Disciplinary Authority

The disciplinary authority is the authority competent under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 of those rules. Rule 2(g) defines it in exactly those terms, and Rule 12 identifies it for each servant: the President for anyone, and otherwise the appointing authority, the authority named in the Schedule to the rules, or an authority the President empowers by general or special order.

The definition turns on competence to impose any Rule 11 penalty, so an officer who can impose only a censure is a disciplinary authority for that servant as much as the officer who can dismiss them. That is why a single case often involves two disciplinary authorities. The lower one may start a major penalty proceeding under Rule 13(2), but only the higher one may impose a major penalty, and under Rule 12(4)(a) that higher one may not be subordinate to the authority that appointed the servant. The same bar sits in Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

The identity of the disciplinary authority decides whether a penalty order stands. An order imposed by an authority that was not competent under Rule 12, a charge memorandum the competent authority never approved, or a decision taken by an authority that was also a witness, is void or voidable however strong the evidence. The disciplinary authority also takes every decision between the complaint and the penalty: whether to suspend, whether to frame charges, who inquires, whether to agree with the inquiry report, and what penalty to impose.

This article covers the definition, the Rule 12 allocation and the Schedule, the relationship with the appointing authority, the Rule 13 split between instituting and imposing, the decisions reserved to the disciplinary authority at each stage of a departmental inquiry, disqualification for bias, its independence from vigilance advice, the rules for officers on deputation, the position after retirement under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, and the parallel provisions in the All India Services and railway codes.

Definition in Rule 2(g) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

Rule 2(g) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that “disciplinary authority” means “the authority competent under these rules to impose on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 11”. The definition is relational: an authority is the disciplinary authority for a particular servant, and the same Deputy Secretary may be the disciplinary authority for a Lower Division Clerk and have no disciplinary power at all over a Section Officer in the same office.

Three features of the wording carry most of the practical weight.

• Competence comes from the rules. The phrase “competent under these rules” means Rule 12 and the Schedule, read with any general or special order of the President under Rule 12(2). Seniority, administrative control or a reporting relationship does not make an officer a disciplinary authority.
• Any penalty is enough. The ten penalties in Rule 11 run from censure in clause (i) to dismissal in clause (ix). An authority competent to impose only clause (i) is still a disciplinary authority, which is what lets Rule 13(2) give that authority the power to start a major penalty case.
• The definition is the same across the whole rules. Every later rule that assigns a function to “the disciplinary authority” (Rule 10 on suspension, Rule 14 on the inquiry, Rule 15 on the report, Rule 16 on minor penalties, Rule 19 on dispensing with the inquiry) refers back to Rule 2(g).

The rules were notified by S.O. 3703 dated 20 November 1965. Rule 2(a), six clauses earlier, defines the appointing authority, and the difference between the two definitions is the subject of the section on the appointing authority below.

Who is the disciplinary authority: Rule 12

Rule 12 of the CCS (CCA) Rules allocates penalty powers in four sub-rules: the President may impose any penalty on anyone, the appointing authority and the Schedule authority may impose penalties within their competence, heads of Ministries and offices have an added route for Group C and Group D, and Rule 12(4) sets three overriding provisions.

The President under Rule 12(1)

Rule 12(1) provides that “The President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 on any Government servant.” The President is therefore a disciplinary authority for every central civil servant, whatever the group. In practice the President’s power over a Group A officer is exercised through the Minister in charge of the Ministry or Department: in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351, decided on 5 September 2013, the Supreme Court treated the Finance Minister as the disciplinary authority for an Indian Revenue Service officer. An order made by the President is final inside the department: Rule 22 provides that no appeal lies against any order made by the President.

The appointing authority and the Schedule under Rule 12(2)

Rule 12(2) splits the rest of the civil services into two classes.

• Rule 12(2)(a), a member of a Central Civil Service other than the General Central Service. Any penalty may be imposed “by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the schedule in this behalf or by any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President”.
• Rule 12(2)(b), a person holding a Central Civil Post in the General Central Service. The penalty may be imposed by the authority the President specifies by general or special order, or, where no such order has been made, by the appointing authority or the Schedule authority.

The order of the alternatives is the practical difference. For an organised service, the Schedule is the primary source and a Presidential order adds to it. For a General Central Service post, a Presidential order made by the Ministry takes precedence, and the Schedule applies only where no order exists. The Schedule alone does not answer the question for a General Central Service post until any Presidential order for that post has been checked.

Secretaries and heads of office under Rule 12(3)

Rule 12(3) adds a route for the lower groups. For a member of a Central Civil Service Group C, other than the Central Secretariat Clerical Service, or of a Central Civil Service Group D, the power to impose any Rule 11 penalty may also be exercised by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry or Department where the servant is serving, or by the head of the office where the servant is serving, “except where the head of that office is lower in rank than the authority competent to impose the penalty under sub-rule (2)”. The comparison is with the Rule 12(2) authority, so a head of office junior to the authority the Schedule names cannot use Rule 12(3) to reach past it.

The three overriding provisions in Rule 12(4)

Rule 12(4) opens with “Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule” and overrides the three sub-rules before it.

• Rule 12(4)(a), the subordinate authority bar. No penalty in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 may be imposed “by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority”. The one exception is a penalty in clause (v) or clause (vi) imposed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service.
• Rule 12(4)(b), temporary appointment to another service or post. Where a member of a service, or a substantive holder of a General Central Service post, is temporarily appointed to another service or post, the authority competent to impose a major penalty must first consult the authority, not subordinate to it, that would have been competent had the temporary appointment not been made.
• Rule 12(4)(c), probationers at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. The Director of the Academy is competent to impose the penalties in clauses (i) and (iii) of Rule 11, censure and recovery of pecuniary loss, on a probationer under training there, after following the Rule 16 procedure. Explanation I defines a probationer as a person appointed to a Central Civil Service on probation.

Explanation II to Rule 12 settles the group of a promoted servant. A servant promoted to the next higher group, whether on probation or temporarily, is deemed for Rule 12 to belong to that higher group, so a Group C servant promoted on probation to a Group B post takes the Group B disciplinary authority from the date of promotion.

Reading the Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules

The Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules is the table that names the appointing authority, the disciplinary authority, the penalties that authority may impose, and the appellate authority for each service. Its heading cites Rules 5, 9(2), 12(2) and 24, and it is in five Parts: Part I for Central Civil Services Group A, Part II for Group B, Part III for Group C, Part IV for Group D, and Part V for civil posts in the Defence Services.

Part I is a bare list of Group A services, from the Archaeological Service at item 1 to the Central Secretariat Official Language Service at item 45, with no authority columns. Rule 8 explains why: all appointments to Group A services and posts “shall be made by the President”, so the President is the appointing authority for a Group A officer unless the power has been delegated under the proviso to Rule 8, and is in every case a disciplinary authority under Rule 12(1).

Parts III and IV, and Part II from item 33, carry six columns: serial number, description of service, appointing authority, the authority competent to impose penalties, the penalties that authority may impose (by clause number in Rule 11), and the appellate authority. The earlier Part II entries and Part V omit the appellate column, and the appellate authority then follows Rule 24(1). The penalties column is what makes the Schedule more than a list of names. It often assigns “All” penalties to one authority and a restricted set, commonly clause (i) alone or clauses (i) to (iv), to a lower one.

Source: Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Parts II to IV, as printed in the Department of Personnel and Training compilation updated to 15 October 2018. Entries for General Central Service posts apply only where no specific provision has been made by a general or special order of the President.

The Schedule has been amended more often than any single rule in the code. The amendment table in the DoPT compilation lists 83 notifications from 1966 to G.S.R. 216(E) of 8 March 2018, and more than half of them change a Part of the Schedule rather than a rule. An entry quoted from an old edition of a rules book is a starting point to be checked against the current notification, never an answer.

Disciplinary authority and appointing authority compared

The appointing authority is defined by Rule 2(a) as the highest of four possible authorities, and the disciplinary authority by Rule 2(g) as any authority competent to impose a penalty, so the two coincide only where the Schedule gives the appointing authority all the penalties. Rule 2(a) takes, “whichever authority is the highest authority”, among the authority empowered to appoint to the servant’s service or grade, the authority empowered to appoint to the post the servant holds, the authority that actually appointed the servant to that service, grade or post, and, for a servant in continuous employment after being a permanent member of another service or substantive holder of another permanent post, the authority that appointed them to that earlier service, grade or post.

The “highest authority” test protects the servant against a later reorganisation. If a Lower Division Clerk was appointed by a Director in 2012 and the power to appoint to the grade was later delegated to an Under Secretary, the Director remains the appointing authority for that clerk, and an Under Secretary may not impose a major penalty on them. The fourth limb carries the protection forward across a change of post: a servant who was substantively appointed by a higher authority to an earlier post keeps that authority as appointing authority while continuously employed.

Article 311(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or holds a civil post under the Union “shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed”. The constitutional bar covers dismissal and removal; Rule 12(4)(a) extends the same bar to every major penalty in clauses (v) to (ix), which includes reduction to a lower stage in the time scale, reduction in rank and compulsory retirement.

Instituting proceedings versus imposing a penalty: Rule 13

Rule 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules separates the power to start a disciplinary proceeding from the power to decide it, so the authority that issues a charge sheet need not be the authority that can impose the penalty it proposes.

Rule 13(1) lets the President, or any other authority the President empowers by general or special order, institute disciplinary proceedings against any government servant, or direct a disciplinary authority to institute proceedings against a servant on whom that authority is competent to impose a Rule 11 penalty.

Rule 13(2) provides that a disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the minor penalties in clauses (i) to (iv) “may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties”. In Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 INSC 898, decided on 25 July 2025, the Supreme Court read Rule 13(2) with Rule 14 and held that an authority competent to impose only minor penalties may validly issue a charge memorandum in major penalty proceedings.

Rule 13(2) does not itself say what happens at the end of such an inquiry; where the findings warrant a major penalty, the case has to be decided by an authority competent under Rule 12 to impose it. Where the findings warrant only a minor penalty, Rule 15(5) lets the authority that holds the case impose it without a fresh Rule 16 proceeding.

Competence to institute does not dispense with approval. In B.V. Gopinath, the Supreme Court held that the words “draw up or cause to be drawn up” in Rule 14(3) let a subordinate draft the articles of charge, but the charge is finalised only on the disciplinary authority’s approval, and a charge memorandum issued without it is non est. In Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, decided on 17 December 2021, the Court held that the approval to initiate a proceeding and the approval of the charge memorandum are two separate acts, and that a post facto approval does not cure the defect. The charge sheet article covers both judgments.

Decisions the disciplinary authority takes at each stage

Every discretionary step in a CCS (CCA) proceeding, from suspension to the final order, is assigned by the rules to the disciplinary authority, and the inquiry officer’s role is limited to finding facts.

Rule 10(1) lets the appointing authority, any authority to which it is subordinate, the disciplinary authority, or an authority the President empowers, place a servant under suspension. Where the order is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, that authority must “forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made”.

Rule 14(2) allows the disciplinary authority to inquire into the charge itself, but Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 35014/1/76-Estt.(A) dated 29 July 1976 directs it to refrain from doing so and to appoint another officer unless that is unavoidable, for example in a small field formation with no suitable officer.

Rule 15(2) requires the disciplinary authority, when it disagrees with the inquiring authority on any article of charge, to send the servant its own tentative reasons for disagreement along with the report, and to receive a representation within 15 days whether the report is favourable or not. The rule matches the holding in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, decided on 19 August 1998, and the principles of natural justice article covers the line of cases. Paragraph 5.25.3 of the Central Vigilance Commission’s Vigilance Manual 2026 adds that the disciplinary authority “should take into account only that material which the CO had the opportunity to rebut”.

Under Rule 15(6), a disciplinary authority that decides on a major penalty makes the order without giving the servant a further opportunity to represent on the penalty proposed. The speaking order requirement still applies: the order must show that the authority applied its own mind to the findings, the representation and the quantum.

Disqualification of the disciplinary authority for bias

A disciplinary authority that is the complainant, a witness, or a person with a personal stake in the charge may not decide the case, because the rule against bias applies to the authority as it applies to the inquiry officer.

In Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 578, decided on 23 March 1984 by a five-judge bench, a railway senior clerk had been dismissed without an inquiry by an officer against whom most of the charges related. The Supreme Court set the order aside, holding that “No person can be a judge in his own cause and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true”, and that “Any one who has a personal stake in an inquiry must keep himself aloof from the conduct of the inquiry.” In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, decided on 15 October 1987, the Court stated the test as “whether a reasonable person, in possession of relevant information, would have thought that bias was likely”.

The CCS (CCA) Rules do not name a substitute for a disqualified disciplinary authority. The provisions that let the President put a different authority in its place are Rule 12(2)(a), under which a penalty may be imposed by “any other authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President”, and Rule 13(1), under which the President or an empowered authority may institute proceedings or direct a disciplinary authority to do so.

Who cannot act as the disciplinary authority

Two Government of India instructions narrow the field further. Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 7/14/61-Ests.(A) dated 24 January 1963 provides that an officer appointed only to perform the current duties of a post “cannot exercise statutory powers”, naming the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules among the sources of such powers, so an officer holding current duty charge may not impose a penalty that belongs to the post. And paragraph 3 of Office Memorandum No. 134/1/81-AVD-I dated 13 July 1981, reproduced in paragraphs 11.3 and 22.1 of Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024, provides that disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities “exercise quasi-judicial powers and as such, they cannot delegate their powers to their subordinates”, and must communicate their decisions under their own signatures. The exception is a Presidential case, where the Minister decides and an authorised officer authenticates the order; paragraph 22.2 of the 2024 Office Memorandum adds that a charge sheet in such a case is signed by an officer authorised under Article 77(2) of the Constitution.

Where a servant is transferred during a proceeding to a post under a different disciplinary authority in the same service, Ministry of Home Affairs Memo No. F.39/1/69-Ests.(A) dated 16 April 1969 provides that the new authority need not start de novo and may carry on from the stage the case had reached. A transfer to a different service brings in the Rule 12(4)(b) consultation instead.

Independence from vigilance and ministry advice

The disciplinary authority decides the penalty on its own judgment, and advice from the Central Vigilance Commission, the Union Public Service Commission or the Ministry is advice only. In Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, (1991) 3 SCC 219, decided on 30 April 1991, the Supreme Court held that “the advice tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission is not binding on the Bank or the punishing authority”, and that the authorities “cannot act under the dictation of the Central Vigilance Commission or of the Central Government”. The Court quashed a Ministry of Finance directive of 21 July 1984 that required banks to impose the penalty the Commission advised, and sent the case back to the disciplinary authority to decide afresh.

The Central Vigilance Commission now states the same position in its own manual. Paragraph 5.25.5 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 describes the Commission’s advice as advisory, states that the final order should record that the Commission was consulted, and provides that “the advice of the Commission should not be quoted verbatim”. Under CVC Master Circular No. 06/MC/2026 dated 27 July 2026, second stage advice is sought where the competent authority proposes a final order at variance with the Commission’s first stage advice, and in a President’s-name case proposed for exoneration where the Union Public Service Commission is not consulted.

Consultation with the Union Public Service Commission turns on who the disciplinary authority is. Regulation 5(1) of the Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958 dispenses with consultation in every disciplinary case except four kinds of Presidential order: an original penalty order by the President, an order on appeal against a subordinate authority’s penalty, an order overruling or modifying a penalty order, and a penalty imposed in exercise of the power of review. Regulation 5(2) exempts Defence Services civilians altogether. A disciplinary authority below the President therefore does not consult the Commission, and where the President is the authority, G.S.R. 769(E) dated 31 October 2014 amended Rules 15, 16, 17, 19 and others to require that the Commission’s advice be given to the servant, who has 15 days to represent against it.

Time limits on the disciplinary authority

Cabinet Secretariat (Department of Personnel) Memo No. 39/43/70-Ests.(A) dated 8 January 1971 provides that, in a case needing no consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission or the Union Public Service Commission, it “should normally be possible” for the disciplinary authority to take its final decision on the inquiry report “within a period of three months at the most”, and that where it cannot, “a report may be submitted” to the next higher authority with the reasons and a revised period. Office Memorandum No. 11012/21/98-Estt.(A) dated 11 November 1998 applies the same three months from receipt of the Commission’s advice. The whole major penalty case is to be completed within 18 months of the charge sheet under Office Memorandum No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol.10) dated 14 October 2013. All three are administrative instructions. The rules themselves set 15-day periods for the servant’s representations under Rules 15(2) and 15(3)(b) and six extendable months for the inquiring authority under Rule 14(24), but no time limit for the disciplinary authority’s own decision.

Common proceedings under Rule 18

Where two or more government servants are concerned in the same case, Rule 18 lets the President, or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on all of them, direct that the case be taken in a common proceeding, and Rule 18(2) requires the order to name the authority that will act as the disciplinary authority. A Note to Rule 18(1) covers mixed competence: where the authorities competent to dismiss the servants differ, the order is made by the highest of them with the consent of the others.

The Rule 18(2) order must specify three things: the authority that functions as the disciplinary authority for the common proceeding, the Rule 11 penalties that authority is competent to impose, and whether the Rule 14 and Rule 15 procedure or the Rule 16 procedure is to be followed. An authority named under Rule 18(2) acts as the disciplinary authority for every servant in the proceeding, but only for the penalties the order lists.

Officers on deputation, loan and temporary appointment

Where a central servant’s services are lent to another department, a State Government, or a local or other authority, Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules gives the borrowing authority the powers of the disciplinary authority to conduct the proceeding, but leaves any major penalty to the lending side.

Rule 20(1) gives the borrowing authority “the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him”, with a proviso that it must forthwith inform the lending authority of the circumstances. Rule 20(2) then divides the decision by penalty.

• Minor penalty. Where the borrowing authority considers that a penalty in clauses (i) to (iv) should be imposed, it may make orders after consulting the lending authority. If the two disagree, the servant’s services are replaced at the disposal of the lending authority.
• Major penalty. Where the borrowing authority considers that a penalty in clauses (v) to (ix) should be imposed, it must replace the servant’s services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit the inquiry record. The lending authority passes orders if it is the disciplinary authority, or submits the case to the disciplinary authority, which must comply with Rule 15(3) and (4) before passing orders. The Explanation lets that authority act on the transmitted record or hold a further inquiry.

Rule 21 makes the converse provision for a servant whose services have been borrowed by a central department from another department, a State Government, or a local or other authority: the lending authority must be informed forthwith, and a minor penalty is imposed after consulting it, with a difference of opinion again resolved by returning the servant. The Explanation to Rule 11 confirms that replacing a borrowed servant at the disposal of the lending authority is not itself a penalty.

A temporary appointment inside central government is handled by Rule 12(4)(b), not by Rules 20 and 21. The authority competent to impose a major penalty in the temporary post must consult the authority that would have been competent in the servant’s substantive service or post, provided that authority is not subordinate to it.

Proceedings after retirement: Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

Once a government servant retires, a proceeding pending at retirement continues under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, in which only the authority competent under Rule 8(1) may withhold or withdraw pension or gratuity.

Rule 8(1), as substituted by G.S.R. 770(E) of 7 October 2022, names that authority: the President where the President was the appointing authority, the Secretary of the administrative Ministry or Department where an authority subordinate to the President was, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General for such a pensioner of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. That authority may withhold or withdraw a pension or gratuity, in full or in part, permanently or for a specified period, and to order recovery of pecuniary loss, where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during service in any departmental or judicial proceeding. The Union Public Service Commission must be consulted before a final order passed by the President, and a partly withheld pension may not fall below the minimum pension under Rule 44.

Rule 8(2)(a) deems a proceeding instituted during service to be a proceeding under Rule 8 after retirement, and provides that it “shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service”. Its proviso, as substituted on 7 October 2022, then changes who decides: “where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the authority competent to pass order under sub-rule (1), that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the said competent authority”. The original disciplinary authority finishes the inquiry and records findings, but the order on pension is the competent authority’s, and Rule 8 provides for no Rule 11 penalty after retirement.

Two further limits apply. Rule 8(2)(b) provides that a proceeding instituted under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the minor penalty procedure, and continued after retirement “shall have no effect on the pension and gratuity of the pensioner”. Rule 8(2)(c) bars a proceeding not instituted during service unless the authority competent under Rule 8(1) sanctions it in Format 2, and bars it for any event more than four years before institution. The provisional pension article covers the payments made while a Rule 8 proceeding is pending.

Appeal, revision and the President’s orders

The disciplinary authority’s order is appealable to the appellate authority named in the Schedule under Rule 24 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, except that no appeal lies against any order made by the President under Rule 22. That exception is why the choice of disciplinary authority affects the servant’s remedies as well as the validity of the order.

A higher authority may impose a penalty without breaching Article 311(1), because the Article bars only a subordinate authority. In Mahesh Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 70, decided on 29 October 1954, the Supreme Court held that “It appears to us to be enough that the removing authority is of the same rank or grade” as the appointing authority, and Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 200, decided on 17 August 1982, summarised the law as “There is a compliance with Clause (1) of Article 311 if the dismissing authority is not lower in rank or grade than the appointing authority.” Both were Prevention of Corruption Act sanction cases that reasoned through Article 311(1).

In Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, (1995) 2 SCC 474, decided on 6 February 1995, a Deputy General Manager who was the appellate authority under the bank’s Regulations dismissed an officer himself, although the regular disciplinary authorities were available. The Supreme Court held that where an appeal is provided to the higher authority and that authority passes the punishment order, “the employee concerned is deprived of the remedy of appeal which is a substantive right”, and set the dismissal aside. The judgment concerned bank Regulations, and how far it restricts an authority above the Schedule disciplinary authority under the CCS (CCA) Rules, as distinct from the President under Rule 12(1), is a question no Supreme Court judgment has decided under those rules.

The Government of India’s own instruction runs the same way from the other side. Paragraph 1(3) of Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 6/26/60-Ests.(A) dated 8 June 1962, reproduced as paragraph 18 of the Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum dated 26 March 2024, provides that where a higher disciplinary authority institutes proceedings it should also pass the final orders, without remitting the case to a lower authority, and the appeal then lies to the appellate authority prescribed for an order of that higher authority.

The subordination test is fixed at the date of appointment. In Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway, (1979) 4 SCC 289, decided on 17 July 1979, a Train Lighting Inspector appointed by the Chief Electrical Engineer was removed by a Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer to whom the power to appoint to that post had since been delegated. The Supreme Court held that subordination “has to be determined with reference to the state of affairs existing on the date of appointment”, and that delegation “does not enhance or improve the hierarchical status of the delegate”. The removal was held unconstitutional and of no effect. The Rule 2(a) “highest authority” test writes the same protection into the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Revision and review sit above the disciplinary authority. Rule 29(1) lets the President, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for a servant in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, a Head of Department directly under the Central Government, the appellate authority within six months of the order, and certain other named authorities revise an order, and Rule 29-A lets the President review any order when new material or evidence comes to notice. The appeal, review and revision article covers both, and the memorial to the President article covers the separate petition route.

Disciplinary authority under the All India Services and railway codes

Members of the All India Services and railway servants are outside the CCS (CCA) Rules, and each code defines the disciplinary authority in its own terms.

The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 define “disciplinary authority” in rule 2(b) as “the authority competent under these rules to impose on a member of the service any of the penalties specified in rule 6”. Rule 7 then allocates competence by where the officer was serving, not by rank: for an act committed before appointment to the service, by where the officer is serving when proceedings begin, and for an act committed after appointment to the service while serving in connection with the affairs of a State, or on deputation to a body owned or controlled by that State, the State Government is competent to institute proceedings; while on training, the Central Government is competent unless the State selected the officer for the training and bore its whole cost; while on leave, the Government that sanctioned the leave; and while under suspension, the Government that placed the officer under suspension. Rule 7(2) then reserves the three heaviest penalties to the Centre: dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement “shall not be imposed on a member of the Service except by an order of the Central Government”, and Rule 7(3) requires the Government on whose cadre the officer is borne to be consulted where another Government is the punishing Government.

The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, in force from 1 October 1968, define the disciplinary authority in rule 2(1)(c) in four limbs. For imposing a penalty, it is the authority competent under the rules to impose that penalty. For appointing an inquiring authority under Rule 9 and for the steps in Rule 11(1)(a) and (b), it is any authority competent to impose any Rule 6 penalty on a gazetted railway servant, or, for a non-gazetted servant, any authority competent to impose a major penalty for Rule 9 and any Rule 6 penalty for Rule 11. Rule 7(1) lets the President impose any penalty, and Rule 7(2) assigns penalty powers to the authorities in Schedules I, II and III. In the South Central Railway copy of the rules, Schedule III gives the President full powers over Group A officers and the Railway Board suspension and the penalties in clauses (i) to (vi) of Rule 6. Rule 7(3) adds a rule the CCS code does not have: for a railway servant officiating in a higher post, the disciplinary authority is determined by the officiating post held when action is taken. The railway code also defines the appointing authority in four limbs ending “whichever authority is the highest authority”, the same test as Rule 2(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Defects that vitiate a disciplinary authority’s order

• A major penalty imposed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, contrary to Rule 12(4)(a) and, for dismissal or removal, Article 311(1).
• A penalty imposed by an authority not listed for that servant in Rule 12, the Schedule or a Presidential order, or a penalty outside the fifth-column list of penalties the Schedule gives that authority.
• A charge memorandum not approved by the disciplinary authority, or approved after issue (B.V. Gopinath, 2013; Sunny Abraham, 2021).
• A decision taken by an authority that was the complainant, a witness, or had a personal stake (Arjun Chaubey, 1984).
• Disagreement with the inquiry report without sending the servant tentative reasons and taking a representation within 15 days, contrary to Rule 15(2).
• Reliance on material the servant had no opportunity to rebut, contrary to paragraph 5.25.3 of the Vigilance Manual 2026.
• A penalty order that reproduces vigilance or Commission advice without the authority’s own reasoning.
• An order on pension or gratuity by an authority other than the President after the servant has retired, contrary to Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
• A major penalty on a temporarily appointed servant without the consultation Rule 12(4)(b) requires, or on a borrowed servant without the Rule 20 hand-back.

Related Articles

• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Appointing authority
• Article 311
• Doctrine of pleasure
• Departmental inquiry
• Major versus minor penalty proceedings
• Minor penalty
• Withholding of increment
• Reduction in rank
• Compulsory retirement
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Written statement of defence
• Inquiry officer
• Presenting officer
• Inquiry report
• Common proceedings
• Dispensing with inquiry
• Ex parte inquiry
• De novo inquiry
• Preliminary inquiry
• Suspension
• Subsistence allowance
• Reinstatement
• Speaking order
• Principles of natural justice
• Penalty proportionality
• Misconduct
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Memorial to the President
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Chief Vigilance Officer
• Vigilance clearance
• Union Public Service Commission
• Head of office
• Comptroller and Auditor-General
• Deputation in central government
• Probation in central government
• Promotion
• Central Secretariat Service
• CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021
• Provisional pension
• All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
• Department of Personnel and Training

External references

• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training
• Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, South Central Railway
• Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026
• ISTM Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, updated to 26 December 2024
• DoPT Office Memorandum of 26 March 2024, Handling of Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of Central Civilian employees
• Supreme Court of India, judgment texts

References

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, notified by S.O. 3703 dated 20 November 1965, Department of Personnel and Training compilation updated to 15 October 2018: Rule 2(a) and 2(g); Rules 8, 9, 10(1), 11 and its Explanation, 12(1) to 12(4) with Explanations I and II, 13, 14(2) and 14(3), 15(1) to 15(6), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22; the Schedule, Parts I to V, and the table of amending notifications to G.S.R. 216(E) dated 8 March 2018.
2. Constitution of India, Article 311(1).
3. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 8(1) to 8(4).
4. Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. 35014/1/76-Estt.(A) dated 29 July 1976 (disciplinary authority not to act as inquiring authority).
5. Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026, July 2026, paragraph 5.25.3.
6. Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351, decided 5 September 2013; Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, decided 17 December 2021; Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 INSC 898, decided 25 July 2025.
7. Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 578, decided 23 March 1984; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, decided 15 October 1987; Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, decided 19 August 1998.
8. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, rules 2(b) and 7, Department of Personnel and Training compilation.
9. Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memoranda No. 6/26/60-Ests.(A) dated 8 June 1962 (higher disciplinary authority), No. 7/14/61-Ests.(A) dated 24 January 1963 (current duty charge) and Memo No. F.39/1/69-Ests.(A) dated 16 April 1969 (transfer during proceedings); Cabinet Secretariat (Department of Personnel) Memo No. 39/43/70-Ests.(A) dated 8 January 1971 (three month limit); Office Memoranda No. 134/1/81-AVD-I dated 13 July 1981 (no delegation), No. 11012/21/98-Estt.(A) dated 11 November 1998 and No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol.10) dated 14 October 2013; all as reproduced in Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024, Handling of Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of Central Civilian employees.
10. Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from Consultation) Regulations, 1958, G.S.R. 789, regulation 5(1) and 5(2); CCS (CCA) Amendment Rules, G.S.R. 769(E) dated 31 October 2014.
11. Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi v. Syndicate Bank, (1991) 3 SCC 219, decided 30 April 1991; Central Vigilance Commission Master Circular No. 06/MC/2026 dated 27 July 2026, and Vigilance Manual 2026, paragraph 5.25.5.
12. Mahesh Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 70, decided 29 October 1954; Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Central Railway, (1979) 4 SCC 289, decided 17 July 1979; Sampuran Singh v. State of Punjab, (1982) 3 SCC 200, decided 17 August 1982; Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank, (1995) 2 SCC 474, decided 6 February 1995.
13. Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, rules 2(1)(a), 2(1)(c) and 7, and Schedule III.