Rule 5 — CCS Conduct Rules
Original Rule Text
5 CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 3(1). 6 Ibid., Rule 3A. 7 Ibid., Rule 3B.
Rule 3C: Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Working Women
Government offices must provide a safe, inclusive, and harassment-free environment for all employees, particularly women. Any form of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or inappropriate behavior is strictly prohibited8 .
Sexual harassment includes unwelcome physical contact, sexually suggestive remarks, inappropriate comments, requests for sexual favors, or any behavior that creates an intimidating or offensive work environment.
https://www.istm.gov.in/home/css_conduct_rules
13/31
Home | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management | Govt. of India
23/03/2026, 13:35
Supervisory officers and department heads are responsible for ensuring a zerotolerance policy against sexual harassment, taking swift action against offenders. Complaints should be addressed promptly, in accordance with government-prescribed mechanisms for workplace safety and grievance redressal2 .
Government servants must be aware that failure to prevent or report harassment may also invite disciplinary action. Workplace dignity and professionalism are essential for an effective and ethical government administration.
This chapter outlines the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of government servants, emphasizing integrity, efficiency, courtesy, adherence to policies, and workplace ethics. These rules establish the framework for responsible governance, ensuring that government employees maintain public trust and professionalism.
# Political Neutrality and Public Engagement
A government servant is expected to remain impartial and politically neutral in order to maintain the integrity of public administration. The CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, prohibit government employees from engaging in political activities, participating in strikes or demonstrations, and publicly expressing views that may compromise their role as impartial administrators . This chapter outlines the restrictions on employment of family members, political participation, membership in associations, demonstrations, and engagement with the media.
- Rule 4: Employment of Members of Family in Companies or Firms
What This Means
This section covers Rule 3C (prohibition of sexual harassment) and Rule 4 (employment of family members in companies with official dealings). Rule 3C is one of the most critical additions to the Conduct Rules, operationalising the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, within the civil services framework. Every government office must be a safe, inclusive, and harassment-free environment. Sexual harassment is broadly defined to include unwelcome physical contact, sexually suggestive remarks, inappropriate comments, requests for sexual favors, display of pornographic material, and any behavior that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.
Critically, Rule 3C places responsibility not just on individual perpetrators but on supervisory officers and department heads. A supervisor who knows about harassment in their team but fails to act can themselves face disciplinary action for failure to prevent harassment. Complaints must be routed through the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which every government office of 50 or more employees must establish under the POSH Act. The government has issued detailed Office Memoranda (including the 2014 OM on Prevention of Sexual Harassment guidelines) providing step-by-step procedures for handling complaints. Failure to constituted an ICC is itself an offence under the POSH Act.
Rule 4 deals with conflict of interest arising from family employment. A government servant must not allow their spouse or any financially dependent family member to accept employment in a private company or firm that has official dealings with the government, without prior approval from the competent authority. If the family member is already employed in such a firm, the servant must promptly disclose this to the competent authority. The rule prevents situations where an official's family benefits financially from decisions the official makes in their official capacity — a structural conflict of interest even if the official has the best intentions.
This explanation was generated with AI assistance for educational purposes. Always refer to the official gazette notification for authoritative text.
Key Points
- 1Rule 3C prohibits all forms of sexual harassment in government workplaces — physical, verbal, visual, and digital.
- 2Supervisors and department heads bear direct responsibility for maintaining a harassment-free environment and can be penalised for inaction.
- 3Complaints under Rule 3C must be handled through the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) established under the POSH Act 2013.
- 4The POSH Act requires every government office with 50+ employees to have a functioning ICC.
- 5Rule 4: Prior approval is required before a spouse or dependent family member accepts employment in a firm with official dealings with the government.
- 6If a family member is already in such employment, the government servant must promptly disclose this to the competent authority.
- 7The objective of Rule 4 is to prevent structural conflicts of interest, not to penalise legitimate family careers.
Practical Example
Ananya is a director in a government department that licenses pharmaceutical companies. Her husband is offered a senior position at a pharmaceutical firm that has three active license applications pending with Ananya's department. Before her husband accepts the position, Ananya must report this to her competent authority under Rule 4 and seek guidance. The department may require her to be recused from decisions relating to that firm, or may grant a conditional clearance. Failure to disclose could result in allegations of conflict of interest affecting her official decisions.
In another scenario, Ramesh, a supervisory officer, receives a complaint from a junior woman employee that a male colleague has been sending her sexually inappropriate messages. Ramesh dismisses the complaint as a 'minor matter' and takes no action. Three months later, the harassment escalates and a formal ICC complaint is filed. The ICC inquiry finds that Ramesh was informed and failed to act. Ramesh himself faces disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3C for failure to prevent harassment.
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.