no pending cases.
 Time limit fixed for preferring Revision Petition without submitting appeal is 6 months before the date of order.
 Review application can be made only to President of India.
 Disciplinary action may be taken for failure to the proper maintenance of his family.
 One who is found guilty of the practice of untouchability in any form is unfit for public service.

92