Rule 29 — CCS (CCA) Rules
Original Rule Text
# 29. Revision
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules-
I the President; or
(ii) the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the case of a Government servant serving in the Indian Audit and. Accounts Department; or (iii the Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board in the case of a Government servant serving in or under the Postal Services Board and Adviser (Human Resources Development), Department of Telecommunications in the case of a Government servant. serving in or under: the Telecommunications Board; or
(iv) the Head of a Department directly under the Central Government, in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office (not being the Secretariat or the Posts and Telegraphs Board), under the control of such Head of a Department; or
(v) the appellate authority, within six: months of the date of the order proposed to be revised or
(vi) any: other: authority specified in this behalft by the President by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order;
may at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and may-
(a) confirm, modify or set: aside the order; or
(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any: penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or
(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order to or any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances ofthe case; or:
(d) pass such otherd orders as: it may deem fit:
Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses
(v) to
(ix) of rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if an inquiry under: rule 14 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in rule 14 subject to the provisions of rule 19, and except after consultation with the Commission 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
What This Means
Rules 29 and 29-A together create two distinct mechanisms for correcting orders after the regular appeal process: Revision and Review. These are significant powers because they can be exercised even where no appeal has been filed, or even after an appeal has been decided.
Revision under Rule 29 is available to a set of specified high-level authorities — the President, the Comptroller and Auditor General (for Audit Department staff), the Head of a Department, the appellate authority (within six months), and certain other authorities specified by the President. Any of these authorities can call for the records of an inquiry and revise any order under the rules — whether an appeal is pending, concluded, or never filed. The revisional authority has very wide powers: it can confirm, modify, or set aside the order; reduce, enhance, or impose a penalty; remit the case; or pass any other order it deems fit. However, the same safeguards as for appellate orders apply when penalty is being enhanced — an opportunity to represent must be given, a fresh inquiry must be held if a major penalty is being imposed for the first time, and UPSC must be consulted where applicable.
Review under Rule 29-A is a narrower power available only to the President, and only on the specific ground that new material or evidence has come to light which was not available or producible at the time of the original order and which changes the nature of the case. This is a high bar — routine disagreement with an earlier decision does not qualify. The same safeguards apply if penalty is being enhanced through the review process.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Revision can be exercised by the President, CAG, Head of Department, appellate authority (within 6 months), or other specified authorities.
- 2Revision applies regardless of whether an appeal was filed or decided.
- 3The appellate authority can exercise revision only within six months of the order to be revised.
- 4Revisional powers are very broad: confirm, modify, set aside, enhance, reduce, or impose penalty, or remit the case.
- 5Before enhancing a penalty through revision, the employee must be given an opportunity to represent, and a fresh inquiry held if necessary.
- 6Review under Rule 29-A is available only to the President, and only on the basis of new material or evidence not previously available.
- 7Both revision and review respect the same UPSC consultation requirements and natural justice safeguards as appeals.
- 8No revision can commence until the appeal limitation period has expired, or the appeal (if filed) has been disposed of.
Practical Example
Shri Harish Chandra, a Joint Director, was awarded only a minor penalty of censure despite a departmental inquiry finding serious financial irregularities. No appeal was filed against this lenient order. Six months later, the Head of Department reviewed the case records during a routine audit and was of the opinion that the penalty was grossly inadequate. The Head of Department issued a notice to Harish Chandra under Rule 29 calling for his representation, proposing to enhance the penalty to compulsory retirement. Harish submitted his representation. Since the proposed enhanced penalty was a major one (compulsory retirement under Rule 11(v)) and an inquiry under Rule 14 had already been held, no fresh inquiry was required. UPSC was consulted, and Harish was given the opportunity to represent against the Commission's advice. The Head of Department thereafter passed a revised order imposing compulsory retirement.
In contrast, if new evidence had surfaced two years later showing Harish had been involved in a fraud not covered by the original charges, the President could have acted under Rule 29-A to review the case — provided the new evidence genuinely changed the character of the case.
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.