Rule 66 — Rule 66 (as it appears in this set of documents) d
Original Rule Text
66
Serial Number (1) Description of service
(2) Appointing Authority (3) Authority competent to impose penalties and penalties which it may impose (with reference to item numbers in Rule 11) Appellate Authority (6) Authority (4) Penalties (5)
(ii) Posts in nonSecretariat Office other than posts in respect of which specific provision has been made by a general or special order of the President.
(iii) Posts in Union Territories
(iv) All Group ‘C’ posts of the Departmentalized Head of Office
Head of Office of such other authority as may be specified by the Administrator.
Controller of Accounts or Head of Office
Head of Office of such other authority as may be specified by the Administrator.
Controller of Accounts or Deputy Controller All
All
All If such Head of Office is subordinate to a “Head of Department” under the Ministry or Department of Government, such Head of Department. If the Head of the Office is himself the Head of Department, or is not subordinate to any Head of Department, the Secretary in the Ministry or Department of Government.
Administrator or such other authority as may be specified by the Administrator; where the order is that of the Administrator, the President.
Chief Controller of Accounts or Joint
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
What This Means
Rule 66 (as it appears in this set of documents) deals with the situation where, after a departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority finds that a major penalty — that is, one of the penalties in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11, such as compulsory retirement, removal, or dismissal — is warranted by the evidence. It clarifies that in such a situation, the Disciplinary Authority may directly make the order imposing the major penalty without being required to issue a fresh show-cause notice asking the employee to represent against the proposed penalty.
This provision addresses a specific procedural question: when the inquiry procedure of Rule 14 has already been followed — with all its elaborate safeguards, including the charge sheet, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, submission of written defence, and inquiry report — does the Disciplinary Authority need yet another opportunity to the employee before imposing the penalty? Rule 66 answers: not necessarily. The opportunity to make representation has already been provided through the entire Rule 14 inquiry process. The Disciplinary Authority can proceed directly to make the penalty order based on its findings on the charges.
Note: This rule should be read alongside the well-established principle from Supreme Court jurisprudence (particularly the two-stage inquiry doctrine) that in cases of major penalties, while a second show-cause notice is not mandatory under the rules, fairness may require it in certain cases depending on whether the penalty proposed differs significantly from what a reasonable person would expect from the inquiry proceedings.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Where the Disciplinary Authority finds a major penalty warranted after an inquiry, it can impose the penalty directly.
- 2A separate opportunity to represent against the proposed major penalty is not mandatory when Rule 14 inquiry has been held.
- 3The Rule 14 inquiry process itself — charge sheet, defence, cross-examination, written submission — constitutes the adequate opportunity.
- 4Major penalties covered are clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11: compulsory retirement, removal from service, dismissal, etc.
- 5Minor penalties (clauses i–iv) have a different regime under Rule 16 where a show-cause notice is required.
- 6Courts and tribunals have added a practical qualification: if the proposed penalty is much more severe than what the inquiry officer recommended, natural justice may still require giving the employee a hearing.
Practical Example
Shri Ramakant Joshi, a Deputy Director, faced a departmental inquiry on charges of misappropriating government funds. The Inquiry Officer, after examining witnesses and documents over three months, submitted a report finding all charges fully proved and recommending compulsory retirement. The Disciplinary Authority reviewed the inquiry report and agreed with the findings. Acting under Rule 66, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of dismissal (a more severe major penalty than compulsory retirement) directly, without issuing another show-cause notice.
Joshi challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing he was not given an opportunity to represent against the penalty of dismissal specifically. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, held that while Rule 66 does not require a second show-cause notice, fairness required that Joshi should have been given a specific opportunity since the DA proposed a penalty more severe than what the Inquiry Officer recommended. The Tribunal remanded the matter for a limited opportunity to Joshi to represent against the proposed penalty of dismissal specifically.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Cross References
Frequently Asked Questions
▼
▼
▼
▼
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.