All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969

The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 are the discipline code for members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest Service, made by the Central Government under section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951 after consultation with the State Governments and notified on 20 March 1969 (Notification No. 7/15/63-AIS-II). They govern suspension, the ten penalties, the inquiry procedure, appeals, revision, review and memorials, and they decide which of two Governments exercises each power.

The rules exist because an All India Services officer serves two Governments. The services are common to the Union and the States under Article 312 of the Constitution; a member is borne on a State or joint cadre and may be sent on central deputation. The 1969 Rules decide which Government may suspend, charge and punish the officer at each point, and they reserve the three penalties that end a career (dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement) to the Central Government under rule 7(2). The CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not apply to these officers.

The text in force is the Department of Personnel and Training compilation, Revised AIS Rules Volume I, Rule 12, whose latest footnoted amendment is Notification No. 11018/01/2016-AIS-III dated 20 January 2017 (G.S.R. 59(E)). Three amendment rounds shaped the current rules: G.S.R. 714(E) of 30 September 2009, which set one-year and two-year outer limits on suspension; G.S.R. 1001(E) of 23 December 2015, which requires a State suspension in a contemplated case to be followed within 30 days by proceedings or Central confirmation, where the 2008 text had allowed 90 days for proceedings to begin; and the 2017 notification, which put deadlines on the defence statement, the inquiry report and the reply to the Union Public Service Commission’s advice.

This article sets out the structure of the rules, the division of power between the State and the Centre, suspension and its time limits, subsistence allowance and pay on reinstatement, the penalties, the major and minor penalty procedures, consultation with the Commission, the special procedure that dispenses with an inquiry, appeals, revision, review and memorials, the amendment history, and a rule-by-rule comparison with the CCS (CCA) Rules. The conduct obligations whose breach sets this machinery in motion are in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

Legal basis and structure

The 1969 Rules rest on section 3(1) of the All India Services Act, 1951, which empowers the Central Government to regulate the conditions of service of members of the All India Services after consulting the State Governments. The preamble to the rules records that consultation. Rule 1(2) brought them into force on publication in the Official Gazette, which the compilation’s closing line dates to G.S.R. 926 of 12 April 1969. Rule 30 repealed the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, saved proceedings pending under them, and preserved any limitation period for appeal or review that was longer under the old rules.

The rules run to 31 rules and two schedules, in seven parts:

Rule 2(b) defines the “disciplinary authority” as “the authority competent under these rules to impose on a member of the service any of the penalties specified in rule 6”. Rule 2(c), substituted on 5 July 1975, defines “Government” as the State Government for a member serving in connection with the affairs of a State, or deputed to a body or local authority the State owns or controls, and as the Central Government in any other case. Every power in the rules turns on that definition. Rule 31 sends any doubt about interpretation to the Central Government for decision.

The rules apply to the three services the 1951 Act constitutes. The two further services the Act authorises were never constituted, so no fourth service is covered. Probationers are included: rule 2(dd), inserted on 25 February 1977, defines the term, and rule 7(1A) gives the training academies a role in their discipline.

Disciplinary authority: State Government or Central Government

Rule 7 allocates disciplinary competence by where the officer was serving when the act or omission occurred, not by rank. For an act committed after appointment to the Service, rule 7(1)(b) names the competent Government in seven clauses:

For an act committed before appointment, rule 7(1)(a) gives competence to the State Government if the officer now serves that State, and to the Central Government otherwise. Under rule 7(1B), inserted in 1977, the Central Government decides any dispute about which Government is competent, and may decide that it is itself the competent Government. On the reorganisation of a State, the Explanation to rule 7(1) passes competence to the Government on whose cadre the officer is borne after the reorganisation.

The three penalties reserved to the Centre

Rule 7(2) reads: “The penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement shall not be imposed on a member of the Service except by an order of the Central Government.” A State Government as disciplinary authority may impose every other penalty in rule 6, from censure up to the major penalties of reduction in clauses (v) and (vi). Where a State has held the inquiry and considers clauses (vii) to (ix) warranted, rule 8(22)(a) requires it to forward the inquiry record to the Central Government, recommending the penalty. Under rule 8(22)(b) the Centre may act on the record, recall and examine witnesses, or, if it finds no justification for one of the three penalties, refer the case back to the State.

Consultation between Governments

Rule 7(3) requires the punishing Government to consult the Government on whose cadre the member is borne, where the two differ, before imposing any penalty. For a joint cadre the punishing Government consults the Joint Cadre Authority. A difference of opinion between the Centre and a State, or between two States, goes to the Central Government for decision “in consultation with the Commission”. The practical effect is that an IAS officer of the Kerala cadre on deputation to a Union ministry, charged for an act committed in that ministry, is charged and punished by the Central Government, which must first consult the Government of Kerala.

Probationers at the academies

Rule 7(1A) empowers the Director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, the Director of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy and the President of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges to initiate proceedings against a probationer for misconduct while at the academy, using the minor penalty procedure in rule 10. The Director or President then refers the case to the Central Government, which passes orders under rule 6 in consultation with the Commission. Discharge of a probationer for unsuitability is a separate matter under the probation rules and is not a penalty (see All India Services probation).

Suspension under rule 3

Suspension of an All India Services officer is governed by rule 3, which since 2009 carries outer time limits that the central civil rules do not have. Rule 3(1) lets the State Government or the Central Government, “as the case may be”, suspend a member serving under it, or request the other Government to suspend, where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending. Rule 3(1A) gives the same power where the officer is engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. In either case, a difference between two States goes to the Central Government, and “between a State Government and the Central Government, the opinion of the Central Government shall prevail”.

Limits on a State Government’s power to suspend

Two provisos to rule 3(1) and three reporting sub-rules restrict the State Government:

• Heads of service. The Chief Secretary, the Director General of Police and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests “shall not be placed under suspension without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government” (second proviso, substituted by G.S.R. 714(E) of 30 September 2009).
• Central confirmation within 30 days. Where a State suspends a member against whom proceedings are only contemplated, the order “shall not be valid” unless, within 30 days of suspension, or a further period of up to 30 days the Central Government specifies with reasons, either proceedings are initiated or the Central Government confirms the suspension. G.S.R. 1001(E) of 23 December 2015 substituted both 30-day figures. Under the 2008 compilation the suspension lapsed unless proceedings began within 90 days, and the Central Government could allow it to continue beyond that period.
• Report within 15 days. Rule 3(6A) requires the State to send the Central Government a detailed report within 15 days of an actual or deemed suspension. The 2015 amendment deleted the word “ordinarily” that had softened the deadline.
• Notice within 48 hours. Rule 3(9)(d), substituted in 2015, requires a copy of the order with its grounds to reach the cadre controlling authority in the Central Government within 48 hours, and rule 3(10), inserted the same year, requires the information to reach the Government of India within the same period. The compilation misprints the period as “forty-eighty hours” in both places.

Rule 3(1)(c), also inserted in 2015, deals with the reverse case: “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.” The clause names IAS officers only; IPS and Indian Forest Service officers on central deputation are not mentioned.

Deemed suspension

Rule 3 deems an officer suspended in four situations, without any order:

1. Detention in official custody, on a criminal charge or otherwise, for longer than 48 hours (rule 3(2)).
2. Conviction for a criminal offence with a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours, where the officer is not forthwith dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired; suspension runs from the date of conviction (rule 3(4)). The Explanation inserted in 1978 counts the 48 hours from the start of imprisonment and aggregates intermittent periods.
3. A dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement set aside on appeal or review with the case remitted: the suspension is deemed to continue from the date of the original penalty order (rule 3(5)).
4. A dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement set aside by a court, followed by a decision to hold a further inquiry: the officer is deemed suspended by the Central Government from the original order (rule 3(6)). The 1983 proviso permits that further inquiry only where the court decided “purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case”.

DoPT letter F. No. 11018/01/2023-AIS-III dated 15 June 2023 settled how the 30-day confirmation rule applies to custody cases: Central confirmation is not required for the period the officer remains in custody, but if the suspension continues after release, confirmation under rule 3(1) is needed within 30 days of the release or of the date the Government learns of it. Separately, rule 3(3) lets the Government suspend an officer against whom a criminal investigation, inquiry or trial is pending, where the charge is connected with the officer’s position, is likely to embarrass the officer in the discharge of duties, or involves moral turpitude.

Validity, review and outer limits

Suspension of an All India Services officer runs on two clocks. The first is the review cycle in rule 3(8). The second is the outer limit in rules 3(1B) and 3(1C).

Rule 3(8)(d) adds that where no extension order is passed, the suspension “shall stand revoked with effect from the date of expiry of the order being reviewed”. The text carries an internal inconsistency that the 2015 amendment created: rule 3(8)(a) now speaks of 60 and 120 days, but rule 3(8)(d) still permits extensions of up to 180 days, and paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 1 still schedules the first review “within 90 days from the date of order of the suspension”, after a 60-day order would already have lapsed. A disciplinary authority that reviews within 60 days and extends for no more than 120 days at a time complies with both readings.

Schedule 1 constitutes the Review Committees. The Central committee is chaired by the Secretary of the concerned Ministry or Department, with the Additional or Joint Secretary in charge of administration and one other Additional or Joint Secretary. The State committee is chaired by the Chief Secretary, with the senior-most Additional Chief Secretary (or Chairman, Board of Revenue, or Financial Commissioner) and the Secretary, Department of Personnel as Member Secretary; the Home Secretary or Director General of Police is co-opted for an IPS case, and the Forest Secretary or Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for an Indian Forest Service case. A State may entrust the work to its Civil Services Board.

Schedule 2, substituted in 2015, constitutes the Central Ministry’s Review Committee for the one-year and two-year limits: the Secretary, DoPT as Chairperson, the Secretary of the concerned Ministry or a nominee not below Additional Secretary, and the Additional Secretary or Establishment Officer, DoPT. It acts only on a reference from the suspending Government and must satisfy itself “that the delay has occurred for reasons beyond the control of the disciplinary authority” and that reinstatement could lead to tampering with evidence. The period during which a court has stayed the proceedings is excluded from both limits.

The Supreme Court applied these rules in State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar IPS, Civil Appeal Nos. 8427-8428 of 2018, decided on 21 August 2018. An IPS officer had been under deemed suspension under rule 3(2) for more than six years, extended on Review Committee minutes. Relying on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, the Court upheld his reinstatement and left the State free to post him to a non-sensitive post.

Subsistence allowance and pay on reinstatement

Unlike central civil servants, whose subsistence allowance comes from FR 53 and whose pay on reinstatement comes from FR 54 to 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, an All India Services officer draws both under the 1969 Rules themselves, in rules 4 to 5B.

Rule 4: subsistence allowance

Rule 4(1)(a) gives a suspended member a subsistence allowance equal to the leave salary admissible on half average pay or half pay, plus dearness allowance on that leave salary. Under rule 20(2) of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, leave salary on half pay is half the pay drawn before the leave. Rule 4(1)(b) adds any compensatory allowance the officer was drawing on the date of suspension, subject to its own conditions. After the first three months, the suspending authority may vary the amount:

Dearness allowance is charged on the subsistence allowance itself, not on basic pay, and is recalculated on the varied amount under rule 4(1)(a)(iii); the rate from 1 January 2026 is 60% under Department of Expenditure OM No. 1/1(i)/2026-E.II(B) dated 22 April 2026. The figures are a salary-calculator.in illustration on the Junior Scale entry pay of Rs. 56,100 under the All India Services pay rules; the authority sets the actual variation case by case and records its reasons. Rule 4(2) withholds payment until the officer certifies that no other employment, business, profession or vocation is being pursued, and rule 4(3) makes the suspending authority the sanctioning authority. Under rule 16(iv)(d), an order fixing the subsistence allowance is appealable to the Central Government.

Rules 5, 5A and 5B: pay after the order falls away

The three rules separate the cases by what ended the penalty or the suspension. Rule 5 was substituted by Notification No. 28013/2/78-AIS-III dated 12 January 1982 (G.S.R. 92 of 30 January 1982), as was rule 5A; rule 5B was substituted by Notification No. 6/9/73-AIS-III dated 26 July 1975.

Any proportion fixed under these rules “shall neither be equal to the full pay and allowances nor less than the subsistence allowance”. Where the officer delayed the proceedings, the authority may restrict full pay for the period of that delay after hearing the officer. Rules 5(8) and 5A(5) deduct anything earned in other employment between the penalty and reinstatement, and pay nothing if those earnings equal or exceed the amount due. Under rule 5B(6), an order made when suspension is revoked mid-proceedings must be reviewed on the authority’s own motion when the proceedings end.

Penalties under rule 6

Rule 6(1) lists the penalties that may be imposed “for good and sufficient reasons”. The list is the same scheme as Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, but the AIS clause numbering differs because of an insertion in 2000.

Clause (iv)a was inserted by DoPT Notification No. 11018/3/98-AIS-III dated 1 June 2000 (G.S.R. 212 of 17 June 2000). Clause (iii) in its present wording was substituted by DP&AR Notification No. 6/5/74-AIS-III dated 28 July 1975. The proviso to clause (vii) lets the authority imposing compulsory retirement pay retirement benefits under the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 at a reduced scale, but not below two-thirds of the scale in Schedules A and B of those rules. The minor penalty article covers clauses (i) to (iv)a in detail, and dismissal and removal from service covers clauses (viii) and (ix).

Mandatory penalty for corruption and disproportionate assets

The first proviso to rule 6(1), inserted on 26 February 1988 and extended in 2002, requires removal or dismissal in every case where a charge of possessing disproportionate assets, or of accepting a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for an official act, is established. The second proviso allows any other penalty “in any exceptional case, and for special reasons recorded in writing”. The first proviso to Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules imposes the same requirement on central civil servants. Where the proviso does not apply, the choice of penalty is open to judicial review for penalty proportionality.

What is not a penalty

The Explanation to rule 6 lists nine actions that do not amount to a penalty, so that neither the inquiry procedure nor Article 311 is attracted. They include withholding increments for failure to pass a departmental examination, stoppage at an efficiency bar for unfitness, non-promotion to the senior time scale for lack of service or experience, non-promotion to the selection grade or above after due consideration, reversion from an officiating selection post after a trial of up to three years on grounds of unsuitability or administrative reasons, reversion of a probationer to the State Service, return of a borrowed officer to the lending State, compulsory retirement under the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Rules, and termination of a probationer’s service under the probation rules.

Major penalty procedure under rule 8

No major penalty may be imposed except after an inquiry held in the manner provided in rule 8 and rule 10, or under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 where the inquiry is held under that Act (rule 8(1)). The procedure matches the departmental inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules in most steps, with time limits added by G.S.R. 59(E) of 20 January 2017.

Charge and written statement of defence

Under rule 8(4) the disciplinary authority “shall draw up or caused to be drawn up” the definite and distinct articles of charge, a statement of imputations with the relevant facts, and lists of the documents and witnesses relied on (see charge sheet and articles of charge). In Promod Kumar (2018) the Supreme Court held this requirement mandatory, following Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath: a charge memo not drawn up or approved by the disciplinary authority was quashed, with liberty to issue a fresh one after the authority’s approval. In State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (28 March 2025) the Court confined both decisions to the rules they construed, but rule 8(4) is one of those rules.

Rule 8(5)(b), substituted in 2017, requires the officer to file a written statement of defence within 30 days of receiving the articles of charge. The disciplinary authority, or an authority it authorises, may extend this by up to 30 days with recorded reasons, “Provided that under no circumstances, the extension of time for filing written statement of defence shall exceed ninety days from the date of receipt of articles of charge.” Before 2017 the period was “within such time as may be specified”. DoPT’s office memoranda of 2 and 3 February 2023 read the provision as 30 days extendable by 30 at a time up to 90.

Inquiring authority, presenting officer and defence assistance

Where charges are not admitted, the disciplinary authority appoints an inquiring authority under rule 8(2) and, under rule 8(6)(c), may appoint a presenting officer, who may be a Government servant or a legal practitioner. Rule 8(3) allows a Board as the inquiring authority, of not fewer than two senior officers, at least one from the charged officer’s own Service. In a case of sexual harassment, the proviso to rule 8(2), inserted by G.S.R. 408(E) of 18 June 2014, deems the Complaints Committee under rule 3 of the All India Services (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) Regulations, 1998 to be the inquiring authority (see Complaints Committee).

Rule 8(9)(a) allows the charged officer the assistance of any other Government servant as defence assistant, but not a legal practitioner unless the presenting officer is one or the disciplinary authority permits. Rule 8(9)(b) allows a retired Government servant, subject to conditions the President specifies. The Note inserted in 1977 bars a serving Government servant who already has two or more pending cases in which they are assisting.

Hearing and the inquiry deadline

The officer appears after ten working days from receipt of the charge (rule 8(8)). The inquiring authority may then adjourn by up to 30 days for the officer to inspect listed documents within five days, name defence witnesses, and seek production of further documents within ten days (rule 8(12)); copies of witness statements must be supplied at least three days before those witnesses are examined. New evidence may not be admitted “to fill up any gap in the evidence” (Note to rule 8(16)). If the officer does not file a defence or appear, the inquiry may proceed ex parte under rule 8(21). Under rule 13, the Government may order a common proceeding where two or more members are concerned in one case.

Rule 8(25), inserted on 20 January 2017, sets the deadline: 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”. The disciplinary authority may allow up to six more months, and further extensions “not exceeding six months at a time” for good and sufficient reasons recorded in writing. The rule fixes no outer limit and uses “should”, not “shall”. DoPT’s office memorandum of 2 February 2023 requires each extension to be approved by the disciplinary authority before the current six months run out.

Action on the inquiry report and UPSC consultation

The disciplinary authority may remit the case for further inquiry with reasons (rule 9(1)). Otherwise, under rule 9(2) as substituted on 26 June 2003, it sends the officer the inquiry report together with its own tentative reasons for any disagreement with the findings, and the officer may make a written representation within 15 days “irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not”. The authority records its findings after considering the representation (rule 9(2-A)). The DoPT office memoranda of February 2023 restate the period as 15 working days; the rule says 15 days.

The Union Public Service Commission is consulted on every penalty imposed on an All India Services officer. Rule 9(5)(a), inserted in 2017, requires the disciplinary authority “In every case” to send the Commission the inquiry report, its disagreement note, its comments on the officer’s representation and the full case record. Under rule 9(5)(b) the officer receives the Commission’s advice and may reply within 15 days, extendable by 15, with extensions capped at 45 days from receipt; rule 9(5)(c) requires both to be considered before any penalty is imposed. The authority then imposes a minor penalty under rule 9(3) or a major penalty under rule 9(4).

Two further rules govern the Commission’s role. Rule 11 refers to the Central Government any difference of opinion between a State Government and the Commission on any matter under the rules. Rules 12 and 29 require the final order to be served with the inquiry report, the authority’s findings and reasons for disagreement, a copy of the Commission’s advice, and, where the advice was not accepted, a brief statement of the reasons for not accepting it.

Minor penalty procedure under rule 10

A minor penalty under clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 6 needs a shorter procedure. Rule 10(1) requires the disciplinary authority to inform the officer in writing of the proposal and the imputations, give a reasonable opportunity to make a representation, consider it, record a finding on each imputation, and consult the Commission. A full rule 8 inquiry under sub-rules (4) to (23) is mandatory where the authority proposes to withhold increments for more than three years, with cumulative effect for any period, or so as to affect pension, and optional in any other case where the authority considers it necessary. Rule 10(2) lists the record, which must include the Commission’s advice. Rule 10(1) refers to clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 6 and does not name clause (iv)a, inserted in 2000, although rule 6 classes it as minor.

Consultation with the Commission before a minor penalty is the clearest procedural difference from the central civil rules. Under rule 10(1)(e) the Commission is consulted before even a censure on an IAS officer; Rule 16(1)(d) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as amended by G.S.R. 769(E) of 31 October 2014, consults it on a central civil servant’s minor penalty only where consultation is required. The comparison of the two tracks is in major versus minor penalty proceedings.

Special procedure under rule 14

Rule 14 lets the disciplinary authority dispense with rules 8 to 12 in three cases and “make such orders thereon as it deems fit”:

1. The penalty rests on conduct that led to the officer’s conviction on a criminal charge.
2. The authority is satisfied, for reasons recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.
3. The President is satisfied that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry.

The three clauses track the three exceptions in the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. A proviso to rule 14 allows the officer in a conviction case to be given an opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty. A second proviso requires the Commission to be consulted before any order under rule 14, except where the UPSC (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958 dispense with consultation.

Appeals under rules 15 to 23

Every appeal under the 1969 Rules goes to the Central Government. Rule 16 lists the appealable orders: an order of suspension; a penalty imposed by a State Government; a State order that denies or varies to the officer’s disadvantage pay, allowances or other conditions of service, interprets a rule to the officer’s disadvantage, or supersedes the officer in promotion to a selection post; and State orders on the efficiency bar, non-penal reversion, subsistence allowance, pay on reinstatement and the treatment of the period of absence. The Explanation extends the right to a person who has ceased to be a member of the Service.

Rule 15 bars an appeal against an order of the President, an interlocutory or step-in-aid order other than suspension, an order of the inquiring authority during the inquiry, and an order withholding an appeal. Rule 15(2) preserves the right to a memorial under rule 25 against the first and the last of these.

Rule 19 lets the Central Government enhance a penalty on appeal. If the enhanced penalty is a major one and no rule 8 inquiry was held, the Centre must hold or direct one first; in any other case the officer must be heard on the proposed enhancement. The 45-day limit in rule 17 is the same as in Rule 25 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and the wider comparison of the two appellate schemes is in appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Withholding of appeals

Rule 21 gives the State Government a power that has no counterpart in the central civil rules: it may withhold an appeal that lies where no right of appeal exists, that does not comply with rule 18, that is time-barred without reasonable cause, or that repeats a decided appeal without new facts. The appellant must be told, with reasons. An appeal withheld only for a defect of form may be resubmitted within one month and, if compliant, may not be withheld again. Rule 22 requires the State to send the Centre, on 1 January and 1 July each year, a list of appeals withheld in the preceding six months with reasons, and rule 23 lets the Centre call for any of them.

Revision, review and memorials

Part VI, substituted by Notification No. 11018/19/81-AIS(III) dated 3 February 1984, gives three further remedies, each with a different authority and time limit:

Revision may not begin until the appeal period has expired or the appeal has been decided. The compilation prints those two sub-rules as “23(2)” and “23(3)” under rule 24, a misnumbering in the DoPT text. On revision, rule 24 requires a rule 8 inquiry and consultation with the Commission before any penalty in clauses (v) to (ix) is imposed. On review, rule 24-A requires that inquiry only where none was held, and consultation with the Commission in every case. An order originally passed after consulting the Commission may be revised only after consulting it again.

The memorial to the President is statutory for All India Services officers, unlike the extra-statutory memorial available to central civil servants. Rule 25 was substituted by Notification No. 11018/3/2010-AIS(III) dated 22 November 2010 (G.S.R. 212 of 27 November 2010), which introduced the 90-day limit and the exhaustion requirement. Since 2015, rule 25(4) requires the State Government or Ministry to forward the memorial with its comments within 30 days, failing which the Central Government decides on the advance copy. Rule 25(5a) bars revision of a penalty on a memorial without consulting the Commission.

After the departmental remedies, a member of the All India Services may approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Time limits in the rules

Rule 28 lets the Central Government or the State Government extend any time limit in the rules or condone delay “for good and sufficient reasons”, except where the rules expressly provide otherwise. It does not authorise relaxation of anything other than time. The time limits in the rules, as they stand in the DoPT compilation, are listed below. Rule 28 cannot extend the 90-day cap in rule 8(5)(b) or the 45-day cap in rule 9(5)(b), because each proviso says the extension may not exceed the cap “under no circumstances”.

DoPT reviewed the administrative timelines for each stage of an AIS case in its office memoranda of 2 February 2023 (State cadre cases) and 3 February 2023 (officers on central deputation), which describe DoPT letter No. 106/7/2015-AVD.I (Part) of 15 March 2017 as the previous review. Those office memoranda set targets in working days for stages the rules leave open; they do not amend the rules.

Amendment history

The compilation footnotes amending notifications from 1971 to 2017. Those that set the present text of the provisions most often litigated are:

The DoPT compilation of the rules, last regenerated in September 2019, carries no amendment after G.S.R. 59(E) of 20 January 2017. DoPT’s letter of 15 June 2023 on deemed suspension clarified rule 3(2) by instruction and did not amend it.

Comparison with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

The 1969 Rules follow the CCS (CCA) Rules in procedure, so the inquiry, the defence and the appellate tests are close to identical. They differ in who acts, in the Commission’s role, and in suspension.

The disciplinary authority concept differs most. Under the CCS (CCA) Rules it is fixed post by post in the Schedule and tied to the appointing authority through Rule 12(4). Under the 1969 Rules it is a Government, chosen by rule 7 according to where the officer was serving when the misconduct occurred, and dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement are reserved to the Central Government whichever Government held the inquiry. Railway servants have a third parallel code, the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.

Related Articles

• All India Services
• All India Services Act, 1951
• All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
• All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955
• All India Services pay rules, 2016
• All India Services probation
• Indian Administrative Service
• Indian Police Service
• Indian Forest Service
• Article 311
• Article 312
• Union Public Service Commission
• Department of Personnel and Training
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Suspension
• Subsistence allowance
• Reinstatement
• Disciplinary authority
• Departmental inquiry
• Inquiry officer
• Presenting officer
• Defence assistant
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Ex parte inquiry
• Common proceedings
• Minor penalty
• Major versus minor penalty proceedings
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Compulsory retirement
• Misconduct
• Disproportionate assets
• Penalty proportionality
• Memorial to the President
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Deputation to the Central Government
• Efficiency bar
• Complaints Committee on sexual harassment
• Fundamental Rules
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968

External references

• All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, DoPT consolidated compilation
• Department of Personnel and Training, All India Services rules
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training
• Union Public Service Commission
• The Constitution of India, Legislative Department

References

1. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Notification No. 7/15/63-AIS-II dated 20 March 1969 (G.S.R. 926 dated 12 April 1969), as consolidated by the Department of Personnel and Training, Revised AIS Rules Volume I, Rule 12.
2. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Amendment Rules, Notification No. 11018/3/2004-AIS-III dated 30 September 2009 (G.S.R. 714(E)).
3. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Amendment Rules, Notification No. 11018/1/2013-AIS-III dated 21 December 2015 (G.S.R. 1001(E) dated 23 December 2015).
4. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Amendment Rules, Notification No. 11018/01/2016-AIS-III dated 20 January 2017 (G.S.R. 59(E)).
5. Department of Personnel and Training letter F. No. 11018/01/2023-AIS-III dated 15 June 2023, deemed suspension under rule 3(2).
6. Department of Personnel and Training office memoranda dated 2 February 2023 and 3 February 2023, timelines for disciplinary proceedings against members of the All India Services.
7. State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar IPS, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos. 8427-8428 of 2018, decided 21 August 2018.
8. State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, Supreme Court of India, decided 28 March 2025.
9. All India Services Act, 1951 (61 of 1951), section 3(1).