Minor penalty

A minor penalty is any of the five penalties listed in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: censure, withholding of promotion, recovery from pay of a pecuniary loss caused to the Government, reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by one stage for up to three years under clause (iii a), and withholding of increments of pay. Each is imposed through the shorter procedure in Rule 16, a written memorandum and a chance to reply, without the oral inquiry that Rule 14 requires before a major penalty.

The label understates the cost. A censure carries no rupee loss, but a withholding of promotion can hold back a Level 7 to Level 8 move for the whole period the order names, and three of the five (withholding of promotion, the one-stage reduction and withholding of increments) delay the promotion itself until the penalty has run out. Under the vigilance clearance rules of 9 October 2024, clearance is refused for three more years after that. For a servant within a year or two of a promotion zone, the currency period printed on the order decides when the next move can happen.

Rule 11 marks the boundary between the classes with a heading, “Minor Penalties”, above clause (i) and “Major Penalties” above clause (v). The clause (iii a) reduction exists because the Department of Personnel and Training carved a one-stage, three-year, non-cumulative, pension-neutral reduction out of the major penalty in clause (v) in 1990. How the two procedures compare step by step is covered in major versus minor penalty proceedings. This article covers each minor penalty in turn, how the pay matrix handles the ones that touch pay, their effect on promotion, MACP and vigilance clearance, who may impose them, what happens when two run together or the servant retires, and how the railway and All India Services lists differ.

The five minor penalties in Rule 11

Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules permits a penalty “for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided”, and clauses (i) to (iv), with the inserted clause (iii a), are the minor ones. The table sets out what each takes from the servant and how long it lasts.

The list is closed. A disciplinary authority cannot impose a “recordable warning”, a fine outside clause (iii), or a combination the rule does not name, and the Explanation to Rule 11 lists nine actions that are not penalties at all, among them non-promotion after consideration and stoppage at the efficiency bar. Those nine need no Rule 16 memorandum because they are not punishments.

Clause (iii a) was inserted by DoPT notification No. 11012/4/86-Estt.(A), published as S.O. 2208 dated 25 August 1990; the Government of India’s decision under Rule 11 dates the notification 13 July 1990, while the amendment table in the DoPT compilation dates it 3 August 1990. When departments asked whether the new penalty was still a clause (v) major penalty in another form, DoPT Office Memorandum No. 11012/4/86-Estt.(A) dated 28 May 1992 answered that because clause (iii a) “has been carved out of clause (v) of Rule 11 specifically, it does not constitute a major penalty under clause (v) of Rule 11”. Clause (v) was amended by S.O. 1481 dated 13 June 1992 and now opens with the words “save as provided for in clause (iii) (a)” to make the same point.

Censure and the difference from a warning

Censure under Rule 11(i) is a formal penalty, recorded in the servant’s confidential record, and it can only follow the Rule 16 procedure. Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 39/21/56-Ests.(A) dated 13 December 1956 describes an order of censure as “a formal and public act intended to convey that the person concerned has been guilty of some blameworthy act or omission” for which a formal punishment was found necessary, and MHA OM No. 38/12/59-Ests.(A) dated 23 April 1960 requires every penalty imposed after disciplinary proceedings to be recorded in the confidential roll.

A warning, a letter of caution, a reprimand or an advisory is not a censure. The 1956 OM treats these as informal devices a superior uses for negligence, carelessness or delay, and states that “the mere fact that it is so mentioned in the character roll does not convert the warning etc. into” a censure. Where a copy of the warning is placed in the confidential report dossier, it is treated as an adverse entry that the officer may represent against (Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms OM No. 22011/2/78-Estt.(A) dated 16 February 1979).

A conveyed displeasure belongs with the warning, not with censure. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms OM No. 21011/1/81-Ests.(A) dated 5 June 1981, reproduced as Government of India decision (1A) below Rule 11, covers a lapse “not serious enough to justify the imposition of the formal punishment of censure” that still calls for “some formal action such as the communication of written warning, admonition or reprimand”, and treats a warning, a displeasure and a reprimand alike. The action is formal in being written, not in being a Rule 11 penalty. The letter goes to the personal file. At the end of the reporting year the reporting authority may leave it out of the confidential report if the officer’s performance has since improved and been found satisfactory; if it has not, the authority may mention it in Part III of the report, and the OM then directs that a copy be placed in the dossier and the adverse remark be conveyed for representation. A displeasure reaches a promotion through the APAR: paragraph 4.4.5(b) of the DPC guidelines issued as OM No. DOPT-1721625311004 dated 22 July 2024, drawn from OM No. 22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10 April 1989, requires the committee to consider “whether any displeasure of any superior officer or authority has been conveyed to him, as reflected in the APARs”.

The two routes may not be mixed. Once a disciplinary proceeding has been instituted and the authority finds some blame, DoPT OM No. 11012/12/2016-Estt.A-III dated 6 December 2016 directs that the officer be given a Rule 11 penalty, “at least ‘Censure’ should be imposed”, and that no warning, recordable or otherwise, be issued in its place. The same OM records that “Administrative warning is not recognized as a penalty”. The 1979 OM gave the reason: a recordable warning after proceedings would, for all practical purposes, be a censure imposed without the procedure a censure needs.

Censure costs nothing in pay and has no currency period. Paragraph 10(m) of the DoPT guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees of 22 July 2024, citing OM No. 22011/4/2007-Estt.(D) dated 21 November 2016, provides that where the committee finds the officer fit despite a censure, “he / she can be promoted without referring to the currency of penalty”. A censure still sits in the record the committee reads, and the committee may grade the officer unfit on the whole record.

Withholding of promotion

Withholding of promotion under Rule 11(ii) bars the servant’s promotion for the period the penalty order fixes, and is a different thing from non-promotion. Non-promotion after the servant’s case has been considered is item (iii) of the Explanation to Rule 11 and is not a penalty. Withholding of promotion is imposed for misconduct, after a Rule 16 memorandum, and takes effect whatever the DPC thinks of the servant.

The CCS clause does not itself require a period to be stated; the railway clause does (“withholding of his promotion for a specified period”). The Department of Posts, in letter No. X-716/2022-SPN-II dated 17 May 2023 on results of the limited departmental competitive examination, directs that where a withholding-of-promotion order names no period, an outer limit of three years from the date of the penalty is fixed. The letter was issued for Department of Posts examination results; no DoPT order of general application fixes a default period.

MHA OM No. 14/6/65-Ests.(D) dated 22 February 1965 adds a side effect that applies to clauses (ii) and (iv) alone: a servant on whom either penalty has been imposed “should not be allowed to register his name with the Employment Exchange for higher posts” while the penalty is in force.

Recovery from pay of a pecuniary loss

Clause (iii) allows recovery from pay of the whole or part of a pecuniary loss that the servant caused to the Government “by negligence or breach of orders”. The clause is tied to a loss and to the servant’s own fault. A penalty order under it therefore needs a finding that there was a loss, that the servant’s negligence or breach of a named order caused it, and how much of it the servant is to repay. The “whole or part” wording lets the order fix a share of the loss where the servant’s negligence contributed to it, for example where a supervisor’s lapse allowed a subordinate’s fraud.

No ceiling on the monthly recovery is set by the rule. A Directorate General of Posts and Telegraphs letter dated 17 August 1971 had limited penal recoveries to one-third of basic pay, spread over no more than three years. DoPT OM No. 11012/1/2000-Estt.(A) dated 6 September 2000, issued after consulting the Ministry of Law, held that such procedural instructions “cannot amend, supercede, or modify” Rule 11(iii), found “it is not necessary to fix a rigid limit for the purpose of such recovery”, and directed that the 1971 instructions be treated as unwarranted. The same OM expects the disciplinary authority not to impose a recovery so severe that the servant suffers hardship disproportionate to the negligence, and adds that the whole loss may be recovered with the recovery spread over time until it is complete.

Recovery as a penalty is different from recovery of an overpayment. An excess payment made through an administrative error is recovered without any disciplinary finding, subject to the five situations in which the Supreme Court barred recovery in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, decided on 18 December 2014. A clause (iii) recovery is a punishment and needs the Rule 16 procedure. A fresh penal recovery from a pensioner goes through Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, in a proceeding that finds grave misconduct or negligence, and recovery from pension is covered in withholding of pension and withholding and recovery from gratuity.

Reduction by one stage under clause (iii a)

Clause (iii a) reduces pay by exactly one stage, for no more than three years, “without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension”, and all four limits must hold for the penalty to stay minor. A reduction by two stages, for more than three years, with cumulative effect, or with any effect on pension is the major penalty in clause (v) and needs a Rule 14 inquiry.

In the 7th CPC pay matrix a stage is a cell. DoPT OM No. 11012/15/2016-Estt.A-III dated 18 June 2019 directs that on a clause (iii a) penalty “the revised pay would be the pay drawn in the same level at the stage before the last increment”, which is the previous cell in the same level. The level does not change, so the servant keeps the post and the level and loses one cell. The OM adds that the penalty “cannot be imposed on a Government Servant drawing pay at the minimum of the Level”, because there is no lower cell to move to.

Case History No. 1 in Annexure-II of the OM is a Level 7 servant on Rs. 50,500 (the fifth cell) given a one-year clause (iii a) penalty from 13 August 2017, with an increment date of 1 January.

The increment that falls due during the penalty is granted notionally and is paid only from the day the penalty ends, so the servant loses that increment for the rest of the penalty period as well as the cell. The shortfall shown is in basic pay; dearness allowance and other pay-linked allowances fall with it. Once the period ends, pay returns to where it would have been, which is what “without cumulative effect” means in practice.

Withholding of increments

Clause (iv) withholds the increment or increments that fall due after the penalty date, for the period the order states. Under Rule 10 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 an annual increment falls on 1 January or 1 July, and the 18 June 2019 OM directs that “the next increment(s) due after the date of imposition of the penalty would be withheld”. Where more than one increment is withheld, the increments on the following increment dates are withheld in the same way.

On restoration, “The increments will be given on notional basis without arrears and without affecting date of next increment on restoration of increment”, in the words of the same OM. Case History No. 4 withholds one increment for six months from 13 August 2017 from a Level 7 servant on Rs. 50,500 whose increment falls on 1 January. The increment due on 1 January 2018 is held back until 30 June 2018; pay rises to Rs. 52,000 from 1 July 2018 and to Rs. 53,600 on 1 January 2019, the servant’s normal date. The cost is Rs. 1,500 a month in basic pay for six months, Rs. 9,000 before dearness allowance, and the increment cycle is unchanged.

Withholding with cumulative effect is the version that bites permanently: the withheld increment is never restored, so every later cell is one step lower until retirement. Rule 16(1-A) therefore requires a full Rule 14 inquiry before increments are withheld with cumulative effect for any period, for more than three years, or in a way likely to reduce the pension. The detail, including the treatment of partial years and the 6th CPC predecessor order of 6 February 2014, is in withholding of increment.

Withholding of increments for failing a departmental examination that the service rules require is item (i) of the Explanation to Rule 11 and is not this penalty. It follows from the rules of the service, not from a finding of misconduct, and needs no Rule 16 memorandum.

The Rule 16 procedure for a minor penalty

Rule 16(1) allows a minor penalty only after the servant has been told in writing of the proposal and the imputations, has had a reasonable opportunity to represent, and the disciplinary authority has considered the reply and recorded a finding on each imputation. The five clauses, in the text as amended by G.S.R. 769(E) dated 31 October 2014, are the written memorandum under clause (a); an inquiry under clause (b) where the authority considers one necessary; consideration of the representation and any inquiry record under clause (c); consultation with the Union Public Service Commission where required, with a copy of its advice to the servant for a representation within fifteen days, under clause (d); and a finding on each imputation under clause (e).

The inquiry is the point on which Rule 16 differs from Rule 14. In the DoPT compilation updated to 15 October 2018, Rule 16(1)(b) and Rule 16(1-A) both refer to an inquiry held “in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14”; older copies, including the DoPT web text last updated in April 2017, still read “(3) to (23)” and predate the six-month time limit that sub-rule (24) now carries. The discretion in clause (b) is not a formality. DoPT OM No. 11012/18/85-Ests.(A) dated 28 October 1985 directs that where the servant asks to inspect documents or cross-examine witnesses, the authority should apply its mind to the request and, if it still decides no inquiry is needed, say so in writing with reasons, because a summary refusal could be construed as a denial of natural justice.

The mandatory inquiry in Rule 16(1-A) is confined to withholding of increments. Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 7/3/67-Ests.(A) dated 19 January 1968 introduced it to give effect to a decision of the National Council of the Joint Consultative Machinery at its meeting of 6 and 7 November 1967, and the rule now requires a Rule 14 inquiry before increments are withheld in any of the three pension-affecting or long-lasting forms. None of the other four minor penalties has a mandatory-inquiry trigger. The procedure, the memorandum and the reasoned order are set out step by step in major versus minor penalty proceedings.

A minor penalty can also end a Rule 14 case. Rule 15(5), as substituted in 2014, provides that where the disciplinary authority, on its findings after a full inquiry, considers a minor penalty enough, “it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty”. The reverse is not open. In A. Gopalan v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, O.A. No. 492 of 2008, decided on 27 March 2009), the Tribunal held that a disciplinary authority which had chosen the Rule 16 route could not switch to Rule 14 on its own, because that would amount to enhancing a minor penalty to a major one outside the appellate and revisional powers in Rules 27 and 29.

Who may impose a minor penalty

Minor penalties may be imposed at a lower level than major ones, because Rule 12(4)(a) bars an authority subordinate to the appointing authority only from the penalties in clauses (v) to (ix). Article 311(1) of the Constitution imposes the same bar for dismissal and removal alone. The disciplinary authority for a minor penalty is found in the same places as for any penalty: the President under Rule 12(1), and the appointing authority, the authority named in the Schedule to the rules, or an authority empowered by Presidential order under Rule 12(2). Where the Schedule’s fifth column gives a lower authority clauses (i) to (iv) only, that authority may impose minor penalties and nothing heavier.

Rule 12(3) adds two authorities for Group C servants (other than the Central Secretariat Clerical Service) and Group D servants: the Secretary of the Ministry or Department where the servant serves, and the head of office where the servant serves in an office, unless the head of office is lower in rank than the authority competent under Rule 12(2). Rule 12(4)(c) lets the Director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration impose a censure or a recovery on a probationer under training there. For a servant lent to another department or government, Rule 20 lets the borrowing authority impose a minor penalty after consulting the lending authority, while a major penalty goes back to the lending side.

The authority that may impose only minor penalties can still start a major penalty case. Rule 13(2) allows it, and the Supreme Court upheld the power in Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 INSC 898, decided on 25 July 2025; the major penalty itself is then imposed by the authority competent to impose it.

Effect on promotion, MACP and vigilance clearance

A minor penalty does not remove the servant from consideration for promotion, but it stops the promotion taking effect until the penalty’s currency ends. DoPT OM No. 22011/4/2007-Estt.(D) dated 28 April 2014 requires the DPC to assess the officer on the whole record, taking account of the circumstances of the penalty, and provides that where the committee finds the officer fit, “the officer will be actually promoted only after the currency of the penalty is over”. The same OM ended the practice of automatically downgrading an APAR by one level for a penalty year, and records that “denying promotion in such cases after the period of penalty is over would be in violation of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution”.

A servant already in the sealed cover procedure when a minor penalty is imposed does not get the sealed recommendation opened. Paragraph (iii) of the 1979 OM directs that the sealed recommendation not be given effect, and provides that the case may be considered by the next DPC, which applies the rules above. Pay on the eventual promotion is fixed from the date of actual promotion, with no stepping up against a junior promoted earlier (paragraph 10(l) of the DPC guidelines of 22 July 2024).

MACP follows the promotion rules. Paragraph 26 of the DoPT MACP compilation No. DOPT-1669022409144 dated 21 November 2022 provides that “In the matter of disciplinary/ penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPS shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion”, carrying forward paragraph 18 of the 2009 and 2019 guidelines. Paragraph 25 adds that where an upgradation is deferred for departmental proceedings, the next upgradation is deferred by the same period. Applying the promotion rule to MACP, a servant under a withholding of increments receives a due financial upgradation only when the currency ends, and the next upgradation moves back by the same interval. The currency is longer than the nominal period: Case History No. 3 of the 18 June 2019 OM, one increment withheld for two years from 13 August 2017, runs to 31 December 2019 for a January increment date and to 30 June 2020 for a July date.

Vigilance clearance runs longer still. Paragraph 8(l) of DoPT OM No. 104/33/2024-AVD-IA dated 9 October 2024 denies clearance until three years after the currency of a minor penalty, against five years for a major penalty. Clearance governs deputation, empanelment, foreign assignments and similar postings rather than promotion, so a servant can be promoted and still be refused clearance for a deputation.

Two or more penalties at the same time

Where a servant is given two or more penalties, DoPT OM No. 11012/11/2018-Estt.A-III dated 28 October 2022 requires the order to say whether they run concurrently or consecutively. The OM, as reproduced in the consolidated DoPT OM No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024 on handling disciplinary proceedings, directs that where the order is silent, “the two/ all penalties should run concurrently and the higher penalty, even though ordered later, should be implemented immediately”.

The practical case is a servant already undergoing a withholding of increments who is given a clause (iii a) reduction in a second proceeding. Without a direction, the reduction takes effect at once and the two run together. A disciplinary authority that intends the second penalty to start only when the first ends has to say so in the order.

Minor penalty proceedings and retirement

A minor penalty proceeding cannot reach the pension. Rule 8(2)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 provides that a proceeding instituted under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules while the servant was in service, and continued after retirement, “shall have no effect on the pension and gratuity of the pensioner”. The five minor penalties all operate on pay or promotion, which a pensioner no longer draws, and Rule 8 does not convert them into a cut in pension.

The consequence for the disciplinary authority is timing. Where a lapse near superannuation is serious enough to justify a cut in pension, the only route is a Rule 14 proceeding instituted before retirement, or one sanctioned after it by the authority competent under Rule 8(1) within the four-year limit in Rule 8(2)(c), leading to a finding of grave misconduct or negligence. The same pension-protection logic sits inside the minor class itself: clause (iii a) excludes any effect on pension by its own terms, and Rule 16(1-A) forces a full inquiry for a withholding of increments likely to reduce the pension of a servant near retirement.

Appeal against a minor penalty

Every minor penalty is appealable under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, except one the President imposed (Rule 22), and the appeal lies within 45 days of receiving the order under Rule 25. Under Rule 27(2) the appellate authority may confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the penalty, or remit the case. Enhancement to a major penalty requires a Rule 14 inquiry if none was held, and enhancement within the minor class requires an opportunity to represent in the Rule 16 manner. Revision under Rule 29 and review under Rule 29-A follow the same limits. The time limits and the authorities are set out in appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

A servant who considers the penalty too heavy for the lapse has a better forum in the departmental appeal than in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellate authority may substitute its own view of the right penalty; the Tribunal interferes with quantum only where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, under the penalty proportionality test the Supreme Court set in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749.

Minor penalties in the railway and All India Services codes

Railway servants and members of the All India Services have their own minor penalty lists, which differ from the CCS list in the scope of recovery, the privilege pass penalty, and the numbering and wording of the reduction clause.

The railway text above is the South Central Railway copy of the rules published in 2011. The All India Services reduction clause was inserted by DoPT notification No. 11018/3/98-AIS-III dated 1 June 2000 (G.S.R. 212 dated 17 June 2000). Procedure follows the same pattern in each code: rule 11 of the railway rules and rule 10 of the All India Services rules provide the minor penalty procedure that Rule 16 provides for CCS servants. The codes are covered in the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

Common misreadings of the minor penalty rules

• “A minor penalty has no effect on promotion.” Three of the five delay the promotion itself until the currency ends, and all five sit in the record the DPC reads.
• “A warning is a mild censure.” A warning is not a penalty at all; after a disciplinary proceeding, DoPT’s 2016 OM requires at least a censure or an exoneration, not a warning.
• “Recovery is capped at one-third of basic pay.” That was a 1971 Posts and Telegraphs instruction, treated as unwarranted by the DoPT OM of 6 September 2000.
• “Any reduction to a lower stage is minor.” Only a reduction by one stage, for up to three years, without cumulative effect and without any effect on pension. Anything more is the clause (v) major penalty.
• “Withholding of increments needs no inquiry.” A withholding with cumulative effect, for more than three years, or likely to reduce the pension needs a full Rule 14 inquiry under Rule 16(1-A).
• “Non-promotion is withholding of promotion.” Non-promotion after consideration is item (iii) of the Explanation to Rule 11 and is not a penalty.
• “The period of a withheld increment resets the increment date.” Under the OM of 18 June 2019 the increment is restored notionally without arrears and the date of next increment does not change.

Related Articles

• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• Major versus minor penalty proceedings
• Withholding of increment
• Reduction in rank
• Compulsory retirement
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Disciplinary authority
• Departmental inquiry
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Written statement of defence
• Inquiry officer
• Preliminary inquiry
• Speaking order
• Suspension
• Misconduct
• Principles of natural justice
• Penalty proportionality
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Article 311
• Doctrine of pleasure
• Promotion
• Departmental Promotion Committee
• Sealed cover procedure
• APAR
• Modified Assured Career Progression
• MACP versus promotion
• Vigilance clearance
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Annual increment
• Date of next increment
• Pay matrix
• CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016
• Efficiency bar
• Departmental examination
• Head of office
• Deputation in central government
• Union Public Service Commission
• Joint Consultative Machinery
• CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021
• Withholding of pension
• Withholding and recovery from gratuity
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
• All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
• Department of Personnel and Training

External references

• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training
• DoPT Office Memorandum of 26 March 2024, Handling of Disciplinary Proceedings in respect of Central Civilian employees
• DoPT Office Memorandum of 22 July 2024, Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees
• DoPT Office Memorandum of 21 November 2022, ACP and MACP compilation
• DoPT MACP Scheme, Office Memorandum of 19 May 2009
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, South Central Railway

References

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training compilation updated to 15 October 2018: Rule 11 and its Explanation, Rules 12(1) to 12(4), 13(2), 15(5), 16(1), 16(1-A), 20, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 29-A; with the Government of India’s decisions under Rules 11 and 16.
2. CCS (CCA) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2014, G.S.R. 769(E) dated 31 October 2014, substituting Rule 15(3) to (6) and Rule 16(1)(d) and (e); DoPT Office Memorandum No. 11012/8/2011-Estt.(A) dated 19 November 2014.
3. DoPT notification No. 11012/4/86-Estt.(A), S.O. 2208 dated 25 August 1990 (clause (iii a)); S.O. 1481 dated 13 June 1992 (clause (v)); Office Memorandum No. 11012/4/86-Estt.(A) dated 28 May 1992.
4. DoPT Office Memorandum No. 11012/15/2016-Estt.A-III dated 18 June 2019, regulation of pay on imposition of a penalty, Annexure-II case histories 1 and 4; predecessor OM No. 6/3/2013-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 6 February 2014.
5. Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memoranda No. 39/21/56-Ests.(A) dated 13 December 1956, No. 38/12/59-Ests.(A) dated 23 April 1960, No. 14/6/65-Ests.(D) dated 22 February 1965 and No. 7/3/67-Ests.(A) dated 19 January 1968; Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms OM No. 22011/2/78-Estt.(A) dated 16 February 1979; DoPT OMs No. 11012/18/85-Ests.(A) dated 28 October 1985 and No. 11012/12/2016-Estt.A-III dated 6 December 2016.
6. DoPT Office Memorandum No. 11012/1/2000-Estt.(A) dated 6 September 2000, recovery of pecuniary loss under Rule 11(iii).
7. DoPT Office Memoranda No. 22034/5/2004-Estt.(D) dated 15 December 2004 and No. 22011/4/2007-Estt.(D) dated 28 April 2014; DoPT OM No. DOPT-1721625311004 dated 22 July 2024, Guidelines on Departmental Promotion Committees, paragraph 10.
8. DoPT MACP Scheme, OM No. 35034/3/2008-Estt.(D) dated 19 May 2009, Annexure-I paragraph 18; compilation OM No. DOPT-1669022409144 dated 21 November 2022, paragraphs 25 and 26; DoPT OM No. 104/33/2024-AVD-IA dated 9 October 2024, paragraph 8(l).
9. DoPT OM No. 11012/11/2018-Estt.A-III dated 28 October 2022, as reproduced in DoPT OM No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024; Department of Posts letter No. X-716/2022-SPN-II dated 17 May 2023.
10. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c); Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 6; All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 6(1), with DoPT notification No. 11018/3/98-AIS-III dated 1 June 2000.
11. A. Gopalan v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, O.A. No. 492 of 2008, decided 27 March 2009; Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 INSC 898, decided 25 July 2025; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749.