Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is the Act of Parliament (Act No. 49 of 1988) that makes bribery, criminal misconduct and illicit enrichment by a public servant a criminal offence in India, tried by a special Judge. Every central government employee is a public servant under Section 2(c). The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 rewrote the offences with effect from 26 July 2018. The Act received the President’s assent on 9 September 1988 and was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on 12 September 1988.

The Act matters to a government servant in two ways that run in parallel. As criminal law it sets the offences and their penalties: three to seven years for taking a bribe under Section 7, four to ten years for criminal misconduct under Section 13(2). As a trigger for service consequences it sits behind almost every serious vigilance case. The same facts can bring suspension, a departmental inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a sealed cover at promotion, refusal of vigilance clearance, and a provisional pension in place of the full one.

Two protective filters stand between an allegation and a trial. Section 17A requires government approval before the police may even begin an enquiry into a decision taken in office. Section 19 requires a sanction before a court may take cognizance of the charge. The two have different authorities, different triggers, and in 2026 very different legal standing, since Section 17A is the subject of a split Supreme Court verdict referred to a larger Bench.

This article covers the definitions, each offence and its penalty as the law stood on 22 September 2026, what the 2018 amendment changed, the approval and sanction procedure including the Central Vigilance Commission’s Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026, the trial, and the consequences for pay, promotion and pension under the central civil service rules.

Origin and what the 1988 Act replaced

The 1988 Act consolidated two earlier bodies of law into one statute. Section 30(1) repealed the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), which had created the special courts. Section 31 omitted Sections 161 to 165A of the Indian Penal Code, the bribery offences that had sat in the general criminal code since 1860, and applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act to that omission so that pending cases survived.

The Act has been amended several times since. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (No. 1 of 2014), through Section 58 and Part III of its Schedule, raised the penalties for criminal misconduct and attempt and made Section 19 subject to the Lokpal’s own procedure. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (34 of 2019) removed the exclusion of that state by Section 95, with effect from 31 October 2019. The largest change was the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (No. 16 of 2018), which received assent on 26 July 2018 and, as CVC Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026 records, took effect the same day.

The institutional machinery grew separately. The Central Vigilance Commission was set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs Resolution No. 24/7/64-AVD dated 11 February 1964, on the recommendation of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption chaired by K. Santhanam, and became statutory under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. The Central Bureau of Investigation investigates offences against central government employees under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.

Definition of public servant

Section 2(c) of the Act defines public servant in 12 limbs, wider than the Indian Penal Code definition it replaced. Two limbs cover almost every central government employee.

• Section 2(c)(i): “any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty”. Every regular employee on the pay matrix is covered, and so is a person paid by the Government by fees or commission for performing a public duty.
• Section 2(c)(viii): “any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty”. This limb turns on the duty attached to the office, not on the source of the pay.

Explanation 1 to Section 2(c) applies the definition “whether appointed by the Government or not”. Section 2(b) defines public duty as “a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest”, and its Explanation extends “State” to statutory corporations, bodies controlled or aided by the Government, and Government companies. Employees of a central public sector enterprise, a nationalised bank or an autonomous body such as the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan are therefore public servants under the Act even though they are outside the CCS rules.

A servant does not stop being answerable on retirement. The Explanation added to Section 19(1) in 2018 treats a person who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence was allegedly committed as a public servant for the purpose of sanction, so an offence committed in service can be prosecuted after the servant retires or resigns.

Undue advantage, the 2018 replacement for gratification

The 2018 amendment replaced the old test of “gratification other than legal remuneration” with a defined term. Section 2(d) now defines undue advantage as “any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration”. Its Explanations settle two questions that the old case law had argued over.

Gratification is “not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money”. A job for a relative, a free holiday and a discount not available to the public are all capable of being undue advantage. Legal remuneration “includes all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to receive.” A central government servant’s legal remuneration is therefore the pay, allowances and honoraria the service rules permit, plus gifts within the limits of Rule 13 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and fees accepted with sanction under the Fundamental Rules. Anything outside those rules is not legal remuneration.

The Conduct Rules and the Act meet here. A gift that breaches Rule 13 is misconduct in itself, whether or not any official favour followed. It becomes a criminal offence under Section 7 only when accepted with the intention of performing a public duty improperly, or as a reward for having done so.

The offences and their penalties

The Act now contains ten offence sections. The table sets out each as it stood on 22 September 2026, after the 2018 amendment and the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Sources: Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, Sections 4, 6, 8 and 9; Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, Schedule, Part III. Section 11 of the 1988 Act, which no later Act amended, carries the six months to five years range. Section 16 directs the court, when fixing a fine under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13(2), 14 or 15, to take into account the amount or value the accused obtained.

A consolidated text that still shows one to seven years under Section 13(2), or up to three years under Section 15, omits the 2013 amendments. The minimums of four years and two years date from the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which is why consolidations that skip that Act print the wrong figures.

Section 7: bribery by a public servant

Section 7 now punishes three things: obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage with the intention of performing a public duty improperly or dishonestly, or of causing another public servant to do so; doing so as a reward for past improper performance; and performing a duty improperly in anticipation of, or as a consequence of, accepting an undue advantage. Explanation 1 states that the obtaining, accepting or attempting “shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper”. The illustration under it takes a public servant who asks for Rs. 5,000 to process a ration card on time: the demand is the offence, even though issuing the card on time was the servant’s duty anyway.

Sections 8 to 10: the giver and the company

Before 2018 the giver of a bribe was punished only as an abettor. Section 8 now makes giving or promising an undue advantage a substantive offence, subject to two exceptions. The first proviso excludes a person “compelled to give such undue advantage”, and the second proviso attaches a condition: “the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage”. Section 8(2) excludes a person who pays after first informing the agency, to assist its investigation, which is the position of the complainant in a trap.

Section 9 makes a commercial organisation liable to a fine where any person associated with it gives an undue advantage to a public servant to obtain or retain business. The proviso to Section 9(1) makes it “a defence for the commercial organisation to prove that it had in place adequate procedures in compliance of such guidelines as may be prescribed”. Section 10 reaches the director, manager, secretary or other officer with whose consent or connivance the offence was committed, with three to seven years. Section 9(4) makes offences under Sections 7A, 8 and 9 cognizable.

Section 13: criminal misconduct

The 2018 amendment substituted the whole of Section 13(1) and left two limbs.

• Clause (a): a public servant who “dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or any property under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do”. This is the old clause (c), renumbered; the 2018 Act changed the cross-references in Sections 15 and 23 from “clause (c)” to “clause (a)”.
• Clause (b): a public servant who “intentionally enriches himself illicitly during the period of his office”. This is the disproportionate assets offence, formerly clause (e).

The old clauses (a), (b) and (d) were omitted, leaving misappropriation and illicit enrichment as the only forms of criminal misconduct.

Explanation 1 to clause (b) presumes illicit enrichment where the servant, or any person on his behalf, is or has been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income that he cannot satisfactorily account for. That is why the immovable property return filed under Rule 18 of the Conduct Rules is evidence in a disproportionate assets case.

Changes made by the 2018 amendment

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is the reason a pre-2018 judgment, a pre-2018 textbook and many government training materials no longer describe the current law. The changes that bear on a central government servant are these.

Sources: Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, Sections 2 to 17. Section 17 of the amending Act also omitted Section 24, which had protected a bribe giver’s statement in proceedings against the public servant, because a giver is now an offender in his own right.

Section 17A: approval before any enquiry

Section 17A bars any police officer from conducting an enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence under the Act allegedly committed by a public servant, where the offence relates to a recommendation made or a decision taken in the discharge of official functions, without previous approval. It came into force with the rest of the 2018 amendment on 26 July 2018.

The approving authority depends on where the servant was employed when the offence was allegedly committed, not where he serves now. Under clause (a), for a person who “is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union”, the approval is “of that Government”, the Central Government. The same authority applies to a Level 1 multi-tasking staff member and to a Joint Secretary, which is the first of two differences from Section 19.

Two provisos shape how it works in practice:

• No approval for an on-the-spot arrest. The first proviso says “no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage”. A trap laid by the CBI or a state anti-corruption bureau therefore needs no approval.
• Three months, plus one. The second proviso requires the authority to convey its decision “within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.”

The Department of Personnel and Training issued the standard operating procedure for processing Section 17A proposals by letter No. 428/07/2021-AVD.IV(B) dated 3 September 2021. The filter applies only where the alleged offence is linked to a recommendation or decision. A demand for money that is not tied to any official decision falls outside it.

Section 17A before the Supreme Court

Section 17A is the successor to Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which required Central Government approval before the CBI could inquire into an officer of Joint Secretary level and above. A Constitution Bench struck Section 6A down in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI on 6 May 2014, holding at paragraph 98 that Section 6A(1) was invalid and violative of Article 14. Section 17A reintroduced the approval four years later, extended it to every public servant, and tied it to official decisions in place of rank.

Two Supreme Court references on Section 17A await a larger Bench, and no ruling in either had been reported by 22 September 2026.

• Validity. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 55, decided on 13 January 2026, Justice B. V. Nagarathna held that “Section 17A of the Act is struck down as it is in violation of Article 14”. Justice K. V. Viswanathan upheld the section and read in a screening step by the Lokpal or Lokayukta before the approving authority decides. The Court directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate Bench to decide the issues afresh.
• Retrospective reach. In Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 INSC 41, decided on 16 January 2024, Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi disagreed on whether Section 17A applies where the offence predates 26 July 2018 but the enquiry began later, and referred the question for a larger Bench.

Until a larger Bench rules, Section 17A applies as enacted, and an investigating agency seeking to enquire into an official decision needs the approval.

Section 19: sanction before a court takes cognizance

Section 19(1) bars any court from taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction of the competent authority, save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The 2018 amendment removed Section 10 from that list. Sanction is a separate step from Section 17A approval: approval comes before the investigation, and sanction comes after it, on the agency’s final report.

The sanction for prosecution is given by one of three authorities:

This is the second difference from Section 17A. For a Group C clerk whose removing authority under the Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is a head of department, the Central Government approves the enquiry under Section 17A, but the head of department sanctions the prosecution under Section 19(1)(c). Section 19(2) resolves any doubt in favour of the authority competent to remove the servant “at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed”. The disciplinary authority and the appointing authority are often, but not necessarily, the sanctioning authority.

The 2018 amendment added five provisos and an Explanation:

1. A person other than a police officer or an investigating agency may not seek sanction unless he has filed a complaint in a competent court and the court has not dismissed it for want of sufficient ground under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and has directed the complainant to obtain the sanction. The proviso still names the 1973 Code, which the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has replaced.
2. On such a private request, the public servant must be given “an opportunity of being heard”.
3. The authority “shall endeavour to convey the decision” within three months of the request.
4. Where legal consultation is required, the period may be extended by a further month.
5. The Central Government may prescribe guidelines for granting sanction.
6. The Explanation makes a public servant include a person who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence was allegedly committed.

The proviso says only “shall endeavour”, and the Act attaches no deemed sanction or other consequence to a missed deadline, so a delayed decision stalls the case without ending it. Section 8(1)(f) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 gives the Commission the function of reviewing the progress of pending sanction requests, and the Department of Personnel and Training issued OM No. 428/10/2021-AVD-IV(B) dated 18 October 2024 on checking delays in the grant of sanction under Section 19.

Defects in a sanction

Section 19(3)(a) provides that no finding or sentence of a special Judge shall be reversed on appeal or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction, “unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby”. Section 19(3)(b) and (c) bar a stay of proceedings on that ground and bar revision of interlocutory orders. Section 19(4) directs the court to consider whether the objection “could and should have been raised at any earlier stage”, and the Explanation makes “error” include the competency of the sanctioning authority. A servant who believes the sanction was given by the wrong officer has to raise the point at the start of the trial.

Scope of the sanctioning authority’s review

The Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012, decided on 31 January 2012, held that the competent authority’s only task is to see whether the material placed by the complainant or the investigating agency discloses a prima facie offence, and that it “cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether the allegations made against the public servant are true.” CVC Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026 quotes that holding at paragraph 4.3 and, at paragraph 4.2, sets out practical rules from that line of cases: the authority may not hold a parallel inquiry, may not ask the servant’s own organisation for a report to test the investigation, and “A representation subsequent to completion of the investigation, is not known to law”.

The Central Vigilance Commission’s role in sanction

The Central Vigilance Commission’s procedure on sanction is now in a single document, Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026, issued under cover of the Commission’s OM No. 024/VGL/017-5 dated 27 July 2026. Paragraph 2 supersedes all earlier Commission circulars, guidelines and letters on the subject, so an older circular on sanction is no longer the current instruction.

The circular grounds the Commission’s role in Section 8(1)(f) and (g) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, and divides cases by who sanctions:

• Sanction in the name of the President. Paragraph 5.3: the Commission must be approached for advice, and the decision is taken after considering it.
• Any other sanctioning authority. Paragraph 5.4: the Commission is approached only “if that authority does not propose to accord prosecution sanction, as sought by CBI”.
• Disagreement with the Commission. Paragraph 5.5: where the authority, President or otherwise, does not propose to accept the Commission’s advice, “the matter is to be referred to DoPT for their consideration”, under DoPT OM No. 372/6/2017-AVD-III dated 1 March 2019.
• Three weeks for tentative views. Paragraph 5.7: the authority must form its tentative view and approach the Commission within three weeks, failing which the Commission may tender advice on the CBI’s report alone.
• No review. Paragraph 5.8: once the authority has decided and communicated the decision to the CBI, the matter cannot be reviewed.

Paragraph 5.9 of the circular records that Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, formerly Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the general sanction provision for public servants. Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a separate sanction confined to the offences it names.

Investigation and the investigating agencies

Section 17 fixes the minimum rank of the investigating officer: an Inspector in the Delhi Special Police Establishment, an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the metropolitan areas, or a Deputy Superintendent of Police elsewhere. An investigation of illicit enrichment under Section 13(1)(b) additionally needs the order of a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

For central government employees the investigating agency is ordinarily the Central Bureau of Investigation, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Section 4(1) of that Act, as substituted by Section 26(b) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, vests superintendence of the CBI in the Commission so far as it relates to investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and leaves all other superintendence with the Central Government. A state anti-corruption bureau may also register a case against a central employee posted in the state. Under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the Lokpal may order a preliminary inquiry and investigation into complaints against the categories of public servant it covers, and Section 19(1) gives way to that Act’s own procedure.

Inside each ministry the Chief Vigilance Officer is the link between the organisation, the Commission and the CBI, and processes the Section 17A approval proposals and the sanction requests. The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 sets a separate route by which a complaint of corruption reaches the Commission as the competent authority.

Special Judges and the trial

Section 3(1) empowers the Central or State Government to appoint special Judges to try any offence under the Act, and any conspiracy, attempt or abetment, and Section 4(1) requires those offences to be tried by a special Judge only. Section 3(2) limits the appointment to a person who is or has been a Sessions Judge, an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge.

Section 4(4), substituted in 2018, sets a trial target. The trial is held “on day-to-day basis” as far as practicable, with “an endeavour … to ensure that the said trial is concluded within a period of two years”. If it is not concluded, the special Judge records reasons and may extend the period “not exceeding six months at a time”, and the total “shall not exceed ordinarily four years in aggregate”. The word “ordinarily” leaves room beyond four years, and neither limit ends a prosecution when missed.

The presumption under Section 20

Section 20, substituted in 2018, places a burden on the accused once one fact is proved. Where it is proved in a trial under Section 7 or Section 11 that the public servant “accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain” an undue advantage, “it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved”, that the advantage was taken as a motive or reward for improper performance under Section 7, or without or for inadequate consideration under Section 11. The presumption does not reach Section 13.

The prosecution must still prove the foundational fact of demand and acceptance. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009, decided on 15 December 2022 in an opinion by Justice B. V. Nagarathna, held at paragraph 68 that demand and acceptance “can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence”, and that where the complainant turns hostile, dies or is unavailable, “The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal”. The case was decided on the pre-2018 text of Sections 7 and 20.

Attachment and forfeiture

Chapter IVA, inserted in 2018, contains Section 18A. It applies the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 to “the attachment, administration of attached property and execution of order of attachment or confiscation” of money or property procured through an offence under the Act, “save as otherwise provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002”. References in the Ordinance to a District Judge are read as references to a special Judge. Property of a servant accused of illicit enrichment can therefore be attached while the trial is pending.

Service consequences of a case

A Prevention of Corruption Act case produces consequences under the service rules at each stage, well before any conviction. The table sets them out for a central civil servant.

Suspension and subsistence allowance

Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 deems a servant under suspension “with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours”. No order is needed for the suspension to take effect, though the authority issues one to record it. A servant arrested in a trap on a Friday evening and remanded over the weekend is therefore under deemed suspension from the Friday. The servant receives subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53, equal to leave salary on half pay for the first three months. Rule 10(6) and (7) require a review committee to review the suspension before 90 days, and each extension is for not more than 180 days at a time.

Penalty after conviction

A conviction lets the disciplinary authority impose a penalty without holding an inquiry. The second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, clause (a), dispenses with the inquiry where a person is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank “on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge”. Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 carries the same exception into the service code: the authority “may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit”. The authority chooses the penalty after considering the circumstances of the case, and conviction does not by itself end service: the choice runs from dismissal or removal to compulsory retirement or reduction in rank. An appeal against the penalty lies under Part VII of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (appeal, review and revision), and the order can be challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The departmental case running alongside

The criminal case does not displace the disciplinary one. A charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 may be issued on the same facts, and the Commission’s first stage advice on a case with a vigilance angle can recommend criminal proceedings, regular departmental action such as major penalty proceedings, administrative action, or closure. The standards of proof differ: the department needs a preponderance of probability, the special Judge needs proof beyond reasonable doubt. An acquittal in court does not by itself end the departmental case or set aside a departmental penalty. The underlying conduct is a breach of the duty of absolute integrity in Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which makes it misconduct independently of the Act.

Promotion and vigilance clearance

A pending criminal prosecution is one of the three categories in paragraph 2 of the DoPT OM No. 22011/4/91-Estt.(A) dated 14 September 1992 that put a servant’s promotion recommendation into a sealed cover, and the threshold is the filing of the charge sheet in the competent court. A preliminary enquiry or a registered FIR alone does not reach it. The departmental promotion committee assesses the servant in the ordinary way, and the cover is opened only when the case ends. Vigilance clearance for deputation, empanelment and passports is governed by its own set of orders, which the vigilance clearance article sets out by purpose.

Pension and gratuity

A charge sheet filed in court is the institution of a judicial proceeding for Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. A servant who retires while it is pending receives a provisional pension equal to the maximum admissible on qualifying service under Rule 8(3) and 8(4), and no gratuity until the proceeding concludes. After a conviction, Rule 8(1) 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 the pension or gratuity, in full or in part, permanently or for a specified period, and to recover pecuniary loss caused to the Government. The gratuity is exposed in the same way.

Parallel service codes

The Prevention of Corruption Act is a general criminal statute and applies identically to every public servant, whatever service code governs the servant’s employment. What differs is the service consequence. An officer of the All India Services is disciplined under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and bound by the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, and draws pension under the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. A railway employee is disciplined under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The rule numbers for deemed suspension, penalty on conviction and withholding of pension differ in each code, so a CCS rule number cited for an All India Services or railway case is wrong even where the substance is similar.

For the sanction under Section 19, Rule 7(2) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 reserves dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement to the Central Government, so under Section 19(1)(c) the Central Government sanctions the prosecution, whichever State cadre the officer serves on.

Related Articles

• Central Vigilance Commission
• Central Bureau of Investigation
• Chief Vigilance Officer
• Sanction for prosecution
• Disproportionate assets
• Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014
• Vigilance clearance
• CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
• All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
• Misconduct
• Immovable property return
• Suspension
• Subsistence allowance
• Charge sheet and articles of charge
• Departmental inquiry
• Major and minor penalty proceedings
• Disciplinary authority
• Appointing authority
• Dismissal and removal from service
• Compulsory retirement
• Reduction in rank
• Appeal, review and revision under the CCS (CCA) Rules
• Article 311
• Central Administrative Tribunal
• Sealed cover procedure
• Promotion
• CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021
• Withholding of pension
• Withholding and recovery from gratuity
• Provisional pension
• All India Services
• Railway employees
• Department of Personnel and Training

External references

• Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (No. 16 of 2018), Government of India Press copy: cgca.gov.in
• Central Vigilance Commission, Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026 on processing requests for sanction for prosecution under Section 19, 27 July 2026: cvc.gov.in
• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: dopt.gov.in
• Central Vigilance Commission, official site: cvc.gov.in
• Central Bureau of Investigation, official site: cbi.gov.in
• Lokpal of India, official site: lokpal.gov.in
• India Code, the official repository of central Acts: indiacode.nic.in

References

1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988), assented to on 9 September 1988 and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, on 12 September 1988, Sections 2, 3, 4, 7 to 20, 30 and 31.
2. Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (No. 16 of 2018), assented to on 26 July 2018, Sections 2 to 17, in force from 26 July 2018.
3. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (No. 1 of 2014), Section 58 and Schedule, Part III, amending Sections 13(2), 15 and 19 of the 1988 Act.
4. Central Vigilance Commission, Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026, issued under OM No. 024/VGL/017-5 dated 27 July 2026, paragraphs 2, 3.1, 4.1 to 4.3 and 5.1 to 5.9.
5. Department of Personnel and Training, OM No. 428/10/2021-AVD-IV(B) dated 18 October 2024, on checking delays in grant of sanction for prosecution under Section 19; and OM No. 372/6/2017-AVD-III dated 1 March 2019, on disagreement between the disciplinary authority and the Central Vigilance Commission over sanction.
6. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rules 10(2), 14 and 19(i); Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 8.
7. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009, Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench), 15 December 2022, paragraph 68.
8. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 55, W.P.(C) No. 1373 of 2018, Supreme Court of India, 13 January 2026; Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 INSC 41, Supreme Court of India, 16 January 2024.
9. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench), 6 May 2014; Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, 31 January 2012.