12. ITHE ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1969

12 · ITHE ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1969

1 · Short title and commencement: 1(1) These rules may be called the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. 1(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: 2(a) 'Commission' means the Union Public Service Commission; 2(b) 'disciplinary authority' means the authority competent under these rules to impose on a member of the service any of the penalties specified in rule 6; 22(c) Government' means in the case of a member of the Service serving in connection with the affairs of a State, or who is deputed for service in any company, association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not; which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government of a State, or in a local authority set up by an Act of the Legislature of a State, the Government of that State; (ii) in any other case, the Central Government; 82(d) member of the service means a member of an AllI India Service as defined in Section 2 of the All India Services Act; 1951 (61 f 1951). 4(dd) Probationer' means a person appointed to the Service on probation; 2(e) 'State Government concerned' in relation to a joint cadre, means the Government of all the States for which the joint cadre is constituted and includes the Government of a State nominated by the Government of all such States to represent them in relation to a particular matter.

3 · Suspension (1) If, having regard to the circumstances in any case and, where articles of charge have been drawn up, the nature of the charges, the Government of a State or the Central Government; as the case may be; is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension a member of the Service,

5 · Inserted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-AIS-Ill, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1O01(E) dt. 23.12.2015) Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/3/97-AIS-Ill, dt 13.7.1998 (GSR No. 130 dt. 25.7.1998) and again substituted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004-AIS-IIl dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt: 30.09.2009) Substituted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004-AIS-IIl dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009) 8 Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-AIS-IIl, dt: 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt 23.12.2015) Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-AIS-IlI_ dt: 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt: 23.12.2015) Deletedlinserted/substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72-AIS-Ill, dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872,dt. 19.7.1975)

20 · Inserted vide DOP&T Notification No. 11018/3/97-AIS-IIl dt: 13.7.1998 (GSR No. 130 dt. 25.7.1998 21 Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-A/S-Ill, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt 23.12.2015) 22 Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-A/S-Ill, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No_ 1001(E) dt: 23.12.2015) 23 Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004-AIS-IIl dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt: 30.09.2009_ 24 Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004-AIS-IIl dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009) 25 Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-AIS-IIl, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt: 23.12.2015) 26 Inserted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013-AIS-Ill, dt: 21.12.2015 (GSR No 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

4 · Subsistence allowance during suspension 27(1) A member of the Service under suspension or deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Government concerned shall be entitled to receive from that Government: (a) a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which a member of the Service would have drawn if he had been on leave on half-average pay or on half pay and in addition; dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary: Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds 28three months, the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows:

295 · Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment of service on reinstatement after dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as a result of appeal or review. (1) When a member of the Service, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement under the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, while under suspension or not; the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the member of the Service for the period of his absence from duty including the suspension preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement; as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) The member of the Service shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement; as the case may be, in cases:

41 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No_ 11018/4/76-AIS-IIl dated 25.02.1977 (GSR No. 358 dt. 19.3.1977) 42 Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 11018/4/76-AIS-IIl dated 25.02.1977 (GSR No. 358 dt: 19.3.1977)

46 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016-A/S-Ill, dt: 20.01.2017 (GSR No. 59(E) dt. 20.01.2017)

48 · 8(9) (b) A member of the Service may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf;, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by general or special order in this behalf: 49NOTE: The member of the Service shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant who has two or more pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. 8(10) If the member of the Service who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the article of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the member of the Service thereon: 8(11) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of [those] articles of charge to which the member of the Service pleads guilty:

50 · Inserted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016-AIS-III, dt. 20.01.2017 (GSR No. 59(E) dt: 20.01.2017) Substituted vide DoPT Notification No.11018/1/2002-AIS-IIl dt.26.06.2003 (GSR No.249 dt.12.07.2003) 52 Inserted vide DoPT Notification No.11018/1/2002-AIS-IIl dt.26.06.2003 (GSR No.249 dt.12.07.2003)

10 · Procedure for imposing minor penalties _

53 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016-AIS-IIl, dt. 20.01.2017 (GSR No. 59(E) dt. 20.01.2017) 54 Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016-AIS-IIl, dt 20.01.2017 (GSR No. 59(E) dt. 20.01.2017) 55 Inserted Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016-AIS-IIl, dt. 20.01.2017 (GSR No. 59(E) dt. 20.01.2017)

16 · Orders against which appeal lies.-~Subject to the provisions of rule 15 and the explanations to rule 6 a member of the service may prefer an appeal to the Central Government against all or any of the following orders, namely: _ an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under rule 3; (ii) an order passed by a State Government imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 6; iii) an order of a State Government which (a) denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowance 159 or other conditions of service as regulated by rules applicable to him; or (b) interprets to his disadvantage the provisions of any such rule; or (c) has the effect of superseding him in promotion to a selection post; (ivv) an order of the State Government (a) stopping him at the efficiency bar in the time scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar; or (b) reverting him while officiating in a higher grade or post to a lower grade or post; otherwise than as a penalty; or 60 (c_ deleted (d) determining the subsistence and other allowances to be paid to him for the period of suspension or for the period during which he is deemed to be under suspension or for any portion thereof; or (e) determining his pay and allowances for the period of suspension, or (ii) from the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service, or from the date of reduction to a lower grade, post; time- scale of pay or stage in a time-scale of pay; to the date of reinstatement or restoration to be paid to him on his reinstatement or restoration; or determining whether or not the period from the date of suspension or from the date of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction to a lower grade post; time scale of pay or stage in a time scale of pay to the date of his reinstatement or restoration shall be treated as a period spent on duty for any purpose. Explanation:-~In this rule; the expression 'member of the Service' includes a person who has ceased to be a member of the Service: 17 . Period of limitation of appeals:-~No appeal preferred under these rules shall be entertained unless such appeal is preferred within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order 62appealed against is delivered to the appellant:

25 · Memorials:

72 · 'Explanation.

26 · Forwarding of advance copies In cases where an appeal is preferred or a memorial is submitted under these rules, the appellant or the memorialist, as the case may be, may, if he do desires, forward an advance copy to the appellate authority in the case of an appeal or to the President of India in the case of a memorial:

27 · Service of orders; notices etc Every order, notice and other process made or issued under these rules shall be served in person on the member of the Service concerned or communicated to him by registered post. 28. Power to relax time limit and condone delay T Save as otherwise expressly provided in these rules; the Central Government or the State Government; as the case may be, may, for good and sufficient reasons or if sufficient cause is shown extend the time specified in these rules for anything required to be done under these rules or condone any delay:

29 · Supply of copy of Commission's advice Whenever the Commission is consulted as provided in these rules, a copy of the advice by the Commission and, where such advice has not been accepted, also a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance , shall be furnished to the member of the Service concerned along with a copy of the order passed in the case.

30 · Repeal and Saving 1955, are hereby repealed: Provided that

31 · Removal of doubts: __ Where a doubt arises as to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision.

2 · Functions. On a reference being made by the Government that has ordered the suspension seeking extension beyond the period stipulated, the Central Ministry's Review Committee shall review the cases of officers under suspension on charges other than corruption in order to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for continuation of suspension beyond the period of one year and review the cases of officers under suspension on charges of corruption in order to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for continuation of suspension beyond the period of two years

2 · It has been observed by the Commission that; even though the proforma clearly provides that it should be signed by an officer of the State Government etc. making the reference, in some cases the proforma is forwarded to the Commission without ensuring that entries contained herein are appropriate and reflect the correct position: The importance of making correct entries in the proforma cannot be over emphasised. It is, therefore, requested that it may kindly be ensured that reference to the Commission in disciplinary cases are made to the Commission in the prescribed proforma complete in all respect; duly signed by an officer of the State Government [D.P & AR: letter No: 11018/7/82_AIS (IIl), dated the 13th July, 1983.]

3 · Post held:

4 · Date of next increment.

5 · Date of Birth:

6 · Date of Joining Govt. Service.

8 · (a) (j) Amount of monthly pension admissible. Amount of monthly pension sanctioned. (b) Amount of gratuity admissible Amount of gratuity sanctioned. (This information is required only in respect of cases of recovery from or withholding of pension/special additional pension)

9 · (a) Appointing authority: (b) Punishing authority: (c) Appellate authority: 10. Whether an oral enquiry, if required, under the rules has been held:

11 · Name and designation of the Enquiry Officer; appointed, if any:

12 · Whether all the relevant documents, in original, particularly the following have been enclosed with the letter seeking the Commission's advicelletter forwarding the case to the Central Government in the case of certain major penalties, appeals and memorials). (A) In the case of original enquiries:

13 · Miscellaneous documents such as extracts of relevant Rules, Codes Acts, Judgements, Manuals etc:= referred to in the charge-sheet; statement of allegations, statement of defence , Inquiring Authority' s Report; reply to show cause notice, appeal, State Government's comments:

14 · In case where no enquiry has been held and factual and procedural points have been raised in the officer's explanation: A note explaining such points:

15 · Whether comments on procedural points, if any raised by the officer in his explanation to the charge sheetlreply to show cause noticelappeal, have been given:

16 · Whether complete and up to date confidential roll of the officer has been enclosed:

2 · It is requested that State Governments may kindly keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court, especially the observations of the Court reproduced below; while dealing with disciplinary cases against the members of the All India Services: "A disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal trial The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt:'

1 · You may perhaps be aware of the decisions of certain courts in which it has been held that officers holding inquiries in departmental proceedings are not under any obligation to follow strictly the rules of evidence as laid down in the Evidence Act or the procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code: In this connection; forward herewith relevant extracts from the judgements of the courts for your information:

2 · shall be grateful, if you would kindly bring these decisions to the notice of all authorities dealing with disciplinary cases, as the principle of these decisions, if followed, should enable the competent authority to deal with disciplinary cases more expeditiously: #****+** (AlI Vigilance Officers)

1 · The provisions contained in rule 20 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, are of special importance in the context of the latest endeavor to reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages and drugs: While it is expected that every member of the All India Services will scrupulously adhere to the provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, mentioned above, it is also expected of the disciplinary

2 · am to request that the contents of this letter may be brought to the notice of all members of the All India Services working under the State Government.

1 · The instructions contained in this Department's Office Memorandum No: 28022/1/75_Estt (A); dated the 20th January, 1977 , are extended to the retired members of the All India Services: [letter No. 11018/3/77-AIS(III), dated 29-4-77.] Copy of D.P. & A.R: letter No. 28022/1/75 Estt (A), dated 20th January, 1977 1. A question has been raised whether, and if SO, under what circumstances; Government should provide legal and financial assistance to a retired Government servant for the conduct of legal proceedings instituted against him by a private party in respect of matters connected with his official duties or position before his retirement: This has been considered by the Government and it has been decided that the provisions contained in paragraph 2(c) of the Ministry of Home Affairs' O.M.No: 45/5/53- Estt(A), dated 8th January, 1959. (Copy enclosed) should be extended also to be retired Government servants. Accordingly, the provisions contained in the aforesaid paragraph, with the exception of the provision regarding grant of advance from Provident Fund; will apply also to Government servants who have retired from service other than those who have been compulsorily retired from service as a measure of punishment Further , the amount of interest free advance that may be granted to a retired Government servant will be subject to a maximum limit of Rs: 500/-.

2 · The form of declaration to be obtained from a retired Government servant when the Government undertakes his defence and the form of Bond to be obtained from him; if advance is granted to cover legal expenses, are enclosed as Annexure 'A and B' to this Office Memorandum:

3 · The provisions regarding consultation with Union Public Service Commission and the authority competent to take decision in each case will be the same as those contained in Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum dated 8th January, 1959. (ii) Copy of MHA O.M: No. 45/5/53-Est(A); dated 8-1-59.

1 · A question has been raised whether, and if SO, under what circumstances; Government should provide legal and financial assistance to a Government servant for the conduct of legal proceedings by or against him. The following decisions which have been taken in consultation with the Ministries of Law and Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor General are circulated for information and guidance.

79 · Here give the name and other particulars of the retired Government servant including the post held by him before retirement

80 · 'equal monthly instalment of Rs: payable by the 1Oth of every month commencing from 81

2 · And agree that in case fail to pay any of the above mentioned instalment on due date, the entire balance of the amount then remaining due shall at once become due and payable by me to the Government and if fail to pay the same within six months from the date on which the balance of the amount thus becomes due for payment; the Government shall have the right to recover the same from me by due process of Law.

82 · 'Signature (Designation) for and on behalf of the President of India:

2 · 3 If these time limits and principles are assiduously observed, the period from the date of serving a charge-sheet in a disciplinary case to the submission of the report by the Inquiring Officer should ordinarily not exceed six months: 3. After submission of the Inquiry Report by the Inquiring Officer, where the State Government comes to the conclusion that a major penalty may be imposed on an officer, they may issue a show cause notice to the officer, or remit the case to the Central Government under rule 8(22) (a) ibid, as the case may be; within one to one and a half months from the receipt of the inquiry report. In cases where the State Government considers that a minor penalty would be enough, a reference to the U.P.S.C. may also be made for their advice, within one to one and a half months of the receipt of the inquiry report: 4. While processing disciplinary cases against members of the All India Services, the guidelines mentioned above may be kept in view for completion of inquiries promptly. The State Government may also consider the desirability of issuing suitable instructions and that where a case is delayed at a particular stage beyond the time-limit stipulated for that stage, it be reported to the next higher authority with a statement of reasons for the delay: [DP . & AR: letter No. 11018/7/78-_AIS(III) , dated 16-8-1978.]

3 · It may be ensured that the above procedure is followed while referring cases Of members of the_AIl India Services to the cadre controlling Ministries namely, Department of Personnel & Training; Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Environment & Forests, for initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings under the AIS(D&A) Rules. [O.M: No.11018/3/98_AIS(III) the 9th June 1995 of Ministry of Personnel, PG.& Dlo Pension (Dlo Personnel & Trg:)]

2 · The Respondent; Shri Sardar Bahadur; was employed as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the Steel and Cement Section (B) which along with other Sections like Industries Act and Industrial Polices etc: was under the control of Shri P.S. Sundaram, Deputy Secretary in that Ministry at that time. 3. In April, 1956, the Ministry invited applications for grant of licenses to set up steel re-rolling mills. 4_ On June 14, 1956, one Shri Nand Kumar representing Messrs. Ram Sarup Mam Chand and Mls: Mam Chand and Company of Calcutta applied for five licenses to set up steel re-rolling Mills. He also handed over on June 23, 1956 to the respondent a cheque for Rs.2,500/- drawn on the Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited in favour of Shri PS: Sundaram. The cheque was certified by the Bank as good for payment up to September 24, 1956. At the back of the cheque; there was a signature which purported to be that of Shri P.S. Sundaram: It may be noted at this stage that Shri P.S. Sundaram; the Deputy Secretary had denied the signature to be his. Above the signature the respondent wrote the words: "Please pay to Shri Sardar Bahadur" . Lower down the respondent wrote the following words: Please collect and credit the amount into my account: First payee's endorsement may kindly be guaranteed on my behalf and risk" This cheque was duly sent to the account of the respondent and the amount of Rs.2,500 was credited to his account in the State Bank of India; New Delhi: 5. The respondent was prosecuted by the Special Police Establishment on the allegations that the amount covered by the cheque was taken by him as illegal gratification for using his official position illegally and in a corruption manner in order to procedure licenses for Messrs. Ram Sarup Mam Chand of Calcutta who had filed applications in that behalf and that the signature of Shri P. S. Sundaram had been forged by him: The respondent was charged with offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; 1947 and Sections 161 _ 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was acquitted of all the charges on June 20, 1960. Therefore, it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 on the basis of the following charges: 1 , That he failed to in form Shri PS: Sundaram, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, that a cheque for Rs.2,500 in the name of Shri Sundaram had been issued by Shri and Kumar of Messrs Ram Sarup Mam Chand and Messrs: Mam Chand & Company of Calcutta, whose applications for grant of licenses for establishing steel re-rolling mills were pending in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry: As security in connection with the said applications when he knew that no such deposit was to be made; 2_ That he failed to inform Shri P.S. Sundaram that the said Shri Nand Kumar had given him a cheque bearing Shri Sundaram's signature and had asked him to deposit it in his account which he had done after asking the bank (instead of showing the cheque first to Shri Sundaram himself) to guarantee the said signature of Shri Sundaram; and

13 · It may be noted that the first part of sub-rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 says that no Government servant shall borrow money from or otherwise place himself under pecuniary obligation to any person within the local limits of his authority, save in the ordinary course of business with a Bank or a firm of standing: The second part of the sub-rule forbids him from borrowing money from any other person with whom he is likely to have official dealings: The appellant at no time had a case that the respondent contravened the first part of the sub-rule in borrowing the amount from Nand Kumar: So neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench had occasion to consider the application of the first part of the sub-rule to the facts of the case: Even in the Special Leave Petition the appellant did not rely on the first part of the sub-rule_ We do not; therefore, think it necessary to consider the scope of the first part of the sub rule or its application to the case here: 14. A finding cannot be characterized as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials if it is reasonable inference from proved facts: Now what are the proved facts: Nand Kumar as representative of Ms Ram Sarup Mam Chand and Ms: Mam Chand and Company of Calcutta filed five applications for licenses to set up steel re-rolling mills on 14.6.1956, a cheque drawn in favour of P.S: Sundaram was given to the respondent by Nand Kumar for Rs.2,500 the cheque was endorsed and the amount credited in the account of the respondent: When the respondent borrowed the amount in question from Nand Kumar; he was not working in the Industries Act Section: Nand Kumar knew that the respondent was working in the Steel & Cement Section of the Ministry and applications for the grant of licenses for setting up the steel re-rolling mills would go to the Section: Even if the applications were to be dealt with at the initial stage by the Industries Act Section the respondent at least was expected to know that in due course the Section in which he was working had to deal with the same: This is borne out by the fact that in July, 1956 copies of the applications were actually sent to the Steel & Cement Section where the respondent was working: If he, therefore_ borrowed money from Nand Kumar a few days earlier it seems rather clear that he placed himself under pecuniary obligation to a person who was likely to have "official dealings" take within the ambit the possibility of further dealings between the officer concerned and the person from whom he borrowed money: A disciplinary proceedings is not a criminal trial: The standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealing with the respondent was one which a reasonable person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision based on it. Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which material may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to review the materials and to arrive at an independent finding on the materials if the enquiry has been properly held. The question of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court [see State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sree Rama Rao (4)]. No doubt there was no separate finding on the question whether Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent by the Inquiring Officer or the President. But we think that such a finding was implied when they said that Charge No. 3 has been proved: The only question was whether the proved facts of the case would warrant such an inference. Tested in the light of the standard of proof necessary to enter a finding of this nature, we are satisfied that on the material facts proved, the inference and the implied finding that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent were reasonable.

15 · The Division Bench said that the conclusion of the Single Judge that there was no evidence before the Inquiring Officer that Nand Kumar was likely to have officials dealings with the respondent was not wholly unwarranted, and as there are limits to the power exercised by a Single Judge, under Article 226 of the Constitution, there are limits to the powers of a Division Bench while sitting in appeal over the judgement of a Single Judge. If the inference that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have officials dealings with the respondent was in the circumstances of the proved facts in the case a reasonable one, we do not think there was anything which prevented the Division Bench from interfering with the order of the Single Judge. In Jugal Kishore Bhadani Vs. Union of India (5), the Court observed: "It is well established principle of law that; unless the statute otherwise provides, an appellate Court has the same power of dealing with all questions, either of fact or of law; arising in the appeal before it; as that of the Court whose Judgement is the subject of scrutiny in the appeal" . 16. The respondent contended that he did not borrow Rs.2,500/- from Nand Kumar. His case was that Nand Kumar owned him Rs.5OO/- and that when he gave the cheque to the respondent it was on the undertaking that Rs.2,000/- would be repaid to him and that was done immediately. The respondent produced a receipt executed from Nand Kumar for having received Rs.2,000/- but Nand Kumar was not examined to prove the genuineness of the receipt: The Inquiry Officer has considered the question at length in his report and he came to the conclusion that the case of respondent that he did not borrow the amount of Rs.2,500/- from Nand Kumar cannot be accepted. The learned Single Judge found that the petitioner had borrowed the amount of Rs.2,500/- from Nand Kumar: That finding was endorsed by the Division Bench: As it was a reasonable inference from materials before the Inquiring Officer that Nand Kumar was a person likely to have official dealings with the respondent and since the respondent borrowed money from such a person without the permission of Government; the finding of the Inquiring Officer and the President that the respondent had contravened Rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules; 1955 should not have been interfered with by the High Court: 17. It may be recalled that the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the respondent on the basis that all the three charges had been proved against him: NoW; it is found that only the third charge has been proved: The question then is whether the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the President can be sustained even though the first two charges have not been proved: 18. Now it is settled by the decision of this Court in State of Orissa Vs. Vidyabhushan Mahapatra (6) that if the order of punishing authority can be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can be imposed; it is not for the Court to consider whether the charge proved alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment: The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the misdemeanour established. 19. We reverse the judgement under appeal and hold that the order of the President imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement was not liable to be quashed: 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs

4 · Doubts on interpretation of any provision of these rules shall be referred to the Central Government: Where a doubts arised as to the interpretation of any of the provisions of these rules, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision: [No. 7/15/63 dt. 20/3/69 GSR No. 926 dt: 12/4/69]

1 · Formal inquiry is not necessary in case of termination of probation; but if it is under rule 11(2), an opportunity should be given to the probationer: Termination of employment of a probationer during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Indian Administrative ServicelIndian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954, does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of these rules and hence a formal inquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 5 is not necessary in such cases: If, however, a probationer is removed or dismissed on disciplinary grounds mentioned in rule 11(2) of Probation Rules he should be given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him (G.I,, MHA letter No. 414/4/58--Estt (A), dt: 14.10.58) 2_ IPS officers appointed against promotion quota may be reduced to a supernumerary direct recruitment post in the Junior Scale: A question arose whether a member; who was appointed substantively to the Indian Police Service in the senior scale against the promotion quota, could be reduced to the rank of Astt: Superintendent of police (a rank which he never held in his service) or whether it was necessary to reduce to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (State Police Service) which he held before appointment to the Indian Police Service: Reduction in rank includes reduction to a lower post or to a lower time-scale: A member appointed to the Indian Police Service against the promotion quota could, therefore, be reduced to the Junior Scale of the Indian Police service. On reduction to the Junior Scale, he would be shown against a supernumerary direct recruitment post in the Junior Scale like a State Police Officer appointed to the Junior Scale under the Special Recruitment Scheme: His pay and seniority, on reversion, would be regulated in accordance with the principles applicable to a State Police Service Officer appointed in the Junior Scale under the Special Recruitment Scheme. (G.I: MHA letter No./ 9/7/58_AIS(II) , dated 30.10.58) 3_ Copy of the warning/displeasurelreprimand referred to in the Confidential Report should be placed in the ACR dossier as an annexure to the Confidential Report for the relevant period: The instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs letter No: 7/4/59_AIS(II) dated the 20th March, 1959 and letter No.7/5/60 AIS(II) , dated the 4th May, 1960 have been reviewed and the following clarifications are given: It has been stated in the MHA Letter No.4/7/60_AIS(II) , dated 4th May, 1960 that if it is decided, on the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings not to impose any of the prescribed punishments but to administer a warning or reprimands; mention of it should be made in the CR: The Delhi High Court in the case of Sh: Nadhan Singh Vs. the Union of India expressed the view that warning kept in the CR dossier has all the attributes of 'Censure' which is a formal punishment and which can only be awarded by the competent authority after following the procedure prescribed in the relevant disciplinary Rules: It has, therefore, been decided that where it is considered, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings; that some blame attaches to the officer concerned which necessitates cognizance of such fact; the disciplinary authority should award one of the recognized statutory penalties. If the intention of the disciplinary authority is not to award the penalty of censure, then no recordable warning or reprimand should be awarded:

7 · of the AIS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 stipulate the authority competent to institute proceedings and to impose penalty on members of the All India Services. The said rule vests this authority either with the State Government or with the Central Government depending upon the circumstances explained therein: Powers of the Central Government in respect of members of the Indian Administrative Service while they are on deputation with the Central Government are exercised by the Department of Personnel & Training: In respect of Indian Police Service and Indian Forest Service these powers are exercised by the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Environment & Forests respectively.

2 · With a view to avoiding delay in the processing of cases in respect of members of All India Service pertaining to the period of their central deputation the following procedure may be followed while forwarding such cases to the cadre controlling authority, namely Department of Personnel & Training MHA Ministry of Environment & Forests, as the case may be:

2 · A clarification has been sought about the action to be taken in cases where the member of the Service died after the charges were proved against him and the penalty to be imposed was also decided, but no final order was passed for imposition of the penalty by the disciplinary authority.