THE ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1969
1. Department of Personnel & A.R. letter No. 11018/7/82-AIS (III), dated the 13th July, 1983 addressed to Chief Secretaries of all State Governments.
Subject:- All India Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 Disciplinary Cases-Timely and complete reference to Union Public Service Commission.
I am directed to invite a reference to letter No. 6/6/72-AIS(III), dated the 8th January, 1973 issued by the Department of Personnel on the subject mentioned above, and to say that as a sequel to the amendment of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Rule 9, 19 and 24, of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 it is no longer necessary to issue a show cause notice in cases where the disciplinary authority proposes to impose any of the major penalties or where it is proposed to enhance an existing penalty. As a result some changes in the proforma to be used for consulting the Union Public Service Commission have become necessary. It has also been found necessary to make certain modifications in term 1, 2, 4, 7, 12 and 13 of the proforma. Revised proforma which may hereafter be used for consulting the U.P.S.C. is forwarded herewith.
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.
2. D.P. & A.R. letter No. 11018/2/75-AIS(III), dated 30th June, 1975.
A copy of the Ministry of Home Affairs, D.O. Letter NO. 24/25/62-AVD, dated 26-5-1962 along with extracts from some judgements of High Courts which were circulated among Vigilance Officers to apprise them of the establishment law on the question of "standard of proof" in departmental enquiries against Government servants is enclosed. The same issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur (1972). A copy of the judgement of the Supreme Court in this case is also enclosed.
It is requested that the State Governments may kindly keep in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in this case, especially the observations of the Court reproduced below, while dealing with disciplinary cases against the members of the All India Services:-
(i) "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."
(ii) "A finding cannot be characterized as perverse or unsupported by any relevant materials if it is a reasonable inference from proved facts." This observation has been made in the context of the facts as stated in para 14 of the judgement.
(iii) Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted and which materials 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.
(iv) "Now it is settled by the decision of this Court in State of Orissa V. 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 charge proved alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment. The Court is not concerned to decide whether the punishment imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the misdemeanour established."
3. D.O. No. 24/75/62-AVD, dated 26-05-1962.
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.
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.
4. Letter No. 11017/1/76-AIS(III), dated 05-02-1976.
(2) The provisions contained in rule 20 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, are of special importance in the context of the latest endeavour to reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages and drugs. While it is expected that every member of All India Services will scrupulously adhere to the provisions of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968, mentioned above, it is also expected of the disciplinary authorities to keep a strict watch on the conduct of members of the All India Services in regard to matters covered by the aforesaid Rules. Violation of any of the provisions of rule 20 of the All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 will constitute a good and sufficient reason for taking disciplinary action against a member of the All India Service. While any of the penalties specified in rule 6 of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 can be imposed on a member of an All India Service for good and sufficient reasons after following the prescribed procedure, the disciplinary authorities should take a very serious view of any violation of rule 20 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968,and should not hesitate to impose the severest punishment on such members of the All India Service who are proved guilty of violating the said Rule.
(3) 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.
5. Letter No. 11018/3/77-AIS(III), dated 29-04-1977.
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.
6. D.P. & A.R. letter No. 28022/1/75-Estt.(A), dated 20th January, 1977.
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 Government and it has been decided that the provisions contained in paragraph 2(c) of the Ministry of Home Affairs 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.
7. MHA O.M. No. 45/5/53-Est(A), dated 08-01-1959.
The 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.
Government will not give any assistance to a Government servant for his defence in any proceedings, civil or criminal instituted against him by the State in respect of matters arising out of or connected with his official duties or his official position. Should, however the proceedings conclude in favour of the Government servant, Government will entertain his claim for reimbursement of costs incurred by him for his defence, and if Government are satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Government servant was subjected to the strain of the proceedings without proper justification they will consider whether the whole or any reasonable proportion of the expenses incurred by the Government servant for his defence should be reimbursed to him.
(b) Proceedings in respect of matters not connected with official duties or position of the Government servant.
Government will not give any assistance to a Government servant or reimburse the expenditure incurred by him in the conduct of proceedings in respect of matters not arising out of, or connected with, his official duties or his official position, irrespective of whether the proceedings were instituted by a private party against the Government servant or vice versa.
(c) Proceedings instituted by a private party against a Government servant in respect of matters connected with his official duties or position.
(i) If the Government on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case consider that it will be in the public interest that Government should themselves undertake the defence of the Government servant in such proceedings and if the Government servant agrees to such a course, the Government servant should be required to make a statement in writing as in Annexure A and thereafter Government should make arrangements for the conduct of the proceedings as if the proceedings had been instituted against Government.
(ii) If the Government servant proposes to conduct his defence in such proceedings himself, the question of reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by him for his defence may be considered in the case the proceedings conclude in his favour. In determining the amount or costs to be so reimbursed, Government will consider how far the Court has vindicated the acts of the Government servant. The conclusion of proceedings in favour of the Government servant will not by itself justify reimbursement.
To enable the Government servant to meet the expenses of his defence, Government may sanction, at their discretion, an interest free advance not exceeding Rs. 500 or the Government servant's substantive pay for three months, whichever is greater, after obtaining from the Government servant a bond in the form reproduced as Annexure B. The amount advanced would be subject to adjustment against the amount, if any, to be reimbursed as above.
The Government servant may also be granted any advance from any Provident Fund to which he is a subscriber not exceeding three months' pay or one half of the balance standing to his credit, whichever is less, this advance will be repayable in accordance with the rules of the Fund.
(d) Proceedings instituted by a Government servant of his being required by Government to vindicate his official conduct.
A Government servant may be required to vindicate his conduct in a Court of Law in certain circumstances, [vide Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. F. 25/32/54-Estt(A), dated 8th January, 1959]. The question whether costs incurred by the Government servant in such cases should be reimbursed by the Government and if so, to what extent should be left over for consideration in the light of the result of the proceedings. Government may, however, sanction an interest-free advance, in suitable installments, of any amount to be determined by them in each case on the execution of a bond by the Government servant in the form reproduced in Annexure B.
In determining the amount of costs to be reimbursed on the conclusion of the proceedings, the Government will consider to what extent the Court has vindicated acts of the Government servant in the proceedings. Conclusion of the proceedings in favour of the Government servant will not by itself justify reimbursement.
(e) Proceedings instituted by a Government servant suo motu, with the previous sanction of Government to vindicate his conduct arising out of or connected with his official duties or position.
If a Government servant resorts to a Court of Law with the previous sanction of Government to vindicate his conduct arising out of or connected with his official duties or position, though not required to do so by Government, he will not ordinarily be entitled to any assistance but Government may, in deserving cases sanction advances in the manner indicated in sub-para c(ii) above, but no part of the expenses incurred by the Government servant will be reimbursed to him even if he succeeds in the proceedings.
3. Clause (d) of article 320(3) of the Constitution requires consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on any claim a Government servant for the reimbursement of the costs incurred by him in defending legal proceedings instituted against him in respect of acts done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty. In other cases consultation with the Union Public Service Commission is not obligatory, but it will be open to Government to seek the Commission's advice, if considered necessary.
4. The question whether a case falls under article 320(3)(d) of the Constitution so as to require consultation with the Commission may at times be difficult to determine. It may be stated generally that the consultation is obligatory in a case where a reasonable connection exists between the act of the Government servant and the discharge of his official duties, the act must bear such relation to the official duties that the Government servant could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or a fanciful claim that he did it in the course of the performance of his duties.
5. The appropriate authority for taking decision in each case will be the administrative Ministry of the Government of India concerned who will consult the Finance and Law Ministries, where necessary. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India will exercise the powers of an administrative Ministry in respect of the personnel of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department.
6. In so far as persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders are issued in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General.
8. DP & AR, letter No. 11018/12/78-AIS(III), dated the 14th August, 1978.
In pursuance of the provision contained in clause(b) of sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, the President hereby prescribes the following conditions subject to which a member of the Service may take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf:-
(i) No retired Government servant can take up more than three cases at a time. At the time of appearance before the Inquiry Officer, the retired Government servant should certify that he has only three cases on hand at that time.
(ii) A retired Government servant cannot assist a member of an All India service in disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of three years from the date of retirement. The retired Government servant should produce before the Inquiry Officer, a declaration regarding his date of retirement.
(iii) If the retired Government servant is also a legal practitioner, the restrictions on engaging a legal practitioner by a delinquent Government servant to present the case on his behalf as contained in rule 8(9) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, would apply.
(iv) In the matter of payment of travelling and other expenses to the retired Government servant assisting a member of the Service in disciplinary proceedings, the instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs office Memorandum No. 16/122/56-AVD, dated the 18th August, 1960 will apply. The retired Govt. servant concerned will be deemed to belong to the grade of Government servants to which he belonged immediately before his retirement, for the purpose of these instructions. The expenditure on account of travelling and other expenses will be borne by the State Government/ Department to which the delinquent Govt. servant belongs.
Explanation:- Any person, who has retired from service under the Central Government, or the Government of a State or a Union Territory may be engaged by the member of the service to assist him in the disciplinary proceedings.
2. The decision contained in this letter may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
9. D.P. & A.R. letter No. 11018/7/78-AIS(III), dated 16-08-1978.
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.
2.1 The 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 one inquiry report. In cases where the State Government consider 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.
10. Letter No. 11018/19/78-AIS (III), dated 15th January, 1979.
Subject: All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Procedure to be followed under rule 8(20) thereof.
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.
11. Office Memorandum No. 11012/18/77-Est(A), dated 2nd September, 1978.
Subject: CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Procedure to be followed under rule 14(19) thereof.
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 take the brief from the Presenting Officer, supply a copy of the same to the Government Servant and then take the reply brief from the Government Servant. In case the copy of the brief of the Presenting Officer is not given to the Government Servant, it will be like hearing arguments of the Presenting Officer at the back of the Government servant. In this connection, attention is also invited to the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Collector of Customs Vs. Mohd Habibul (SLR 1973 (1) Calcutta, 321) in which it is laid down that the requirement of rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the principles of natural justice demanded that the delinquent officer should be served with a copy of the written brief filed by the Presenting Officer before he is called upon to file his written brief.
3. Ministry of Finance etc., are requested to bring the above clarification to the notice of all concerned authorities under their control.
12. D P. & A R, letter No.11018/8/81-AIS(III), dated the 25th November, 1981.
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 AIS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 is clarified as under:-
(a) The disciplinary authority has the inherent power to review and modify articles of charge or drop some of the charges or all the charges after the receipt and examination of the written statement of defence submitted by the accused member of an All India Service under Rule 8(6) of the AIS (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969;
(b) The disciplinary authority is not bound to appoint an Enquiry Officer for conducting an enquiry into the charges which are not admitted by the accused member of the Service but about which the disciplinary authority is satisfied on the basis of the written statement of defence that there is no further cause to proceed with.
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:
(a) In cases arising out of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI should be consulted before a decision is taken to drop any of, or all, the charges on the basis of the written statement of defence submitted by the accused member of the Service . The reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority for dropping the charges should also be intimated to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
(b) The Central Vigilance Commission/State Vigilance Commission/ Anti Corruption Deptt. as the case may be, should be consulted where the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the advice of any of these bodies and the intention is to drop the proceedings altogether, as distinct from dropping or reviewing or modifying some charges.