Saturday, 31 July 2021

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 35 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 35 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan



Departmental inquiry is held:

(a) in the manner laid down in Rules 14 & 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for imposing MAJOR penalties;

(b) in the manner laid down in Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for imposing MINOR penalties; and

(c) in the manner laid down in Rule 18 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for COMMON proceedings where two or more Government servants are concerned.


A departmental inquiry is not a Criminal Trial in a Court of Law for imposition of punishment. It is not even lis between two parties which is decided by a third person. It is only a proceeding instituted by the Government in its capacity as the employer against its employee for the satisfaction of the mind of the Government as to whether the employee concerned has committed misconduct deserving imposition of penalty therefor. The inquiry is relevant to the contract of service between the parties, viz., the employer and the employee.

[A.R.R. Deshpande v. Union of India, 1971 (2) SLR 776 (Delhi).]

In cases of both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings, the views and advice of the U.P.S.C. and the C.B.I. are to be taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.

Before commencement of departmental disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution, a Government servant may be placed under suspension in public interest under the provisions of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules which will be discussed hereinafter.

Case law on Conduct Rules

Dear Comrades

Here some of the judgments related to conduct rules are furnished. Please read everything carefully and note down all these. When you are preparing replies to the charge sheets and explanation, you can make use of it. That’s why all these items are sent to you in word file


1. Meaning of misconduct: Misconduct is a generic term and means 'to conduct amiss; to mismanage; wrong or improper conduct; bad behaviour, unlawful behaviour or conduct'. There is a distinction between misconduct and grave misconduct. Misconduct in order to earn the epithet of gravity has to be gross or flagrant. Consequently the degree of misconduct to justify dismissal has to be higher or more serious. In order to gauge gravity of misconduct what matters is not frequency. It cannot, therefore, be contended that a single act of misconduct, howsoever grave, can never result in dismissal. What really matters is the enormity of the misconduct.

Bhagwat Parshad XIGPAIR 1970 Punj. 81.

2. Misconduct committed in private life: It is not correct to contend that a govt. servant is not answerable to govt. for misconduct committed in his private life. Assuming the contention to be correct, the result will be that, however reprehensible or abominable a govt. servant's conduct in his private life be, the govt. will be powerless, to dispense with his services unless and until he commits a criminal offence or commits an act which is specifically apprehended. This would clothe govt. servant with immunity which would place the govt. in a position worse than that of an ordinary employer. Art. 311 of the constitution does not restrict the power of the state to dispense with the services of any govt. servant for conduct which it considers to be unworthy or unbecoming of an official of the state, nor does it fetter the discretion of the state as to what type of conduct it shall consider sufficiently blameworthy to merit dismissal or removal. The state has been invested with absolute discretion in this respect. It can demand a certain standard of conduct from government servants not only when performing their official duty but in their private lives as well.

Laxminarain X Dist. Magistrate AIR 1960 ALL 55.

3. The right to demonstrate to improve prospects in service is a right to visible manifestation of feelings or sentiments of an individual or groups and this communication by one's idea to others to whom it is intended (is not a misconduct).

Balakrishnan Nair X Kerala 1980 KLT 264.

4. A mere technical violation is not misconduct. This means, e.g: a withdrawal form was passed without verifying the signature, but amount was correctly made to the correct party. 1992 (2) SLJ CAT 40 Cuttack

5. Peaceful assembly without any speech or slogans in office premises is not misconduct.

D (1994) 27 ATC 265 Madras.


Post a Comment