Rule 19 — CCS (CCA) Rules
Original Rule Text
19. Special procedure in certain cases
Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18-
where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii)where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules,
the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Government servant may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under clause (i::
Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission, within the time limit specified in clause
(b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15, before any orders are made In any case under this rule.
What This Means
Rule 19 carves out three situations where the normal inquiry process (Rules 14 to 18) can be bypassed and the disciplinary authority can act directly. These exceptional circumstances are: (1) when the government servant has already been convicted by a criminal court, so the guilt is already established by a judicial process; (2) when it is genuinely not practicable to hold a formal inquiry — for instance because witnesses are unavailable or fear intimidation — and this must be recorded in writing; and (3) when the President determines that holding an inquiry would compromise national security.
Even in these exceptional cases, the government servant is not left entirely without recourse. In conviction cases (clause i), the employee must be given an opportunity to make a representation about the proposed penalty before any order is passed. This is a vital safeguard — while the government can bypass the full inquiry, it cannot impose punishment without giving the person a chance to speak about why a lesser penalty should apply.
Where the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) consultation is required by rules — generally for Group A and Group B officers — that consultation must still happen. Furthermore, after the Commission gives its advice, the government servant must be given an opportunity to represent against that advice within the prescribed time limit before a final order is made. Rule 19 is therefore a safety valve, not a blank cheque to dismiss employees arbitrarily.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Three exceptional situations allow bypassing the normal inquiry procedure: criminal conviction, impracticability of holding inquiry, and security of the State.
- 2The disciplinary authority must record in writing why a formal inquiry is not practicable (clause ii) — a verbal decision is not sufficient.
- 3In conviction cases (clause i), the employee must be given an opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty before any order is made.
- 4The President's satisfaction in security cases (clause iii) is final; lower authorities cannot invoke this clause on their own.
- 5UPSC consultation, wherever mandatory, must still take place even when using the special procedure.
- 6After UPSC advice, the government servant has the right to represent against that advice within the time limit fixed under Rule 15(3)(b).
- 7This rule is an exception, not the norm — courts expect it to be used sparingly and the reasons to be genuine.
Practical Example
Sub-Inspector Ramesh Kumar of a Central Paramilitary unit was convicted by a Sessions Court for accepting a bribe from a civilian and sentenced to six months of imprisonment. The disciplinary authority — the DIG (Discipline) — initiated action under Rule 19(i) since a criminal court had already established guilt. No fresh departmental inquiry was held. Before issuing the dismissal order, the DIG issued a show-cause notice asking Ramesh Kumar why the major penalty of dismissal should not be imposed. Ramesh Kumar submitted a representation claiming mitigating circumstances, including a large medical debt. The DIG considered the representation, decided the mitigating factors did not warrant leniency given the gravity of the offence, and passed a final order of dismissal. Since Ramesh Kumar was a Group B officer, the UPSC was consulted, and Ramesh was given an opportunity to represent against the Commission's advice before the final order was issued.
Had the DIG not given Ramesh the chance to represent on the penalty, the entire order could have been challenged and set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal on procedural grounds — even though the criminal conviction stood.
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.