Inquiry Officer

An inquiry officer is the authority that a disciplinary authority appoints under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to hear the evidence on a major penalty charge against a central government servant and report a finding, with reasons, on each article of charge. The rules call the office the inquiring authority. Inquiry officer, shortened to IO, is the name used in Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) instructions, in the Central Vigilance Commission’s Vigilance Manual 2026 and in the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM) Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, updated to 26 December 2024.

The inquiry officer is the fact-finder of the departmental inquiry, and the office exists to deliver the reasonable opportunity that Article 311(2) of the Constitution guarantees before a servant is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. The officer receives the charge sheet and the charged officer’s written statement of defence, holds a preliminary hearing and a regular hearing, lets the presenting officer lead the department’s evidence and the charged officer cross-examine it, questions the charged officer generally under Rule 14(18), and writes the report under Rule 14(23). The inquiry officer does not choose the penalty. That belongs to the disciplinary authority under Rule 15.

Who holds the office decides whether the inquiry survives review. A retired officer is a lawful choice, as the Supreme Court held in Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy on 18 July 2023; an officer who investigated the case or will be a witness in it is not; and an inquiry officer who leads the prosecution evidence turns into a prosecutor. In Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, decided on 2 July 2018, the Supreme Court endorsed the rule that bias can be presumed in that last case. A challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal to the inquiry officer’s appointment or conduct goes to the fairness of the whole inquiry, not to one finding.

Legal basis in Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

Rule 14(2) is the appointment power. Where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a government servant, it may itself inquire into it, or appoint an authority under Rule 14, or under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, to inquire into the truth of it. The appointment is made only after the charged officer’s written statement of defence has been considered under Rule 14(5)(a): an article the charged officer admits is not inquired into, and the inquiring authority is appointed for the articles denied or where no written statement arrives.

Two Explanations and one proviso attach to Rule 14(2), and each defines a class of inquiry officer:

Only the disciplinary authority may appoint. The ISTM Handbook updated to 26 December 2024 treats an inquiry officer appointed by anyone other than the disciplinary authority as an incurable defect. Rule 14(2) gives both the opinion that grounds exist and the choice of inquirer to that authority, so no other officer can supply either. Who the disciplinary authority is for a given post is fixed by Rule 12 and the Schedule, and Rule 13 decides who may institute the proceedings.

Who may be appointed as inquiry officer

A disciplinary authority has four routes to an inquiry officer, and in a sexual harassment complaint a fifth inquiring authority, the Complaints Committee, is fixed by the rule itself.

The disciplinary authority itself

Rule 14(2) allows the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry, but DoPT 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, as in a small field formation where no suitable officer is available. The reason is structural: an authority that has already formed the opinion under Rule 14(2) that the charge merits inquiry, and then approved the articles of charge, is in a poor position to hear the defence with an open mind. Paragraph 5.19.1 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 describes appointing someone other than the disciplinary authority as the normal practice.

A serving officer

A serving officer of the same or another department is the default. The ISTM Handbook updated to 26 December 2024 says departments are encouraged to use serving officers as inquiry officers and presenting officers primarily, and the honorarium of a serving inquiry officer, 15% of monthly basic pay per case under DoPT Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1668597747466 dated 16 November 2022, is a fraction of what a retired appointee costs. The Handbook permits the charged officer’s immediate superior to be appointed only where there is no risk of perceived bias.

A retired officer

The power to appoint a retired government servant rests on the words an authority in Rule 14(2), and Explanation (ii) to Rule 14(2), reproduced at paragraph 2.1 of DoPT Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024, provides that the references to the inquiring authority in sub-rules (7) to (20) and (22) include a retired appointee. The Supreme Court upheld such an appointment under the CCS rules in Union of India v. P.C. Ramakrishnayya, (2010) 8 SCC 644, and settled the point again in Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, Civil Appeal No. 6061 of 2011, by an order of 18 July 2023: “the disciplinary authority is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority. It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant.” The same order rejected, as an afterthought, the argument that the disciplinary authority must record reasons for choosing a retired officer over a serving one. The panel from which retired officers are drawn is described in its own section below.

A Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries

A Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries (CDI) is an officer on the strength of the Central Vigilance Commission whose job is holding oral inquiries. DoPT Office Memorandum No. 39/40/70-Ests.(A) dated 9 November 1972 sends inquiries against gazetted officers of all grades that involve lack of integrity or a vigilance element to a CDI, while cases of purely administrative or technical lapses stay with departmental inquiry officers. Paragraph 1.3.2 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 lists the Commission’s power to require that the oral inquiry in any departmental proceeding, except a petty case, be entrusted to a CDI or to another official it considers fit, and paragraph 5.19.2 ties the choice to the nature and gravity of the case. The office is covered in the article on the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries.

The Complaints Committee in sexual harassment cases

In a complaint of sexual harassment within Rule 3-C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the proviso to Rule 14(2) makes the Complaints Committee set up in each Ministry, Department or office the inquiring authority by deeming, so the disciplinary authority appoints no separate inquiry officer. The Committee follows the Rule 14 procedure as far as practicable unless a separate procedure has been prescribed for it, and the 2022 honorarium Office Memorandum applies to inquiries by such a committee as well. The underlying law is the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Seniority, independence and disqualification

No sub-rule of Rule 14 fixes the inquiry officer’s rank. The seniority requirement is executive guidance, and its wording has drifted between documents:

The appointment of an officer junior to the charged officer is therefore attackable as unfair but is not void for breach of a rule. The safer choice follows the Handbook’s wording, an inquiry officer senior in rank to the charged officer. The retired panel’s floor of Deputy Secretary, a Level 12 post, sets the minimum seniority for a panel appointee, not a ceiling.

Independence is a harder requirement, because it rests on the principles of natural justice and on Article 311(2), not on guidance. Paragraph 5.19.1 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 requires that the official appointed have no bias and have had no occasion to express an opinion in the earlier stages of the case. The ISTM Handbook requires that the inquiry officer have had no prior involvement in the case, which excludes an officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry or the investigation. The 2022 honorarium Office Memorandum turns part of this into a signed undertaking, under which the inquiry officer certifies in each case that he or she is not a witness or complainant in the matter, nor a close relative or known friend of the charged officer, and agrees to keep the documents secret.

In State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, decided on 2 February 2010, the Supreme Court held that an enquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial capacity is in the position of an independent adjudicator and is not supposed to be a representative of the department, the disciplinary authority or the Government, and that the enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. That judgment arose from an ex parte inquiry, and it holds that the department must still prove the charge by evidence before an inquiry officer even when the charged officer does not take part.

Bias petitions and change of inquiry officer

A charged officer who believes the inquiry officer is biased applies in writing for a change, and the application stops the inquiry. Paragraph 4 of DoPT Office Memorandum No. 39/40/70-Ests.(A) dated 9 November 1972, consolidated at paragraph 2.7 of DoPT Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024, requires the proceedings to be stayed and the application referred, with the relevant material, to the appropriate reviewing authority for orders. Paragraph 5.22.7 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 names only two grounds on which an inquiry is stayed: an injunction from a court, and an allegation of bias against the inquiring authority.

The ISTM Handbook sets out the inquiry officer’s side of the procedure in Chapter 14. On the charged officer expressing lack of faith, the inquiry officer stays the inquiry forthwith, asks the charged officer to apply for a change within a short time limit, one week in the Handbook’s example, and informs the disciplinary authority. Chapter 17 of the Handbook advises the inquiry officer to record at the first hearing whether the charged officer has faith in the inquiry officer, so that a bias plea raised late, after an unfavourable ruling, can be tested against that record.

Paragraph 2.6 of DoPT Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024 states that the rules make no provision for an appeal against the order appointing an inquiring authority, but that the order could nevertheless be reviewed. That review, reached through the bias application and its stay, is what protects the charged officer at this stage. If the application succeeds, the new inquiry officer takes over under Rule 14(22), which lets a successor act on the evidence already recorded, or recall and re-examine any witness where that is necessary in the interests of justice. A bias allegation that is rejected is preserved for the representation on the report and for any appeal.

Functions of the inquiry officer, stage by stage

The ISTM Handbook divides the inquiry officer’s work into six phases: pre-hearing, preliminary hearing, regular hearing, post-hearing, actions at any stage, and unusual circumstances. The governing sub-rules and the working guidance for each are:

The daily order sheet runs through every phase. It is the inquiry officer’s record of each hearing: who appeared, what was inspected or exhibited, which witness was examined, what was asked for and refused, and the next date. No format is prescribed. The ISTM Handbook says the first is made on receipt of the appointment order and copies go to both parties, including the charged officer in an ex parte case. Clause (iv) of paragraph 5.22.3 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 requires one on each scheduled day of hearing. The order sheets are part of the record that Rule 14(23)(ii) sends to the disciplinary authority with the report, which is how a refused request or an adjournment reaches the appellate authority and the Tribunal.

Paragraph 5.22.3 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 lists 27 responsibilities of the inquiring authority. Several carry the case law into instructions: no leading questions in examination-in-chief (clause xiv), no new evidence to fill a gap except to cure an inherent lacuna (clause xvii), no importing of the inquiry officer’s personal knowledge (clause xviii), no conclusion drafted so that it looks as if the mind was made up in advance (clause xxi), and no ex parte inquiry against a suspended officer who cannot attend because the subsistence allowance has not been paid (clause xiii). Clause (xii) asks for day-to-day hearings and clause (viii) forbids frequent adjournments.

The inquiry officer does not repair the charge sheet. Question 8 of Chapter 14 of the ISTM Handbook allows the inquiry officer to point out a patent error to the disciplinary authority, and says that refining the charges would make the inquiry officer look like a prosecutor. The articles are the disciplinary authority’s under Rule 14(3), and an amendment has to come from it, with a fresh opportunity to the charged officer.

Inquiry officer and presenting officer: the line between them

The presenting officer prosecutes and the inquiry officer decides. Rule 14(5)(c) lets the disciplinary authority appoint a government servant or a legal practitioner as presenting officer to present the case in support of the articles of charge, and Rule 14(14) gives the presenting officer the examination of the department’s witnesses and the charged officer the cross-examination. The inquiry officer’s own questioning power is the last sentence of Rule 14(14): the inquiring authority may put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit.

The Supreme Court has drawn the boundary in these judgments:

Ram Lakhan Sharma arose under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which provide for no presenting officer, and it adopted the principles of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, a railway case. Its reasoning is not specific to any one code, and it is the most recent Supreme Court statement of the inquiry officer’s position. The ISTM Handbook turns it into a working test at question 30 of Chapter 17: questions to a witness must not be put with the object of establishing the charge, and the parties must be allowed to cross-examine on whatever the inquiry officer’s questions bring out.

Rule 14(18) is the exception that looks like cross-examination and is not. The inquiring authority is required to question the charged officer generally on the circumstances appearing against the officer in the evidence, so that the officer can explain them. DoPT Office Memorandum No. 11012/3/2015-Estt.A-III dated 18 February 2015 treats failure to record that questioning as capable of vitiating the inquiry. Moni Shankar shows the wrong way to do it: a question asking the servant to plead guilty, with the circumstances against him left undisclosed, is not general questioning within the rule.

Power to summon witnesses under the 1972 Act

An inquiry officer under the CCS (CCA) Rules has no power of its own to compel a witness to attend or a person to produce a document. Rule 14(12) and (13) let it requisition documents held by the Government, with a one-month limit for the custodian to produce them or certify that they are not available, but a private witness or a document in private hands is outside the rule. Question 23 of Chapter 14 of the ISTM Handbook states the position directly: the inquiry officer does not have power to enforce attendance of witnesses except where the Central Government has issued a notification for the particular inquiry.

That notification is made under the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972, Act No. 18 of 1972, dated 31 May 1972. Its provisions that concern the inquiry officer are:

• Section 3: the Act applies only to a departmental inquiry “into any allegation of lack of integrity”, and lack of integrity includes bribery and corruption. An inquiry into unauthorised absence, insubordination or negligence is outside it.
• Section 4(1): where the Central Government considers it necessary to summon witnesses or call for documents from any class or category of persons, it may by notification in the Official Gazette authorise the inquiring authority to exercise the Section 5 powers at any stage of the inquiry. Section 4(2) allows the Central Government to specify, by the same kind of notification, an authority not inferior to the charged officer’s appointing authority that may also exercise the Section 4(1) power.
• Section 5(1): the authorised inquiring authority has the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summoning a witness and examining the witness on oath, for discovery and production of documents, and for requisitioning a public record from any court or office.
• Section 5(2): the Reserve Bank of India, the State Bank of India and its subsidiary banks, and the nationalised banks cannot be compelled to produce, or give inspection of, books they claim as confidential.
• Section 5(3): the process is served and executed through the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the witness resides, and disobedience is treated as disobedience of a process of the District Judge.

The Act covers persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union, and Union appointees in a Union territory local authority, a central statutory corporation, a Government company with at least 51% central shareholding and a centrally controlled society. The ISTM Handbook describes the notification as ad hoc, issued for the particular inquiry, so an inquiry officer who needs a reluctant private witness in a corruption case needs the notification before the hearing at which the witness is to be examined. For a government servant who does not attend as a witness, question 24 of the same chapter points to reporting the default to the witness’s superiors.

Time limits on the inquiry officer

Rule 14(24), inserted by Notification G.S.R. 548(E) dated 2 June 2017, sets the outer limit. The inquiring authority must conclude the inquiry and submit the report within six months of the date of receiving the order of appointment, and the disciplinary authority may allow further time of not more than six months at a time, for good and sufficient reasons recorded in writing. The retired-officer panel Office Memorandum of 15 September 2017 and the honorarium Office Memorandum of 16 November 2022 express the same limit as 180 days.

The six-month limit binds the inquiry officer but does not by itself void an inquiry that overruns it. Extensions are recorded by the disciplinary authority, and an overrun without a recorded extension is a ground of complaint that the charged officer puts in the representation on the report. The 18-month limit from the charge sheet to the final order, set by DoPT Office Memorandum No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol.10) dated 14 October 2013, covers the whole proceeding and not only the inquiry officer’s part of it.

The inquiry report and its limits

The inquiry officer’s output is the report under Rule 14(23)(i), and the rule lists four contents: the articles of charge and the statement of imputations, the defence of the government servant on each article, an assessment of the evidence on each article, and the findings on each article with the reasons for them. Rule 14(23)(ii) requires the report to go to the disciplinary authority with the whole record, meaning the written statement of defence, the oral and documentary evidence, the written briefs and the orders made during the inquiry. The contents and treatment of the report are covered in the article on the inquiry report.

The Explanation to Rule 14(23) lets the inquiry officer record a finding on a charge different from the one framed only where the charged officer admitted the facts on which it rests or had a reasonable opportunity to defend against it. Outside that, the inquiry officer is confined to the articles as framed.

Three limits follow from the rule’s list. The report does not recommend a penalty, because penalty is not among the four contents and belongs to the disciplinary authority under Rule 15. The report rests on the evidence led at the inquiry, not on the inquiry officer’s own knowledge of the office or the people, which clause (xviii) of paragraph 5.22.3 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 forbids. And the standard is preponderance of probability, the civil standard, as the ISTM Handbook states at question 5 of Chapter 19, so a finding that a charge is proved states why the evidence makes it more probably true than not.

The disciplinary authority may disagree with the inquiry officer, but only in the open. Rule 15(2) requires it to send the charged officer a copy of the report with its tentative reasons for disagreement on any article, and the charged officer has 15 days to represent. Under Rule 15(1) the disciplinary authority may also remit the case to the inquiry officer for further inquiry and report, for reasons recorded in writing, which returns the inquiry officer to the Rule 14 procedure for the remitted points.

Panel of retired inquiry officers

DoPT Office Memorandum F. No. 142/40/2015-AVD.I dated 15 September 2017, on the procedure for empanelling retired officers as inquiry officers, is the scheme most departments copy. It was issued for DoPT’s internal use, and other cadre controlling authorities were advised that they may adopt it with suitable amendments. Paragraphs 5.19.4 and 5.19.5 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 say an organisation may, if it wishes, maintain a panel of retired officers from within or outside the organisation, and point to the 2017 Office Memorandum for empanelment and to the Office Memorandum of 16 November 2022 for honorarium.

The ISTM Handbook updated to 26 December 2024 adds that the Central Vigilance Commission maintains its own panel of screened retired officers for inquiries. The Handbook also says departments should primarily use serving officers, so the retired panel is meant for the cases where no suitable serving officer is free or where a serving officer’s seniority or independence is open to question.

Honorarium for the inquiry officer

A serving inquiry officer is paid an honorarium of 15% of monthly basic pay per case, and a retired inquiry officer a percentage of monthly basic pension banded by the number of witnesses cited in the charge sheet. The rates are in DoPT Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1668597747466 dated 16 November 2022, issued by the AVD-I division, which replaced the percentage table of the 2017 Office Memorandum.

A retired inquiry officer also draws Rs. 40,000 per case as transport allowance, with actual fare for an outstation journey at the class of entitlement at retirement, and secretarial assistance of Rs. 40,000, Rs. 30,000 or Rs. 20,000 on the same three witness bands. For a retired officer whose last basic pay was the Level 12 entry cell of Rs. 78,800, the basic pension is Rs. 39,400 at 50% under Rule 44 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, assuming full qualifying service, and a Category II case pays Rs. 27,580 in honorarium before the transport and secretarial amounts. Payment is released when the case records and two ink-signed copies of the report reach the disciplinary authority’s office.

Orders of the inquiry officer and the bar on appeal

Rule 22 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 bars an appeal against any order passed by an inquiring authority in the course of an inquiry under Rule 14. A refusal to summon a defence witness, to allow an additional document, to grant an adjournment or to permit a particular defence assistant cannot be taken to the appellate authority while the inquiry runs. The charged officer’s remedy is to object in writing, get the objection and the ruling into the daily order sheet, and raise it in the representation on the report under Rule 15(2) and in any appeal against the final penalty under Rule 23, within 45 days of receiving the order under Rule 25. The internal remedies are covered in the article on appeal, review and revision.

The record matters because the Tribunal and the courts ask whether a procedural ruling caused prejudice, the test the Supreme Court applied to non-supply of the report in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. A refusal that appears on the daily order sheet, with the request and the reason, can be tested against that standard. A refusal with nothing on record to show the request was made gives the appellate authority nothing to test.

Inquiry officers under the All India Services and railway codes

Members of the All India Services and railway servants are outside the CCS (CCA) Rules and have their own discipline codes, each with an appointment provision worded close to Rule 14(2).

The Board of Inquiry is the main structural difference. The CCS rules contemplate a single inquiring authority, while the All India Services and railway codes allow a multi-member board with composition rules of their own. For the All India Services, the Rule 8(3) requirement that one board member belong to the member’s own Service means an IAS officer’s board includes an IAS officer. The railway requirement that every board member outrank the charged servant is written into Rule 9(3), whereas in the CCS rules the equivalent rank requirement exists only as guidance.

Defects in the inquiry officer’s conduct that vitiate an inquiry

• Appointment by an authority other than the disciplinary authority, which the ISTM Handbook updated to 26 December 2024 calls an incurable defect.
• Appointing an officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry or investigation, will be a witness, or has already expressed a view on the charge. Paragraph 5.19.1 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 excludes any official who has had occasion to express an opinion at an earlier stage.
• Continuing the inquiry after a bias application, contrary to paragraph 4 of DoPT Office Memorandum No. 39/40/70-Ests.(A) dated 9 November 1972.
• The inquiry officer leading the prosecution evidence or putting questions aimed at establishing the charge, which Ram Lakhan Sharma (2018) treats as grounds for presuming bias.
• Allowing leading questions in examination-in-chief, the defect in Moni Shankar, (2008) 3 SCC 484.
• Omitting the Rule 14(18) general questioning of the charged officer, or reducing it to a demand that the officer plead guilty.
• Letting the presenting officer fill a gap in the department’s case under Rule 14(15) where there is no inherent lacuna in the evidence.
• Proceeding ex parte against a suspended officer who could not attend because subsistence allowance was unpaid, the rule in Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 1183.
• Treating an ex parte inquiry as proof of the charge without evidence, which Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, rejects.
• Relying on the inquiry officer’s personal knowledge, or on material the charged officer never saw.
• A report that recommends a penalty, or states a conclusion without assessing the evidence on each article as Rule 14(23) requires.
• Recording a finding on a charge not framed, outside the narrow Explanation to Rule 14(23).

Related Articles

• Departmental inquiry
• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Presenting officer
• Disciplinary authority
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Inquiry report
• Defence assistant
• Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Chief Vigilance Officer
• Principles of natural justice
• Article 311
• Major versus minor penalty proceedings
• Minor penalty
• Misconduct
• Penalty proportionality
• Preliminary inquiry
• Ex parte inquiry
• De novo inquiry
• Dispensing with inquiry
• Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
• Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses) Act, 1972
• Complaints Committee on sexual harassment
• Sexual harassment of women at the workplace
• CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
• Suspension
• Subsistence allowance
• Honorarium
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Reduction in rank
• Sealed cover procedure
• Vigilance clearance
• Prevention of Corruption Act
• Central Bureau of Investigation
• Union Public Service Commission
• Department of Personnel and Training
• All India Services
• All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
• Gazetted and non-gazetted posts
• Deputy Secretary salary
• Central government employees

External references

• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training
• DoPT Office Memorandum of 15 September 2017 on empanelment of retired officers as inquiry officers
• Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026
• ISTM Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, updated to 26 December 2024
• Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972, India Code
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Supreme Court of India, judgment texts

References

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training: Rule 14(2), its proviso and Explanations (i) and (ii); Rule 14(5), (7), (11) to (15), (18), (20), (22), (23) and (24), sub-rule (24) inserted by Notification G.S.R. 548(E) dated 2 June 2017; Rule 15(1) and (2); Rule 22; Rule 25.
2. Department of Personnel and Training Office Memoranda: No. 7/1/70-Est.(A) dated 6 January 1971 (seniority of the inquiry officer); No. 39/40/70-Ests.(A) dated 9 November 1972 (Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries; paragraph 4, bias applications); No. 35014/1/76-Estt.(A) dated 29 July 1976 (disciplinary authority not to act as inquiry officer); No. 372/3/2007-AVD-III (Vol.10) dated 14 October 2013 (18-month limit); No. 11012/3/2015-Estt.A-III dated 18 February 2015 (Rule 14(18) questioning); No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024 (consolidated instructions on disciplinary proceedings, paragraph 2).
3. Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum F. No. 142/40/2015-AVD.I dated 15 September 2017, procedure for empanelment of retired officers as inquiry officers, paragraphs 1 to 13; Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1668597747466 dated 16 November 2022, honorarium to inquiry officers and presenting officers.
4. Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026, July 2026: paragraph 1.3.2, item (xiv) (entrusting cases to a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries), paragraphs 5.19.1 to 5.19.6 (appointment of the inquiring authority), paragraph 5.22.3 (responsibilities of the inquiring authority) and paragraph 5.22.7 (stay of inquiry).
5. Institute of Secretariat Training and Management, Department of Personnel and Training, Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, updated to 26 December 2024: Chapter 13 (appointment of inquiring authority and presenting officer), Chapter 14 (functions of the inquiry officer) and Chapter 17 (conduct of inquiry).
6. The Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 (Act No. 18 of 1972), 31 May 1972, Sections 2 to 5; Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, Section 24; Government of India Resolution No. 24/7/64-AVD dated 11 February 1964.
7. Moni Shankar v. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484, decided 4 March 2008; State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, decided 2 February 2010; Union of India v. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349, decided 16 April 2010; Union of India v. P.C. Ramakrishnayya, (2010) 8 SCC 644; Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012, decided 2 July 2018, AIR 2018 SC 4860; Union of India v. Jagdish Chandra Sethy, Civil Appeal No. 6061 of 2011, order dated 18 July 2023.
8. All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 8(2) and (3), Department of Personnel and Training compilation; Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 9(2) and (3), as quoted in Union of India v. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349.