Presenting officer

The presenting officer is the government servant or legal practitioner whom the disciplinary authority appoints, under Rule 14(5)(c) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge before the inquiry officer in a departmental inquiry. The office exists so that the person who proves the charge and the person who judges it are different people.

The rule gives the presenting officer a defined set of jobs. Under Rule 14(11) the presenting officer produces the evidence by which the charge is to be proved; under Rule 14(14) the presenting officer examines the department’s witnesses and may re-examine them; under Rule 14(19) the presenting officer may be heard at the close or file a written brief. The presenting officer receives a copy of the charged officer’s statement of defence under Rule 14(16), and the presenting officer’s brief goes into the inquiry record under Rule 14(23)(ii)(d).

The choice of presenting officer also changes the defence’s rights. Rule 14(8)(a) bars the charged officer from engaging a legal practitioner unless the presenting officer is one or the disciplinary authority permits it, and three Supreme Court judgments between 1972 and 1990 extended the same logic to presenting officers who are legally trained without being advocates.

Most of the working detail sits outside the rule. Paragraphs 5.19.7 to 5.19.9 and 5.22.4 to 5.22.6 of the Central Vigilance Commission Vigilance Manual 2026 cover who should be appointed and what the role requires, Chapters 13 and 15 of the Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, published by the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM) and updated to 26 December 2024, set out the stage-by-stage work, and Department of Personnel and Training OM No. DOPT-1668597747466 dated 16 November 2022 fixes the honorarium at 10% of monthly basic pay per case.

Rule 14(5)(c) and the Explanation

Rule 14(5)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that where the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of charge, or appoints an inquiring authority to hold the inquiry, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, “to be known as the “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.” The power therefore arises in both forms of oral inquiry: the one the disciplinary authority conducts itself and the one it delegates under Rule 14(2).

The Explanation to Rule 14(5) states that for the purposes of Rule 14 the expression “Government servant” includes a person who has ceased to be in Government service. The CCS (CCA) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, issued by DoPT under F. No. 11012/2/2005-Estt.(A) dated 5 December 2011, inserted it after clause (c). The same notification substituted Explanation (ii) to Rule 14(2), which covers a retired government servant appointed as inquiry officer. Since that amendment a retired officer can hold either office in a CCS (CCA) inquiry.

Three other sub-rules refer to the appointment. Rule 14(6)(v) requires the disciplinary authority, where it is not itself the inquiring authority, to forward to the inquiring authority a copy of the order appointing the presenting officer, alongside the articles of charge, the written statement of defence, the witness statements and proof of delivery of the listed documents. Rule 14(16) and Rule 14(19) speak of the presenting officer “if any”, so the rules contemplate an inquiry without one.

Discretion in the rule, expectation in the guidance

The rule says “may”. The guidance on it reads the power more strictly. The ISTM Handbook, at question 2 of Chapter 13, says the disciplinary authority can perform the inquiry officer’s duties itself, “However, there is no such alternative for the PO.” Paragraph 5.19.8 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 goes further for organisations outside the CCS (CCA) Rules: where their disciplinary rules make no provision for a presenting officer, the disciplinary authority may consider appointing one anyway, because the appointment helps the inquiry run properly.

The Supreme Court has held that the absence of a presenting officer is not in itself fatal. In Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012, decided 2 July 2018), which arose under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 where no presenting officer is provided for, the Court held that non-appointment does not by itself vitiate the inquiry. The defect arises where the inquiry officer, in the absence of a presenting officer, takes up the prosecution, and the Court endorsed the principle that bias can then be presumed.

Who may be appointed presenting officer

Rule 14(5)(c) names two classes: a Government servant, which the Explanation extends to a retired one, and a legal practitioner. Paragraph 5.19.7 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 sets the default within those classes: ordinarily a government servant belonging to the departmental set-up who is conversant with the case, except in cases involving complicated points of law, where appointing a legal practitioner may be considered desirable. Paragraph 5.19.3 adds that only an official with sufficient service experience and seniority should be appointed.

One exclusion is stated in terms. Paragraph 5.19.7 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 says: “An official who conducted the preliminary investigation or inquiry into the case should not be appointed as the PO.” Chapter 13 of the ISTM Handbook repeats it, still attributing the text to paragraph 7.21.8 of the superseded Vigilance Manual 2021. An officer who ran the preliminary inquiry is usually a listed witness for the department, and a witness cannot also examine the other witnesses.

The Handbook’s Chapter 13, at question 3, says departments are encouraged to use serving officers primarily as inquiry officers and presenting officers. The rates differ widely: DoPT OM No. DOPT-1668597747466 dated 16 November 2022 pays a presenting officer 10% of monthly basic pay per case, while a retired inquiry officer is paid 60% to 90% of monthly basic pension depending on the number of listed witnesses.

When the presenting officer is appointed

The presenting officer is appointed after the charge sheet has been served and the charged officer has either denied the charge or not replied. Question 6 of Chapter 13 of the ISTM Handbook puts it this way: the need to inquire “will emerge only when the Charged Officer denies the charges or does not respond to the charge sheet”, so the appointment of the inquiry officer and presenting officer “will arise only after the charge sheet is issued”. Where the charged officer admits every article in the written statement of defence, Rule 14(5)(a) sends the case straight to findings and no inquiry, and so no presenting officer, is needed.

Paragraph 5.19.7 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 says the disciplinary authority which initiated the proceedings will appoint the presenting officer simultaneously with the inquiring authority. Under Rule 14(24), inserted by G.S.R. 548(E) dated 2 June 2017, the six-month time limit for the inquiry runs from the inquiring authority’s receipt of its own appointment order, so a presenting officer appointed late loses time from a period that is already running.

Duties of the presenting officer, stage by stage

The presenting officer’s job is to prove the charge from the evidence listed in the charge sheet, within the procedure Rule 14 lays down. Paragraph 5.22.4 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 states the purpose as “presenting the case of the DA and to help the IA to find truth in the charge(s)”, and describes the task as leading the evidence “logically and forcefully” while answering the charged officer’s contentions. Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook divides the work into four stages.

Preliminary hearing and documents

Rule 14(11) directs the inquiring authority, where the charged officer does not appear, refuses or omits to plead, to require the presenting officer to produce the evidence by which the charge is to be proved, and to adjourn the case by not more than 30 days so that the charged officer can inspect the listed documents within five days, submit a list of defence witnesses, and give notice within ten days for discovery of documents not listed. Question 15 of Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook says that after inspection the presenting officer hands the listed documents to the inquiry officer, who marks them SE-1, SE-2 and onwards, and that the daily order sheet recording the handover serves as the presenting officer’s receipt.

The flow of documents also runs the other way. Under question 16 the presenting officer is entitled to copies of the documents the charged officer relies on and to see the originals, which the inquiry officer collects. The Handbook adds that the charged officer’s written brief comes only after the presenting officer’s, so the presenting officer has to anticipate in the brief how the defence will use those documents.

Regular hearing and witnesses

Rule 14(14) states the order of evidence: “The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant.” The presenting officer may re-examine on any point raised in cross-examination, but not on a new matter without the inquiring authority’s leave. DoPT OM No. 7/11/70-Est.(A) dated 24 September 1970, reproduced in DoPT’s consolidated OM No. DOPT-1711452233125 dated 26 March 2024, clarifies that where re-examination on a new matter is allowed, cross-examination on that matter must be allowed too.

Question 17 of Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook lists what the regular hearing demands of the presenting officer: deciding which listed witnesses can be dropped and whether an additional witness is needed, both with the disciplinary authority’s approval; contacting and briefing witnesses; arranging their attendance; conducting the examination-in-chief; and re-examining where cross-examination has created confusion. On briefing, the Handbook draws a line: “There is nothing unethical in contacting the witnesses in advance”, while it “would be highly unethical to request or persuade or pressurise the witness to depose in any particular manner”.

Normally the examination-in-chief is not in question and answer form. The same question 17 says a pre-recorded statement may be read over to the witness, who confirms it and may add to or modify it. DoPT OM No. 134/7/75-AVD-I dated 1 June 1975, also carried into the March 2024 consolidation, supports this for statements from the preliminary inquiry or investigation, provided a copy reaches the charged officer at least three days before the witness is examined. Question 19 lists precautions: the presenting officer should ensure that no leading questions are asked in examination-in-chief or re-examination of the department’s witnesses, and should object when the defence puts them to its own witnesses.

When the department’s case closes, Rule 14(16) requires the charged officer to state the defence orally or in writing, and a copy goes to the presenting officer. Rule 14(17) then makes defence witnesses liable to cross-examination by the presenting officer on the same terms as the department’s witnesses.

New evidence and the gap-filling bar

Rule 14(15) lets the inquiring authority, in its discretion and before the department’s case closes, allow the presenting officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the charged officer. The charged officer is then entitled to a copy of the further list and an adjournment of three clear days before the new evidence is produced, and to inspect any new document before it goes on record. The Note to Rule 14(15) limits the power: “New evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence.” New evidence is admissible only where there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence originally produced.

The distinction matters to the presenting officer because it is the presenting officer who applies. A request to bring a document the department forgot to list, after a defence cross-examination has exposed the omission, is the gap-filling the Note forbids. A request to correct a defect in a listed document, such as an illegible or incomplete copy, is the lacuna the Note allows.

Written brief

Rule 14(19) permits the inquiring authority, after the evidence closes, to hear the presenting officer and the charged officer or to let them file written briefs. Question 20 of Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook describes the purpose of the presenting officer’s brief as establishing, from the evidence produced, that the charge stands proved. No format is prescribed, and question 21 suggests ten heads: introduction, the charges, the preliminary hearing, the regular hearings, the opportunities given to the charged officer, the case of the disciplinary authority, the evidence on behalf of the disciplinary authority, the evidence on behalf of the charged officer, an analysis of the evidence, and a conclusion.

The brief becomes part of the record. Rule 14(23)(ii)(d) requires the inquiring authority, where it is not the disciplinary authority, to forward the written briefs filed by the presenting officer or the charged officer along with the inquiry report. The CVC’s Master Circular No. 06/MC/2026 dated 27 July 2026 lists the folder of written briefs of the presenting officer and the defence among the papers an organisation sends to the Commission for its second-stage advice.

Limits on the presenting officer

The presenting officer acts for the disciplinary authority and has no independent position in the case. Question 23 of Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook says: “The presenting officer presents the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, all the actions of the PO should have the approval of the Disciplinary Authority.” The presenting officer should report on each hearing and seek the inquiry officer’s permission before dropping evidence or introducing new evidence.

Paragraph 5.22.6 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 records four defaults the CVC has seen in practice: presenting officers taking a position contrary to the charge sheet without the disciplinary authority’s explicit consent, not presenting listed or relied-upon documents, not ensuring that listed witnesses are summoned and produced, and not seeking additional documents that were needed to sustain the charge. The paragraph calls these serious mistakes to be avoided. Each one can leave unproved a charge that the listed evidence would have proved.

The presenting officer also has no power of compulsion. A requisition for a document issues from the inquiring authority under Rule 14(12), and a summons to a witness issues from an inquiring authority authorised under the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972. The presenting officer’s part is to ask for them in time.

Absence at a hearing

Rule 14(14) says witnesses are examined “by or on behalf of” the presenting officer. Question 22 of Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook reads that phrase to mean the hearing need not be postponed if an authorised person attends for the presenting officer, and that “The substituted officer need not be formally appointed as Presenting Officer.”

Presenting officer and inquiry officer compared

The presenting officer argues the charge and the inquiry officer decides it; a person who does both is a judge in their own cause. Rule 14 keeps the two apart in structure: the inquiring authority is appointed under Rule 14(2), the presenting officer under Rule 14(5)(c), and each sub-rule from 14(11) to 14(19) assigns the step to one or the other.

The line is crossed most often by the inquiry officer. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484, decided 4 March 2008, a railway inquiry officer conducted the examination-in-chief himself with leading questions, and the penalty was set aside. Ram Lakhan Sharma (2 July 2018) then allowed an inquiry officer clarificatory questions, provided the charged officer can cross-examine on what they bring out, and treated anything aimed at establishing the charge as the presenting officer’s work.

Legal practitioner as presenting officer and the defence’s right to a lawyer

Appointing a legal practitioner as presenting officer gives the charged officer the right to a legal practitioner too. Rule 14(8)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 lets the charged officer take the assistance of another government servant as defence assistant, but not engage a legal practitioner “unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.” The first limb is automatic; the second is a discretion.

Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms OM No. 11012/7/83-Estt.(A) dated 23 July 1984 directs how that discretion is used where the department’s advocate is legally trained without being an outside lawyer. Where the case is presented by a Prosecuting Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Government Law Officer such as a Legal Adviser or Junior Legal Adviser, there are “evidently good and sufficient circumstances” to allow the charged officer a legal practitioner, and a refusal “is likely to be held by the court as arbitrary and prejudicial to the defence of the delinquent Government servant.” DoPT’s consolidated OM of 26 March 2024 carries the 1984 OM forward.

Three Supreme Court judgments sit behind that instruction.

The Subramaniam Court put its reason in one sentence: “The fact that the case against the appellant was being handled by a trained prosecutor was a good ground for allowing the appellant to engage a legal practitioner to defend him lest the scales should be weighted against him.” In Nadkarni the Court went further and required the inquiry officer, when the employer appoints legally trained presenting officers, to ask the charged officer before the inquiry begins whether the officer wants a legal practitioner. The test in all three is the presenting officer’s training, not the title on the appointment order, which is why a disciplinary authority that appoints its own legal adviser as presenting officer and then refuses the charged officer a lawyer gives the charged officer a ground of challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Honorarium for the presenting officer

A presenting officer is paid an honorarium of 10% of monthly basic pay drawn, per case, under DoPT OM No. DOPT-1668597747466 dated 16 November 2022, issued by the AVD-I division with the concurrence of the Department of Expenditure (I.D. Note No. 14/4/2009-E.II(B) dated 26 October 2022). The OM consolidated and superseded two earlier orders: OM No. 142/15/2010-AVD.I dated 31 July 2012, for serving officers acting as part-time inquiry or presenting officers, and OM No. 142/40/2015-AVD.I dated 15 September 2017, for retired inquiry officers.

Worked on the entry cells of the 7th CPC pay matrix, a presenting officer at Level 10 on Rs. 56,100 receives Rs. 5,610 for the case, and one at Level 11 on Rs. 67,700 receives Rs. 6,770. An inquiry officer at Level 12 on Rs. 78,800 in the same case receives Rs. 11,820. The rate does not rise with the number of hearings or witnesses. The OM does not say whether basic pay is taken on the date of appointment or on the date of the bill, and it prescribes no pension-based rate for a retired presenting officer; its retired-officer rates are written for inquiry officers only.

Paragraph 6 of the OM says the honorarium “will normally be regulated under the financial powers delegated to the Ministries/Departments”, taking into account the work involved in the individual case, and asks the administrative department to relieve a serving inquiry or presenting officer of normal duties as far as possible. Paragraph 7 makes payment conditional: before the presenting officer receives it, the case records and the inquiry report must have been handed over. Paragraph 5.19.9 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 adds that the competent authority may consider an honorarium where conducting an inquiry is not part of the officer’s sphere of duties, and that for a serving presenting officer, whether full time or part time, the honorarium may be regulated by the 16 November 2022 OM. The OM applies prospectively, to bills submitted after 16 November 2022.

Presenting officer in minor penalty and post-retirement proceedings

A presenting officer is appointed in a minor penalty case only where the case goes to an oral inquiry. Rule 16(1)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 allows the disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry “in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (24) of rule 14” where it thinks one necessary, and Rule 16(1-A) makes that inquiry compulsory where the proposal is to withhold increments in a way that is likely to affect pension, for more than three years, or with cumulative effect. Once Rule 14(3) to (24) applies, so does the Rule 14(5)(c) power. The ordinary minor penalty case, decided on the charged officer’s written representation under Rule 16(1)(a), has no hearing and no presenting officer. Major and minor penalty proceedings differ on this point more than on any other.

Proceedings against a pensioner follow the same pattern. Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 lets the authority competent under Rule 8(1), which since G.S.R. 770(E) of 7 October 2022 is the President where the President was the appointing authority, and otherwise the Secretary of the administrative Ministry or Department, or the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, withhold or withdraw pension where, in departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service. Under Rule 8(2)(a), proceedings begun in service are continued after retirement in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service, so a major penalty inquiry stays a Rule 14 inquiry; Rule 8(2)(b) provides that Rule 16 proceedings continued after retirement have no effect on pension and gratuity. Proceedings instituted after retirement need that competent authority’s sanction, cannot reach an event more than four years old, and follow the procedure applicable to proceedings in which an order of dismissal could have been made, which is Rule 14. The Explanation to Rule 14(5) settles, in the same proceedings, that a retired officer can present the department’s case. The pension consequences are covered under withholding of pension.

Parallel rules for railway servants and All India Services

The two other main disciplinary codes for central employees have their own presenting officer clauses, and each differs from Rule 14(5)(c) in a way that changes the practice.

The Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 omit the legal practitioner. Their Rule 9(13)(a) still allows the railway servant a legal practitioner if the presenting officer is one or the disciplinary authority permits, so the defence limb survives even though the appointing limb has no lawyer in it, and the sub-rules on the conduct of the inquiry refer to the presenting officer “if any”. The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 tie the appointment to the appointment of an inquiring authority, so an inquiry the disciplinary authority holds itself has no presenting officer under that text. An inquiry into a member of the IAS, IPS or IFoS is read against the 1969 Rules, not Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Common misreadings of the presenting officer rules

“The presenting officer is a prosecutor, so the rules of evidence bind the case.” Question 18 of Chapter 15 of the ISTM Handbook says the principles of evidence law are not directly applicable in a departmental inquiry, and that only the three-phase order of examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination, laid down in Section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is followed. The presenting officer proves a charge of misconduct from the listed documents and witnesses under the Rule 14 procedure, not under the rules of a criminal trial.

“Any officer can be presenting officer, including the investigator.” The rule does not name the investigator, but paragraph 5.19.7 of the Vigilance Manual 2026 says the official who conducted the preliminary investigation or inquiry should not be appointed. An appointment against that guidance invites a bias objection that the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) will test.

“If the department uses its legal adviser as presenting officer, the charged officer still cannot have a lawyer because the adviser is not an outside advocate.” The 1984 OM and the three judgments look at the presenting officer’s training. A Legal Adviser, a Junior Legal Adviser or a CBI Prosecuting Officer as presenting officer is a strong ground for permitting a lawyer, and refusal is likely to be treated as arbitrary.

“A presenting officer can fill a hole in the department’s case with a fresh document.” The Note to Rule 14(15) bars new evidence to fill a gap; it is allowed only for an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence already produced.

“Without a presenting officer the inquiry is void.” Ram Lakhan Sharma (2 July 2018) held that non-appointment does not by itself vitiate the inquiry. The inquiry fails where the inquiry officer, in the presenting officer’s absence, conducts the prosecution.

Related Articles

• Departmental inquiry
• Inquiry officer
• Disciplinary authority
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Written statement of defence
• Defence assistant
• Inquiry report
• Preliminary inquiry
• Ex parte inquiry
• De novo inquiry
• Dispensing with inquiry
• Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries
• Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972
• Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850
• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
• CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
• Misconduct
• Minor penalty
• Major and minor penalty proceedings
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Compulsory retirement
• Reduction in rank
• Withholding of increment
• Withholding of pension
• Penalty proportionality
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Suspension
• Reinstatement
• Article 311
• Principles of natural justice
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Chief Vigilance Officer
• Central Bureau of Investigation
• Vigilance clearance
• Sealed cover procedure
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968
• All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
• Department of Personnel and Training
• CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

External references

• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, Department of Personnel and Training
• DoPT consolidated OM on handling of disciplinary proceedings, 26 March 2024
• Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026
• ISTM Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, updated 26 December 2024
• DoPT OM circulars portal
• Central Vigilance Commission
• Supreme Court of India, judgment texts

References

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rules 14(5)(c), 14(6)(v), 14(8)(a), 14(11), 14(14) to 14(19), 14(23) and 16(1) (DoPT compilation updated to 15 October 2018).
2. CCS (CCA) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, DoPT F. No. 11012/2/2005-Estt.(A), dated 5 December 2011, inserting the Explanation to Rule 14(5).
3. DoPT OM No. DOPT-1668597747466, Grant of honorarium to Inquiry Officers and Presenting Officers, dated 16 November 2022.
4. DoPT consolidated OM No. DOPT-1711452233125, Handling of disciplinary proceedings in respect of central civilian employees, dated 26 March 2024, reproducing OM No. 7/11/70-Est.(A) dated 24 September 1970, OM No. 134/7/75-AVD-I dated 1 June 1975 and OM No. 11012/7/83-Estt.(A) dated 23 July 1984.
5. Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Manual 2026, Chapter V, paragraphs 5.19.3, 5.19.7 to 5.19.9 and 5.22.4 to 5.22.6.
6. Institute of Secretariat Training and Management, Handbook for Inquiry Officers and Disciplinary Authorities, updated to 26 December 2024, Chapters 13 and 15.
7. Central Vigilance Commission, Master Circular No. 06/MC/2026, dated 27 July 2026.
8. C.L. Subramaniam v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, (1972) 3 SCC 542, decided 15 February 1972; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124, decided 17 November 1982; J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 283, decided 5 September 1990.
9. Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2012, decided 2 July 2018; Moni Shankar v. Union of India, (2008) 3 SCC 484, decided 4 March 2008.
10. Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, Rule 9(9)(c) and 9(13)(a); All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, Rule 8(6)(c).