The All India Services (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1969

RULE 8. Procedure for imposing major penalties:

Government of India's Decisions

(1) The hearing in person, referred to in sub-rule (3), is really in the course or 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.

(1.2) 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.

[G.I., M.H.A. letter No. 7/7/59-AIS (III), dated 11-5-1959]

(2) 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 have had, if only the severest punishment had been mentioned and a lesser punishment, not mentioned in the notice, had been inflicted on him.

[Hukum Chand Malhotra Vs. Union of India - G.I., M.H.A. F.No. 7/6/59-AIS(I)]

(3) [Deleted vide letter No. 11018/4/79-AIS(III), dated 26-06-1979]