12 . 1 THE ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1969

12 · . 1 THE ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1969

2 · 2(c) 'Government' means—

3 · 2(d) member of the service means a member of an All India Service as defined in Section 2 of the All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951).

4 · (dd) 'Probationer' means a person appointed to the Service on probation;

3 · Suspension . —

1 · Principal rules were published vide Notification No. 7/15/63-AIS-II dt. 20.3.1969

2 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872, dt. 19.7.1975)

3 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 31/7/72 -AIS -III dt. 22.5.1972.

4 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 11018/4/76 -AIS(III), dt. 25.2.1977 (GSR No. 358 dt. 19.3.1977)

5 · (c) IAS officers working under Central Government shall only be suspended on the recommendations of the Central Review Committee as amended with the approval of Minister-in-charge, Department of Personnel & Training.

6 · Provided further that the Chief Secretary, Director General of Police and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who are the heads of the respective Services, shall not be placed under suspension without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government: .

7 · Provided also that, where a State Government passes an order placing under suspension a member of the Service against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated, such an order shall not be valid unless, before the expiry of a period of 8 thirty days from the date from which the member is placed under suspension, or such further period not exceeding 9 thirty days as may be specified by the Central Government for reasons to be recorded in writing, either disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him or the order of suspension is confirmed by the Central Government .

10 · (1A) If the Government of a State or the Central Government, as the case may be, is of the opinion that a member of the Service has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interests of the security of the State, that Government may—

5 · Inserted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

6 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/3/97 -AIS -III, dt. 13.7.1998 (GSR No. 130 dt. 25.7.1998) and again substituted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

7 · Substituted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

8 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

9 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

10 · Deleted/inserted/substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III, dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872,dt. 19.7.1975)

11 · (1B) The period of suspension of a member of the Service on charges other than corruption shall not exceed one year and the inquiry shall be completed and appropriate order shall be issued within one year from the date of suspension failing which the suspension order shall automatically stand revoked:

12 · (1C) The period of suspension of a member of the Service on charges of corruption shall not exceed two years and the inquiry shall be completed and appropriate order shall be issued within two years from the date of suspension failing which the suspension order shall automatically stand revoked:

11 · Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

12 · Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

13 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III, dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872 dt. 19.7.1975)

14 · Inserted/substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/73 -AIS -III, dt. 26.7.1975 (GSR No. 985 dt. 9.8.1975)

15 · Explanation.— The period of forty-eight hours referred to in sub-rule (4) shall be commuted from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose, intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.

16 · 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.

17 · (6A) Where an order of suspension is made, or deemed to have been made, by the Government of a State under this rule, detailed report of the case shall be forwarded to the Central Government 18[ ] within a period of fifteen days of the date on which the member of the Service is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended, as the case may be.

19 · (b) Where a member of the Service is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended, whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise, and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the member of Service shall continue to be under suspension subject to sub-rule (8).

15 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 11018/6/78 -AIS -III, dt. 16.11.1978 (GSR No. 1415 dt. 2.12.1978)

16 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 11018/18/81 -AIS -III, dt. 3.8.1983 (GSR No. 612, dt.20.8.1983)

17 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III, dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872 dt. 19.7.1975)

18 · Omitted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

19 · Substituted vide DOP&T Notification no. 11018/3/97 -AIS -III, dt. 13.7.1998 (GSR No. 130 dt. 25.7.1998)

20 · (8) (a) An order of suspension made under this rule which has not been extended shall be valid for a period not exceeding 21 sixty days and an order of suspension which has been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding 22 one hundred -twenty days, at a time, unless revoked earlier.

25 · (9) (a) Every order of suspension and every order of revocation shall be made in the stipulated standard form appended to these rules;

26 · (10) As soon as a member of the Service is placed under suspension or is deemed to have been placed under suspension, the information in this regard shall be communicated to Government of India expeditiously and within the period of forty-eighty hours.

20 · Inserted vide DOP&T Notification No. 11018/3/97 -AIS -III dt. 13.7.1998 (GSR No. 130 dt. 25.7.1998

21 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

22 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

23 · Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

24 · Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

25 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

26 · Inserted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, 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: —

27 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 11018/11/78 -AIS -III dt. 16.6.1979

28 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification no. 28013/2/78 -AIS -III dt. 12.1.1982 (GSR No. 92 dt. 30.1.1982)

29 · 5. Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment of service on reinstatement after dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement as a result of appeal or review . —

29 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification no. 28013/2/78 -AIS -III dt. 12.01.1982 (GSR No. 92 dt. 30.1.1982)

30 · 5A. Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment of service on reinstatement where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a Court of Law. —

30 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 28013/2/78 -AIS -III dt. 12.01.1982 (GSR No. 92 dt. 30.01.1982)

31 · 5B. Admissibility of pay and allowances and treatment of Service on reinstatement after suspension.—

31 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/73 -AIS -III dt. 26.7.1975 (GSR No. 985 dt. 9.8.1975)

32 · Modified vide DP&AR Notification No.28013/2/78 -AIS(III) dated 12.01.1982 (GSR No.92 dt.30.10.1982)

6 · Penalties. —

33 · (iii) recovery from pay of the whole, or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, or to a company, association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Government, or to a local authority set up by an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State, by negligence or breach of orders;

34 · (iv) a Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.

33 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/5/74 -AIS -III dt. 28.7.1975(GSR No. 988 dt. 9.9.1975)

34 · Inserted vide DOP&T Notification No.11018/3/98 -AIS -III dated 01.06.2000 (GSR No.212. dt. 17.06.2000)

35 · Provided that every case in which 36 the charge of possession of the assets disproportionate to known sources of income or the charge of acceptance from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act is established, the penalty mentioned in clause (viii) or clause (ix) shall be imposed.

37 · (iii) non-promotion of a member of the Service, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, to a post in the senior time-scale of pay on the ground of lack of adequate length of service and experience or nonconfirmation in the service, or failure to pass the departmental examination;

35 · Inserted vide DOP&T Notification No. 11018/7/87 -AIS -III dated 26.02.1988

36 · Inserted vide DP&T's Notification No.11018/5/2000 -AIS(III) dated 04.04.2002 (GSR No.118 dt. 13.04.2002)

37 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 12/2/69 -AIS -III dt. 13.04.1971 (GSR No. 588 dt. 24.04.1971)

7 · Authority to institute proceedings and to impose penalty—

39 · (1) Where a member of the Service has committed any act or omission which renders him liable to any penalty specified in rule 6—

40 · (ii) while he was on training, the Central Government, unless the selection for the training was done by the State Govt. and the cost of the training was entirely borne by the State Government.

38 · Omitted vide DP&AR Notification No. 31/7/72 -AIS -III dated 22.05.1973

39 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III dt. 05.07.1975 (GSR No. 872 dt. 15.07.1975)

40 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/98 -AIS -III dt. 25.08.1998 (GSR No. 177 dt. 12.09.1998)

41 · (1A)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of administration, the Director, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy or the President, Forest Research Institute and Colleges, shall be empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a probationer who is undergoing training at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy or Forest Research Institute and Colleges, as the case may be, in respect of any misconduct or misbehavior during the period he spends at the said Academy/Institute in accordance with the prescribed procedure laid down in rule 10 of these rules. Thereafter the Director/President shall refer the case to the Central Government with the relevant records for passing orders under rule 6 in consultation with the Commission.

42 · (1B)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in any case, a question arises as to the Government competent to institute disciplinary proceedings, it shall be decided by the Central Government and the Government so decided by the Central Government, as being competent to institute disciplinary proceedings (which may include the Central Government also), shall alone be competent to institute disciplinary

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

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

8 · Procedure for imposing major penalties . —

45 · Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 of the All India Services (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Regulations, 1998, 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 by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been made for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable, in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules .

43 · Substituted vide DOP&T Notification No. 13/1/71 -AIS -III dated 11.01.1972

44 · Circulated vide DOP&T letter No. 2506/80/AIS -III dated 05.08.1980

45 · Inserted vide DOP&T Notification No. 11018/4/2012 -AIS -III dt. 10.06.2014 (GSR No.408(E) dt. 18.06.2014)

46 · 8(5)(a) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the member of the Service 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 of charge is proposed to be sustained.

46 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016 -AIS -III, 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.

49 · NOTE: 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.

47 · Substituted DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872 dt. 19.7.1975)

48 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS -III dt. 5.7.1975 (GSR No. 872 dt. 19.7.1975)

49 · Inserted vide DP&AR Notification No. 11018/12/76 -AIS -III dt. 12.7.1977 (GSR No. 983 dt. 30.7.1977)

50 · 8(25)(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.

9 · Action on the inquiry report . —

51 · 9(2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the 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 Member of the Service who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Member of the Service.

52 · 9(2-A)The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Member and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (3) and (4).

50 · Inserted vide Notification No. 11018/01/2016 -AIS -III, dt. 20.01.2017 (GSR No. 59(E) dt. 20.01.2017)

51 · Substituted vide DoPT Notification No.11018/1/2002 -AIS -III dt.26.06.2003 (GSR No.249 dt.12.07.2003)

52 · Inserted vide DoPT Notification No.11018/1/2002 -AIS -III dt.26.06.2003 (GSR No.249 dt.12.07.2003)

53 · 9(3) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 6, shall be imposed on the member of the Service, it shall notwithstanding anything contained in rule 10, make an order imposing such penalty in such manner as specified by the Government.

54 · 9(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 6 shall be imposed on the member of the Service, it shall make an order imposing such penalty in such manner as specified by the Government.

55 · 9(5)(a) In every case the disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded to the Commission for its advice -

10 · Procedure for imposing minor penalties—

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

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

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

11 · Cases of difference of opinion to be referred to Central Government . — When there is any difference of opinion between a State Government and the Commission on any matter covered by these rules such matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision.

12 · Communication of orders . — Orders made by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the member of the Service who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of the finding of the disciplinary authority, together with brief reasons for its disagreements, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority (unless they have already been supplied to him) and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Commission and, where the disciplinary authority has not

56 · Substituted vide DP&AR Notification No.6/9/72 -AIS(III) dated 05.07.1975 (GSR No.872 dated 19.07.1975)

13 · Common proceeding . — Where two or more members of the Service are concerned in any case, the Government may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.

14 · Special procedure in certain cases . — Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 8 to 12 —

57 · Provided that the member of the Service may be given an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i) of this rule:

15 · Orders against which no appeal lies.—

57 · Inserted vide DP&T Notification No.11018/2/87 -AIS(III) dated 09.02.1888

58 · Substituted vide Deptt. of p &AR Notification No.6/5/74-AIS(III), dated 28/7/75 (GSR No.988, dated 9.8.75)

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:—

60 · (c) deleted

61 · 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 62 appealed against is delivered to the appellant:

59 · The word pension deleted vide DPAR Notification No.6/9/72-AIS(III), dated 5.7.75 (GSR No.872, dt. 19.7.75)

60 · Deleted vide Notification No. 6/9/92 -AIS(III)dated 5.7.72-AIS(III), (GSR No.872 dt. 19.7.75)

61 · Substituted vide DPAR Notification No.6/9/72 -AIS(III), dated 5.7.75 (GSR No. 872 dated 19.5.75

18 · Form and content of appeal . —

64 · 18(4) (a) The authority which made the order appealed against shall, on receipt of a copy of every appeal, which is not withheld under rule 21, forward the same with its comments thereon together with the relevant records to the appellate authority within thirty days from the receipt of the appeal by the State Governments and without waiting for any direction from the Central Government; and

19 · Consideration of Appeal . —

62 · Substituted vide DPAR Not. No. 6/9/72 -AIS(III), dated 5.7.75 (GSR No.872 dated 19.5.75)

63 · Substituted vide DPAR Notification No.6/9/72 -AIS(III) dated 05.07.1975 (GSRNo.872, dated 19.05.1975)

64 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

20 · . Implementation of orders on appeal—Every order passed by the Central Government in appeal under any of the relevant provisions of these rules shall be final and the State Government concerned shall forthwith give effect to such order.

21 · Circumstances in which appeals may be withheld . —

65 · Deleted vide Notification No. 11018/15/78 -AIS(III) dated 13.10.1981 (GSR No.955, dated 31.10.1981)

66 · Substituted vide Notification No. 6/9/75 -AIS(III), dated 5.7.75 ( GSR No. 872, dt. 19.7.75)

22 · List of appeals withheld . — The State Government shall forward to the Central Government on the first day of January and July every year a list of appeals to the Central Government withheld by them under rule 21 during the preceding six months together with the reasons for withholding the same.

23 · Appellate authority may call for any appeal withheld . — The Central Government may call for any appeal which has been withheld by any State Government under rule 21, dealt with it in the manner laid down in rule 19 and pass such orders thereon as the Central Government thinks fit.

67 · PART VI — REVISION, REVIEW AND MEMORIALS

24 · Revision . —

67 · Substituted/inserted vide DPAR Notification No. 11018/19/81 -AIS(III), dated 3.2.84 (GSRNo.162, dt. 18.2.84)

68 · Deleted vide DPAR Notification No.6/9/72 -AIS(III) dated 05.07.1975 (GSR No.872, dt. 19.07.1975)

69 · Deleted vide Notification No.11018/15/78 -AIS(III) dated 13.10.1981,(GSR No.959, dt. 31.10.1981)

70 · 24 -A. Review . — The Central Government may at any time, either its own motion or otherwise, review any order passed under these rules, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to its notice:

25 · Memorials . —

71 · 25(1) A member of the Service shall be entitled to submit a memorial to the President against any order of the Central Government or the State Government by which he is aggrieved:

70 · Substituted/inserted vide D/oP&R Notification No.11018/19/81 -AIS(III) dated 03.02.1984 (GSR No.162 dt.18.02.1984)

71 · Substituted/inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2010 -AIS(III) dated 22.11.2010 (GSR No.212 dt.27.11.2010)

72 · Explanation.— In this sub-rule, the expression 'member of the Service' includes a person who has ceased to be a member of the Service.

73 · 25(4) (a) If the memorial is against the orders of a State Government, it shall be submitted through the State Government concerned and if the memorial is against the orders of the Central Government, it shall be submitted through the Ministry or the authority concerned in the Central Government, and the State Government concerned, or as the case may be, the Ministry or authority in the Central Government shall forward the same together within thirty days from the receipt of the memorial by the State Governments with a concise statement of facts material thereto and, unless there are special reasons to the contrary, with an expression of its opinion thereon.; and

74 · 25(5)A memorial submitted under the proviso to sub rule (4) shall be referred to the State Government, or as the case may be, to the Ministry or authority in the Central Government, against whose orders the memorial is submitted, and the State Government concerned or, as the case may be, the Ministry or authority in the Central Government, shall return the memorial together with a concise statement of facts material thereto, and, unless there are special reasons to the contrary, with an expression of its opinion thereon.

75 · 25(5a)If the memorial is against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 6, no such order shall be revised except after consultation with the Commission.

72 · Inserted vide D PAR Notification No. 6/9/72 -AIS(III), dt. 5.7.75 (GSR No.872,dt.19.7.75)

73 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

74 · Inserted vide DPAR Notification No.6/9/72 -AIS(III),dt. 5.7.75 (GSR No.872, dt. 19.7.75)

75 · Inserted vide DPAR Notification No.6/9/72 -AIS(III), dated 5.7.75 (GSR No.872, dt. 19.7.75)

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 — 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 — The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, are hereby repealed.

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.

76 · SCHEDULE 1

76 · Renumbered vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

77 · SCHEDULE 2

77 · Inserted vide Notification No.11018/3/2004 -AIS -III dt.30.09.2009 (GSR No.714(E) dt. 30.09.2009)

78 · Substituted vide Notification No. 11018/1/2013 -AIS -III, dt. 21.12.2015 (GSR No. 1001(E) dt. 23.12.2015)

2 · Where an order has to be made in the name of the President of India/Governor of a State, the phrase 'By order and in the name of the President/Governor or State of ..............' should be inserted above the signatures. Such an order/communication should be signed by an officer in the appropriate Ministry/Department who is authorised under the Constitution to authenticate the orders on behalf of the President of India/Governor of a State.

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.

9 · (a) Appointing authority.

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:—

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, I forward herewith relevant extracts from the judgements of the courts for your information.

2 · I 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. ******** (All 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 · I 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.

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. 45/5/53Estt(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.

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.

2 · (a) Proceedings initiated by Government in respect of matters connected with official duties or position of the Government servant .

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

1 · _____________________

2 · _____________________

82 · Signature

80 · Here mention the number of instalments

81 · Here mention the date of commencement of the first installment.

82 · Here mention the designation of the officer who is authorized to execute the bond under article 299(!) of the constitution.

83 · Vide DP&T letter No.11018/5/86 -AIS(III)dated 20.01.1987

2 · The decision contained in this letter may be brought to the notice of all concerned.

1 · Time limits for completing certain stages of inquiry into charges against members of the All India Services are laid down in sub -rule (8) and (12) of rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. However, experience has shown that very often, disciplinary proceedings are inordinately delayed. It is felt that if the guidelines laid down below are followed, it will ensure expeditious disposal of disciplinary cases.

2 · Sub -rule (8) of rule 8 provides that a member of the Service shall be required to appear in person before the Inquiring Authority at any time prescribed after the expiry of 10 working days from the date of the receipt of the charge-sheet. It would therefore, be justified if the charged officer is given not more than 10 days for submitting his written statement of defence in reply to the charge-sheet under sub-rule (5) of rule 8 ibid.

2 · 1The statement of defence under rule 8(5) ibid is expected to be limited simply to admitting or denying the charges communicated to the officer, and for such admission or denial inspection of documents is not necessary. Therefore, a request for inspection of documents at this stage made by the delinquent officer may not be accepted and it may be explained to the officer that he would get full opportunity to inspect the listed documents during the course of inquiry as per rule 8(12) ibid.

2 · 2. Although no time limit, as such, has been stipulated for the admission of the report by the Inquiry Officer after completion of the oral inquiry, ordinarily it should be possible for an Inquiry Officer to submit the inquiry report within a period of one month from the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings.

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.

1 · I am directed to forward herewith a copy of this Department's Office Memorandum No. 11012/18/77 — Ests(A), dated the 2nd September, 1978 and to state that rule 14(19) of C.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rules, 1965 corresponds to sub rule (20) of rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

2 · The clarification contained therein may please be brought to the notice of all concerned. With regard to its application in respect of sub-rule (20) of rule 8 of the AIS (D&A) Rules, 1969.

1 · The undersigned is directed to say that according to rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the inquiring authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any appointed, and the Government servant or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire. With reference to this rule, a question has been raised whether the written brief filed by the Presenting Officer should be made available to the accused Government Servant before he files his own written brief. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the position is explained in the succeeding paragraph.

2 · It will be seen from the phraseology of rule 14(19) that the inquiring authority has to hear arguments that may be advanced by the parties after their evidence has been closed. But he can, on his own or on the desire of the parties, take written briefs. In case he exercises the discretion of taking written briefs, it will be but fair that he should first

3 · Ministry of Finance etc., are requested to bring the above clarification to the notice of all concerned authorities under their control.

1 · Rule 7 of the AIS(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 stipulates the authority competent to institute proceedings and to impose penalty on the 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 IAS while they are on deputation with the Central Government are exercised by the Department of Personnel & Training and in respect of Indian Police Service and IFS 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 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:—

3 · It may be ensured that the above procedure is followed while referring cases of members of the All 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.

1 · I am directed to say that this Department has been receiving references seeking clarifications whether disciplinary cases initiated under the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 should be closed in the event of the death of the accused member of the All India Services during pendency of the proceedings.

2 · After careful consideration of the issues involved, it has been decided that where a member of the All India Service dies during the pendency of enquiry, i.e. without charges being proved against him, imposition of any of the penalties prescribed under the All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969, would not be justifiable. Therefore, disciplinary proceeding should be closed immediately on the death of the alleged member of the Service.

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 M/s. 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 P.S. 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: —

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:—

6 · The enquiry was held and the Inquiring Officer found that the first two charges were not proved as the identity of P.S. Sundaram, the payee of the cheque, had not been established with Shri P.S. Sundaram, Deputy Secretary. But the Inquiring Officer found that the third charge has been proved.

7 · The findings of the Inquiring Officer on the first two charges were not agreed to by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, exercising the powers of the President. He found that all the charges had been proved. The President after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission passed an order on April 22, 1968 holding that the charge of gross mis-conduct and failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as a Government servant had been substantially proved against the respondent and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on him. The respondent was directed to be retired from service with immediate effect.

8 · It was this order, which was quashed by the Single Judge in the write petition filed by the respondent. The Letters Patent Appeal against the order filed by the Union of India before the Division Bench was dismissed.

9 · It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Inquiring Officer went wrong in finding that charges Nos. 1 and 2 had not been proved and that the President was right in holding that these charges had been proved and therefore, the High Court should have found that charges Nos. 1 and 2 were proved, as there was evidence to support the charges. It was contended that the Inquiring Officer wrongly rejected the copies of the statements of the witnesses examined in the criminal trial, which statements if admitted would have fully established the first two charges against the respondent. Counsel for the appellant argued that the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable to disciplinary proceedings and therefore the statements of the witnesses in the criminal trial ought to have been admitted and relied on for establishing the guilt of the respondent on the first two charges. Counsel relied on the following observations of Venkatrama Iyer, J. in Union of India V. Verma(1).

10 · We do not think that the statements should have been received in evidence as the appellant had taken no step to produce the persons who made the statements for cross-examination of the respondent. It was the duty of the appellant to have produced these persons whose statements were sought to be proved for the cross-examination of the respondent. In State of Mysore V. S.S. Makasur (3), this Court said that the purpose of an examination in the presence of a party against whom an enquiry is made, is sufficient is recalled, that statement is put to him, and made known to the opposite party, and the witness is tendered for cross -examination by that party. As the persons whose statements were sought to be relied on were in Delhi and as they were not produced and tendered for cross -examination by the respondent, we think that the Inquiry Officer was right in refusing to act upon the statements relied on by the appellant. As there was no material before the Inquiry Officer to show that P.S. Sundaram, mentioned in that cheque is P.S. Sundaram, the Deputy Secretary, we think the High Court was justified in holding that these charges had not been proved.

11 · Coming to charge No. 3 the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench said that although there was great deal of suspicion on the bona fides of the transaction in the respondent borrowing money from Nand Kumar, suspicion cannot take the place of proof. They, therefore, held that the charge has not been proved. The third charge, as already stated, was that the respondent borrowed Rs. 2,500 from Nand Kumar without obtaining the previous permission of the Government and placed himself under a pecuniary obligation to the extent of the amount and thus contravened the provisions of rule 13(5) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 which reads:—

12 · The Inquiring Officer found that the respondent had borrowed Rs.2,500 from Nand Kumar without obtaining the previous permission as required by Rule 13(5) and thereby contravened the provisions of the sub-rule. The learned Single Judge held that although it was proved that the money was borrowed and the respondent placed himself under pecuniary obligation to Nand Kumar, there was no evidence nor had it been found either by the Inquiry Officer or by the President that Nand Kumar was a person with whom the respondent was likely to have official dealings. He further said that the evidence of Shri P.S.Sundaraman was quite clear that the application for licence of M/s. Ram Sarup Mam Chand was received in the Industries Act Section which are called I.A. (I) Section whereas the petitioner was working in the Steel & Cement Section where the copies of these applications started coming only in July, 1956 and so in June 1956 when the cheque was issued it was not possible to see how in the absence of any other evidence the petitioner could be regarded as being in a position where Nand Kumar was likely to have official dealing with him in the matter of the grant of the licenses. The Division Bench accepted this finding.

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 M/s Ram Sarup Mam Chand and M/s. 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:—

16 · The respondent contended that he did not borrow Rs.2,500/- from Nand Kumar. His case was that Nand Kumar owned him Rs.500/ -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.

1 · In the event of suspension of a moS, Government of India may be communicated telephonically immediately and the facts communicated within 15 days: - As soon as a member of the Service is placed under suspension or is deemed to have been placed under suspension, the fact may be communicated to this Department telegraphically and a detailed report of the case may be furnished within 15 days of the date of suspension, as provided for in the rules.

2 · Appeal/memorial submitted by a suspended moS should be forwarded to the Central Government within one week of receipt by the State Governments: -Whenever, a member of an All India Service who is placed under suspension, submits an appeal or memorial against the order of the State Government placing him under suspension, the same should be forwarded to the Central Government by the State Government together with their comments within one week of its receipt. If the original appeal or memorial along with the comments of the State Government is not received by the Central Government within that period, the Central Government would take a decision on the advance copy of the appeal or memorial received by them.

2 · The original appeal or memorial submitted by a member of the Service referred to above and the report about the orders issued by the State Government placing a member of the Service under suspension, as envisaged in this Department's letter of even number dated the 11th February, 1976, may be forwarded to this Department in the case of members of the Indian Administrative Service, to the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of the Indian Police Service and to the 84Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Agriculture) in the case of the Indian Forest Service.

3 · Further inquiry should not be ordered in cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from Service is set aside by a court of law except where it is set aside on technical ground by the court:The scope of the action that can be taken against a member of the Service whose dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from Service has been set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law under sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 and the circumstances which a disciplinary authority should take into account while taking recourse to this rule have been examined and it is clarified for the information of State Governments that further inquiry contemplated in sub-rule (6) of rule 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 should not be ordered except in case when the penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement has been set aside by a Court of Law on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case or when fresh material has come to light which was not before the Court. A further inquiry into the charges which have not been examined by the Court, can however, be ordered by the inquiring authorities under sub-rule (6) of rule 3 ibid depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

84 · May be read as Ministry of Environment & Forests in the present context.

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.

1 · The amount of subsistence allowance should be varied by the suspending authority after recording the reasons in writing: -The Government of India have decided that:

2 · Deductions from the subsistence allowance: -Government of India have decided that the following deductions should be enforced from subsistence allowance:—

2 · The following deductions should not be made except with a member's written consent letter— r—

4 · There is no bar to the recovery of overpayments from subsistence allowance but the competent authority will exercise discretion in deciding whether recovery should be held wholly in abeyance during the period of suspension or it should be effected at full or reduced rate depending on the circumstances of each case.

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 Service/Indian 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.

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.

3 · Copy of the warning/displeasure/reprimand 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 20 th March, 1959 and letter No.7/5/60— AIS(II), dated the 4 th May, 1960 have been reviewed and the following clarifications are given:—

1 · Whenever a member desires to be heard in person, a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiry Officer will have to be appointed: - The hearing in person, referred to in subrule (3), is really in the course of the inquiry to follow. Member of the Service has the option to say that the inquiry may proceed on the strength of the written statement filed by him and he does not wish to participate in person in the inquiry.

2 · It is not necessary to hear the member concerned in person before the inquiry starts. It is sufficient if an opportunity of personal hearing is given to him in the course of the inquiry. If, however, the Government propose to inquire into the charges in such manner as they deem fit (and not by a Board of an Inquiry or Inquiry Officer) and the member desires to be heard in person, Government will have to appoint an inquiring authority as required by sub-rule (6). In other words, whenever a member desires to be heard in person, a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiry Officer will have to be appointed. Government can inquire into charges in such manner as they deem fit, only in cases where the member does not wish to be heard in person.

2 · The mention of more than one punishment in the show cause notice, does not violate the provisions of article 311(2) of the Constitution: - The Supreme Court has held in an appeal filed before them that the mention of more than one punishment in the show cause notice, does not violate the provisions of article 311(2) of the Constitution. On the contrary, it gives the Government servant a better opportunity to show cause against each of the punishments, proposed to be inflicted on him, which he would not

3 · . Powers to drop the charges after the consideration of the written statement of defence by the accused member of the Service lies with the disciplinary authority. However, consultation with CBI, CVC. State Vigilance Commission, Anti Corruption Department etc should be made if the case in initiated at their insistence: -A question has been under consideration of this Department whether rule 8(6)(a) of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1969, which is analogous to Rule 14(5)(a) of the Central Services (CCA) Rules, 1965, permits the dropping of charges by the disciplinary authority after considering the written statement of defence submitted by the accused member of an All India Service under the aforesaid rules. The question has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the position in respect of the AIS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 is clarified as under:—

2 · It may, however be noted that the exercise of the powers to drop the charges after the consideration of the written statement of defence by the accused member of the Service will be subject to the following conditions:

1 · If any act of omission renders a moS liable of any penalty except dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement, the State Government can directly make a reference to UPSC for the quantum of penalty, which in turn, communicate the

2 · Cases referred to the Commission and the Government of India should be complete in all respects. All the documents in connection with the case should invariably forwarded be in original.

1 · IPS Officers on deputation to the Government of India or their Heads of Departments, should not enter into direct correspondence with the State Government or the Inspector General of Police concerned on matters relating to service conditions: -IPS Officers serving with the Government of India on deputation or their Heads of Departments, should not enter into direct correspondence with the State Government or the Inspector General of Police concerned on matters relating to service conditions. The correspondence in this regard should invariably be between the borrowing and the lending Government. Representations from such officer are, therefore, to be routed through the Ministry of Home Affairs and not sent to the State Government or the Inspector General of Police of the State.

85 · To be read as Department of Personnel & Training in the present context.

86 · To be read as Ministry of Environment & Forests in the present context.

87 · To be read as DP&T in the present context

3 · Procedure for intimation of disciplinary proceedings against the officers of All India Services under the Government of India and organizations under the Government of India

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:-

3 · It may be ensured that the above procedure is followed while referring cases of members of the All India Services to the cadre controlling Ministries, namely, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Environment and Forests, for initiation of Disciplinary proceedings under the AIS (D&A) Rules.