Rule 18 — CCS (CCA) Rules
Original Rule Text
18. Common Proceedings
(1) Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the President or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.
NOTE - If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government servants are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule ()) of rule 12, any such order shall specify-
- the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceeding;
(ii) the penalties specified in rule 11 which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose;
(iii) whether the procedure laid down in rule 14 and rule 15 or rule 16 shall be followed in the proceeding.
What This Means
Rule 18 provides for common proceedings when two or more government servants are involved in the same misconduct case. Instead of holding separate inquiries for each person, the President (or an appropriate authority) can direct that all of them be proceeded against in a single, combined inquiry. This is more efficient and avoids the risk of contradictory findings from separate inquiries.
The order directing common proceedings must specify three things: (1) which authority will act as the disciplinary authority for the common proceeding; (2) what penalties that disciplinary authority is competent to impose; and (3) whether the major penalty procedure (Rule 14 and 15) or minor penalty procedure (Rule 16) will be followed. If the normal disciplinary authorities for the different officers involved would be different, the highest of those authorities can convene the common proceeding, but only with the consent of the others.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Common proceedings allow multiple government servants involved in the same case to be tried together
- 2Avoids contradictory findings from separate proceedings and saves administrative resources
- 3The order for common proceedings must specify: the disciplinary authority, penalties it can impose, and which procedure (Rule 14/15 or Rule 16) applies
- 4If normal authorities for different officers differ, the highest authority convenes the common proceeding with the consent of the others
- 5Subject to Rule 12(4) — major penalties still cannot be imposed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority
Practical Example
A vigilance investigation reveals that three officials were involved in a procurement scam: Rohit Sharma (Group A officer), Sunita Joshi (Group B officer), and Manoj Tiwari (Group C officer). Normally, different disciplinary authorities would be competent for each of them. However, since the facts are intertwined, separating the proceedings would be inefficient and could result in contradictory findings.
Under Rule 18, the Ministry Secretary (as the highest applicable authority) issues an order for common proceedings. The order designates the Ministry Secretary as the disciplinary authority for all three, specifies that all penalties including dismissal can be considered, and directs that the Rule 14/15 (major penalty) procedure be followed. The Secretaries of the other departments, who would normally be the disciplinary authority for the lower-ranked officers, give their consent. A single inquiry is then held against all three together.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Frequently Asked Questions
▼
▼
▼
▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.