A Reference Library for Customs, Excise & Service Tax Officers and Tax Payers

The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

RULE 3. GENERAL:

Government of India Decisions

(1) Integrity of officers appointed to responsible posts – Reputation regarding honesty

In para 7 of Chapter VI of the First Five Year Plan, the Planning Commission have observed that no officer who does not have a reputation for honesty should be placed in a position in which there is considerable scope for discretion. The Government of India fully agree with this observation. While there is no intention that an officer should be penalized or condemned merely on hearsay evidence, it is necessary that all recommending authorities should, before recommending officers for responsible posts where there is considerable scope for discretion, take into account all relevant factors regarding their integrity and reputation for honesty and impartiality. This is, of course, not an entirely new principle and it has always been expected that the authorities concerned with posting and promotions should observe it in the ordinary course. In view, however, of the importance which both public opinion and Government attach to the maintenance of a high standard of integrity by Government servants, the Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring this principle specifically to the notice of such authorities under them.

[MHA OM No. 41/2/55(II)-Ests.(A), dated 23.04.1955]

(1A) Integrity of Government servants holding responsible posts – Independence and impartiality in the discharge of their duties.

Both the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954 and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 lay down inter alia that Government servants should, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. It is, in fact, axiomatic that Government servants especially those holding positions of trust and responsibility, should not only be honest and impartial in the discharge of their official duties but also have the reputation of being so. The Planning Commission have also referred to this matter in Chapter VI of the First Five Year Plan. They have observed that in their social relations and dealings, those holding responsible posts should ensure that there is no ground or occasion to suggest that some individuals have greater access or influence with them than others. Government have no doubt that their officers fully appreciate the need for maintaining a high standard of integrity and impartiality and ensuring as far as it lies in their power that their behaviour gives no room for any possible suggestions to the contrary. It is however, requested that these observations should be specifically brought to the notice of all concerned and steps should be taken to include them in the teaching given at training institutions under the Ministry of Finance etc.

[MHA OM No. 41/2/55, dated 23.04.1955]

(2) Observance of courtesies by Officers in their dealings with Members of Parliament.

Government of India would like to remind all officers that due courtesy and regard to the representatives of the people are desirable in the larger interests of the country. The Members of Parliament have important functions to perform under the Constitution and it should be the endeavor of every officer to help them to the extent possible in the discharge of their functions. In cases, however, when officers are unable to accede to the request or suggestion of Members of Parliament, the reasons for the officer’s inability to do so should be courteously explained to them. For purposes of interview, Members of Parliament should be given preference over other visitors, and in the very rare cases where an officer is unable to see a Member of Parliament at a time about which he had no previous notice, the position should be politely explained to the Member and another appointment fixed in consultation with him. The same courtesy and regard should be shown to Members of Legislatures attending public functions where, in particular, seats befitting their position should be reserved for them.

[MHA OM No. 25/29/56-Ests.(A), dated 28.08.1957]

(2A) Instructions were issued on 28.08.1957, [Decision No. (2) above] emphasizing the need for observance of proper courtesies by officers of the Government in their dealings with Members of Parliament. In continuation of these instructions, it is further emphasized that where any meeting convened by Government is to be attended by Members of Parliament, special care should be taken to see that notice is given to them in good time regarding the date, time, venue etc. of the meeting, and it should be ensured that there is no slip in any matter of detail, however, minor it may be.

[MHA OM No. 25/6/68-Ests.(A), dated 27.03.1968]

(3) Official dealings between the Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures – Observance of proper procedure – Instructions regarding.

Members of Parliament and State Legislatures occupy in our democratic set-up a very important place as accredited representatives of the people. They have important functions to perform under the Constitution and they may occasionally find it necessary to seek information from the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India or the State Governments, or make suggestions for their consideration or ask for interviews with officers in connection with their parliamentary and allied public duties. In this connection, certain well recognised principles and conventions to govern the relations between Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures and Government servants have already been established. These principles and conventions were communicated in Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No. 25/29/56-Ests.(A) dated 28th August, 1957 (decision No. 2) and Office Memorandum No. 25/6/68-Ests.(A), dated the 27th March, 1968 (decision No. 2A). However, on a review of the position it has been considered necessary to reiterate, and to spell out in some detail, the principles and practices that should govern the relations between Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures and Government servants. The instructions in this regard are contained in the subsequent paragraphs. The Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the contents of this Office Memorandum to the notice of all concerned for guidance and strict compliance.

2. The two basic principles to be borne in mind are (i) that Government servants should show courtesy and consideration to Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures and (ii) that while they should consider carefully or listen patiently to what the Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures may have to say, they should always act according to their own best judgment.

3. It should be the endeavour of every officer to help the Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures to the extent possible in the discharge of their important functions under the Constitution. In cases, however, where an officer is unable to accede to the request or suggestion of a Member, the reasons for his inability to do so should be courteously explained to the Member.

4. It is realized that many officers have very heavy public duties and responsibilities and if they are to function effectively, they should be permitted to plan out their day’s work with some care and adhere to the plan. An officer should feel free to set apart some hour when he can refuse to meet visitors without being considered guilty of discourtesy, lack of consideration and the like. He should, however, set apart some time every day when anybody can see him and, within these hours and also during other office hours in which he is to meet visitors, he must give priority to Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures except when a visitor has come by previous appointment and a Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature has come without an appointment. In such a case he should see the Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature immediately after he has met the visitor who had come by previous appointment. Any deviation from an appointment made with a Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature – or indeed with any other person – must promptly be explained to the Member concerned so that the least possible inconvenience is caused to him and a fresh appointment should be fixed in consultation with him.

5. When a Member of Parliament or of State Legislature come to see him, an officer should rise in his seat to receive the Member and to see him off. Small gestures have symbolic value and officers should, therefore, be meticulously correct and courteous in their dealings with Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures.

6. Similarly, seating arrangement at public functions should receive very careful attention at all times and it should be ensured that there is no room for any misunderstanding on this score. The position of Members of Parliament has been clearly brought out in the Warrant of Precedence approved by the President. MPs appear at Article 30 above officers of the rank of full General or equivalent, Secretaries to the Government of India, etc. The instructions appended to the Warrant of Precedence also lay down that when Members of Parliament are invited en bloc to major State functions, the enclosure reserved for them should be next to the Governors, Chief Justice, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Ambassadors, etc. A further provision in the instructions is that the Members of State Legislatures who, owing to their presence in Delhi, happens to be invited to State functions, should be assigned rank just after Members of Parliament. To avoid inconvenience to Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures who may come late, the block seats meant for them should be kept reserved till the end of the function and should not be occupied by other persons, even though they may be vacant. The seats provided for them should be at least as comfortable and as prominently placed as those for officials.

7. Letters received from Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures should be acknowledged promptly. All such letters should receive careful consideration and should be responded to at an appropriate level and expeditiously. The officers should furnish to Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures when asked for, such information or statistics relating to matters of local importance as are readily available and are not confidential. In doubtful cases instructions should be taken from a higher authority before refusing the request.

8. While the official dealings of Government servants with Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures have to be regulated as stated in the previous paragraphs, it is necessary to invite the attention of Government servants to what is expected of them in their individual capacity in respect of their own grievances in the matter of conditions of service. Under the relevant Conduct Rules governing them, Government servants are prohibited from brining or attempting to bring any political or other influence to bear upon any superior authority to further their interests in respect of matters pertaining to their service under the Government. Therefore, a Government servant is not expected to approach a Member of Parliament or of a State Legislature for sponsoring his individual case.

[DOPT OM No. 25/19/64-Ests.(A), dated 08.11.1974]

(3A) Official dealings between the Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures – Observance of proper procedure – instructions reg.

Attention is invited to Department of Personnel & A.R. OM No. 25/19/64-Estts.(A), dated 8th November, 1974 (decision No. 3) wherein broad guidelines were laid down to govern official dealings between the Administration and the Members of Parliament and State Legislatures. These guidelines were re-circulated on 23.06.1988 and again on 23.04.1991 with the request to bring these instructions to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.

2. It has been noted that of late there have been cases where due and proper courtesy was not shown to MPs/MLAs, thereby inviting adverse comments. There is, therefore, need for ensuring that proper courtesy is always shown to the Members of Parliament/State Legislatures. Therefore, it is once again reiterated that Ministries/Departments should ensure that the guidelines contained in the OM dated 8th November, 1974 are observed strictly at all levels.

3. It has further been noted that references from Committees of Parliament were not being attended to promptly. It has, therefore, been decided that all such references should be attended to promptly and should not be passed on routinely down the line. Ministries/Departments should immediately identify a senior officer at the level of Joint Secretary or equivalent who should be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the references are attended to promptly.

4. As regards treatment of letters received from members of Parliament/State Legislatures, attention is invited to the following para contained in the instruction issued by the Government of India in 1974 (referred to in para 1 above).

“7. Letters received from Members of Parliament and of State Legislatures should be acknowledged promptly. All such letters should receive careful consideration and should be responded to at an appropriate level and expeditiously. The Officers should furnish to members of Parliament and of State Legislatures when asked for, such information or statistics relating to matters of local importance as are readily available and are not confidential. In doubtful cases instructions should be taken from a higher authority before refusing request.”

5. It has also been decided that Ministries/Departments should issue instructions to ensure that in a public function organized by any of its offices in any part of the country, the members of Parliament/State Legislatures of the area are invariably invited and entry passes wherever necessary, are sent to them in advance to avoid any inconvenience to them in this regard.

6. Ministries/Departments may also ensure that while addressing communications to the members of Parliament, proper protocol conforming to their position in the Warrant of precendence should be observed. In all official correspondence, where the name of an MP is to appear alongwith others, the name should be listed according to the position assigned to the MPs in the Warrant of Precedence. Care should also be taken to address each of them as Member of Parliament (or MP) and not as Member of Lok Sabha or Member of Rajya Sabha. If it is desired to be more specific about the House to which they belong they may be addressed as Member of Parliament or MP (Lok Sabha)/(Rajya Sabha).

7. With a view to ensuring that these instructions are scrupulously followed by all concerned, it is necessary that these instructions are made available to all the Offices preferably in local languages.

8. It may please be ensured that these instructions are followed by all concerned in letter and spirit. It may also be emphasized on all concerned that a serious note will be taken of any violation of these instructions.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/2/92-Estt.(A), dated 21.12.1992]

(3B) Official dealings between Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures – Instructions regarding.

The sub-committee of the Monitoring Group of All India Whips Conference constituted to examine/scrutinize and suggest administrative measures to implement the recommendations of the Conference, has observed that the officers should not ignore telephonic messages left for them by the Members of Parliament/State Legislatures in their absence and should try to contact at the earliest the concerned Member of Parliament/State Legislature. The Government have decided to accept the above suggestion.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/8/94-Estt.(A), dated 29.12.1995]

(3C) Official dealings between the Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures – Observance of proper procedure – Reiteration of summary of instructions.

The basic principles to be borne in mind by the Government servants while interacting with the Members of Parliament and State Legislatures are that:-

(i) The Government servants should show courtesy and consideration to Members of Parliament and State Legislatures; and

(ii) that while they should consider carefully or listen patiently to what the Members of Parliament and of the State Legislatures may have to say, they should always act according to their own best judgement.

(iii) Any deviation from an appointment made with a Member must be promptly explained to him to avoid any possible inconvenience. Fresh appointment should be fixed in consultation with him.

(iv) An officer should be meticulously correct and courteous and rise to receive and see off a Member visiting him.

(v) Members of Parliament/State Legislatures of the area to be invariably invited to public function organized by a Government office. Proper and comfortable seating arrangements at public functions to be made for Members who appear above officers of the rank of Secretaries to Government of India in Warrant of Precedence.

(vi) Letters from Members of Parliament and Members of State Legislatures must be promptly acknowledged, and a reply sent at an appropriate level expeditiously. Relevant provisions of the Manual of Office Procedure should be observed in this regard.

(viii) A Government servant should not approach MPs/MLAs for sponsoring his individual case; and

(ix) References from Committees of Parliament must be attended to promptly. A senior officer at the level of Joint Secretary or equivalent should be charged with the responsibility for ensuring this.

(x) The officers should not ignore telephonic messages left for them by the Members of Parliament/State Legislatures in their absence and should try to contact at the earliest the concerned Member of Parliament/State Legislature.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/2/2000-Estt.(A), dated 23.05.2000]

(3D) Official dealings between the Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures – Observance of proper Procedure – Invitation to functions.

Reference is invited to the OM of even No. dated 23rd May, 2000 on the subject mentioned above in which it has been specified that Members of Parliament/State Legislature of the area are to be invariably invited to public functions organized by a Government office and that proper and comfortable seating arrangements at public functions should be made for the Members who appear above the officers of the rank of Secretaries to the Government of India in the Warrant of Precedence. In the context of a notice of question of privilege given by an Hon’ble Member of Parliament that he was not sent the invitation to a public function in advance, the Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha desired that the requisite instructions/guidelines be reiterated with suitable amendments, in order to ensure that the same are strictly adhered to in the right spirit, by the concerned executive functionaries.

2. Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited in this connection to Ministry of Home Affair’s OM No. 25/6/68-Ests.(A) dated 27.03.1968 (Decision No. (2A) wherein it has been emphasized that where any meeting convened by the Government is to be attended by Members of Parliament, special care should be taken to see that notice is given to them in good time regarding the date, time, venue etc. of the meeting, and it should be ensured that there is no slip in any matter of detail, however, minor it may be. Ministries/Departments are, therefore, requested to ensure that –

(i) Intimations regarding public meetings/functions be sent through speedier communication devices to the Hon’ble Members, so that they are received by them well in time.

(ii) It may also be ensured that receipt of intimation by the Member is confirmed by the officer/official concerned.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/2/2000-Estt.(A), dated 25.08.2000]

(3E) Official dealings between the Administration and Members of Parliament and State Legislatures - Observance of proper procedure – Invitation to public functions.

Reference is invited to this Department’s O.M. No. 11013/2/2000-Estt. (A) dated 25th August, 2000 (Decision 3D above) on the subject mentioned above wherein Ministries/Departments were requested to ensure that Members of Parliament/State Legislatures of the area are invariably invited to public functions organised by a Government office and that proper and comfortable seating arrangements at public functions should be made for the Members. These instructions also provide that intimations/invitations regarding public meetings/functions should be sent through speedier modes or communication and devices to the MPs so that these are received by them well in time. The receipt of the intimation by the Member was required to be confirmed by the officer/official concerned.

2. The Secretary General, Lok Sabha has pointed out that despite these instructions, complaints have been received from the Members of Parliament that they are not invited to the functions held by Government agencies in the MPs’ parliamentary constituencies. Hon’ble Speaker has desired the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to take up the matter with all the Ministries/Departments/ Government functionaries. It needs to be reiterated that Members of Parliament/State Legislatures of the area should be invariably invited to public functions organised by Government Departments, their Subordinate Offices and Public Undertakings under those Departments and intimation regarding such public meetings/functions should be sent to the Members concerned well in advance. It may also be ensured that receipt of such intimation by the Members is confirmed by the officer/official concerned. Such functions should be held, as far as possible, when Parliament is not in session.

3. All Ministries/Departments are again requested to ensure that the instructions referred to above are scrupulously followed in letter and spirit by all concerned which should leave no room for complaints by the Members of Parliament in the future.

DOPT OM No. 11013/6/2005-Estt. (A) dated 27th June, 2005.

(4) Participation by Government servants in proselytisation – instruction regarding

The question has been raised whether a specific provision should be added to the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules to prohibit Government servants from taking part in proselytizing activities.

2. The Constitution of India is based on the principle of secular state and expressly prohibits any discrimination in favour of or against any person or classes of persons on religious grounds. It follows, that, though servants of the State are entitled in their private lives freely to profess, practice or propagate any religion, they should so conduct themselves in public as to leave no room for an impression to arise that they are likely, in their official dealings, to favour persons belonging to any particular religion. Such an impression is bound to arise in respect of a Government servant who participates in brining about or organizing conversions from one religion to another and such conduct would be even more reprehensible if, in the process, he makes use, directly or indirectly, of his official position or influence.

3. As such cases are not likely to be very frequent, it has been decided that no specific provision need be added to the existing Conduct Rules. Nevertheless participation in proselytizing activities or the direct or indirect use of official position and influence in such activities on the part of a Government servant may be treated as good and sufficient reasons for taking disciplinary action against him under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.

[MHA OM No. 25/50/57-Ests.(A), dated 15.01.1958]

(5) Conduct of Government Servant in relation to the proper maintenance of his family

Instances of failure of Government servants to look after the proper maintenance of their families have come to Government’s notice. It has been suggested that a provision may be made in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, to enable Government to take action against those Government servants who do not look after their families properly.

2. The question has been examined and it has been decided that it will not be possible to make such a provision in the Conduct Rules as it would entail administrative difficulties in implementing and enforcing it. However, a Government servant is expected to maintain a responsible and decent standard of conduct in his private life and not bring discredit to his service by his misdemeanours. In cases where a Government servant is reported to have acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant as for instance, by neglecting his wife and family, departmental action can be taken against him on that score without invoking any of the Conduct Rules. In this connection, a reference is invited to Rule 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 (now Rule 11) which specifies the nature of penalties that may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed on a Government servant. It has been held that neglect by a Government servant of his wife and family in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant may be regarded as a good and sufficient reason to justify action being taken against him under this rule.

3. It should, however, be noted that in such cases the party affected has a legal right to claim maintenance. If any legal proceedings in this behalf should be pending in a court of law, it would not be correct for Government to take action against the Government servant on this ground as such action may be construed by the court to amount to contempt.

[MHA OM No. 25/16/59-Ests.(A), dated 01.09.1959]

(6) Government servant’s role in the eradication of untouchability

At the meeting of Central Advisory Board for Harijan Welfare held on the 27th April, 1961 the following recommendations were made:-

The Central Government may impress upon all its servants and request State Governments to do likewise:-

(a) That severe notice shall be taken of the practice of untouchability in Government offices and by Government servants; and

(b) That the police and the Magistracy have a special obligation to enforce the provisions of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, and it is the duty of all Government servants to help them in the enforcement of the Act and in creating the necessary climate to remove untouchability from the mind of the orthodox section of the community.

The Government have accepted these recommendations.

It is specifically brought to the notice of all the Government servants that Article 17 (Part. III - Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution declares that “Untouchability” is abolished and forbids its practice in any form; the practice of untouchability has also been made an offence by the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955. If any Government servant is guilty of the practice of untouchability in any form, he will be liable to prosecution and such conduct on his part will constitute a sufficient ground for imposing a suitable penalty prescribed under the appropriate control and discipline rule. Government expects its employees not only to observe strictly the law in force but also to set an example to others in the matters of complete elimination of the practice of untouchability in any form.

A Government servant, who is found guilty of the practice of untouchability in any form, will be considered unfit for public service and disciplinary action will be taken against him.

[MHA OM No. F.70/17/61-Ests.(A), dated 08.12.1961 as further clarified by OM No. 25/29/66-Ests.(A), dated 21.01.1967]

(7) Role of Public services – Estimate Committee’s recommendation in their 93rd Report on the Public Service.

The Estimates Committee have made the following recommendations in para 20 of their Ninety-third Report (1965-66) regarding the role of Public Services:-

“At the same time, the Committee are constrained to mention the general feeling among the people of lack of spirit of service expected of the members of the public services and also of the dilatory methods and tactics in their dealings with the public. The Committee feel that these lapses on the part of the public services very often compel the public to seek the intervention of legislators or public men of importance for the disposal of even matters of routine nature. The Committee would like Government to bring home to the services that their first obligation is to render service to, and not merely to exercise authority over, the public. An improvement in the attitude and conduct of services towards the common man is necessary for the people’s active cooperation in the stupendous task of building the nation through developmental planning and its implementation; and this improvement in their attitude and conduct should be visible to the common man. The Committee hope that the services would realize the particular obligations of the welfare state undertaking planned development through democratic methods for which voluntary cooperation of the people is essential and which can be enlisted only through courteous behaviour of the public service of all levels.

The Committee, therefore, cannot too strongly stress the need for prompt and courteous service to the public which, in turn, through courteous and helpful attitude, can be educated to act towards the services in a responsible, restrained and courteous manner. The Committee hope that Government would be ever watchful in ensuring that Government machinery as a whole and particularly such segments of it as come in direct contact with the public, are helpful in attitude and quick in disposal of cases and that deterrent and prompt action is taken against discourteous behaviour and dilatory tactics.”

2. Government have decided that the above recommendations of the Committee should be brought to the notice of all the Ministries/Departments etc., for information and guidance. If any complaint is received against any Government servant that he has acted in a discourteous manner or adopted dilatory tactics in his dealings with the public and if it is established that he has so acted, deterrent and prompt action should be taken against him.

3. Ministry of Finance etc. may also kindly bring the contents of this Office Memorandum to the notice of all the training institutions for Government employees under their control and direct them to lay special emphasis in their training programmes on the very salutary recommendations made by the Estimates Committee. The recommendations of the Estimates Committee may also be brought to the individual notice of all Government employees.

[MHA OM No. 14/9/66-Ests.(A)-I, dated 03.08.1966]

(8) Observance of proper decorum by Government servants during the lunch-break playing games beyond the prescribed lunch hour and playing cards in the open to be discouraged.

It has been observed that a number of Government employees play cards on lawns outside the office buildings and other open spaces inside the North and South Blocks. These games generally degenerate into gambling and non-Government servants also sometimes participate in such games. The sight of groups of Government servants’ playing cards around and inside Government offices is not becoming and does not promote discipline and decorum in Government offices.

2. It has also been noticed that a large number of Government employees continue to move about or play games in the quadrangles and the lawns well beyond the prescribed lunch hour of half an hour. Besides this, the indoor games are continued till very late in the evening, which puts a strain on security arrangements in Government buildings.

3. It has, therefore, been decided that:-

(i) No Government employee should play cards on the lawn and such other places inside and outside office buildings;

(ii) The game of cards should be confined to the recreation rooms or places approved for such purposes;

(iii) No indoor games should be played in office buildings after 7.00 p.m. except on special occasions such as tournaments etc.

4. Persons found violating these instructions will be liable to disciplinary action.

5. It will be appreciated if departmental instructions in regard to the above decision are issued by the Ministries/Departments concerned and a copy endorsed to this Ministry for information.

[MHA DO No. 15/45/67-SSO, dated 11.08.1967]

(8A) It has come to the notice of the Ministry of Home Affairs that the lunch hour is not strictly observed by some staff and some of them are even found playing cards outside Government offices and buildings after the lunch hour. The Ministry of Finance etc. are, therefore, requested to ensure by periodical surprise checks that the staff under them do not overstay the lunch hour. They may also bring to the notice of the staff the undesirability of their playing cards in lawns, outside Government offices/buildings vide the Ministry of Home Affairs d.o. letter No. F.15/45/67-SSO dated 11th August, 1967, to all the Vigilance Officers (Decision No. 8) above.

[MHA OM No. 46/4/68-Ests.(A), dated 23.04.1968]

(8B) It has, however, been noticed that inspite of these instructions the staff in some offices are found to be playing card games etc. during lunch break in the lawns and open places outside the office premises as also on the lawns of the traffic islands and roundabouts located in busy thoroughfares close to the various office premises. They have also been seen loitering around even after the lunch break time is over. As all these necessarily create an unfavourable impression on the public the need for strict compliance with the existing instructions is all the more necessary in the context of various dignitaries visiting Delhi on the occasion of CHOGM. The Ministry of Finance, etc. are, therefore requested to bring these instructions once again to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance.

[DP & AR’s OM No. 11013/20/83-Estt. (A), dated 21.11.1983]

(9) Disciplinary action for acts done in previous or earlier employment.

It is clarified that the provision of rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which envisages the imposition of penalties on Government servants for ‘good and sufficient reason’, is adequate authority for taking action against a Government servant in respect of misconduct committed before his employment if the misconduct was of such a nature as has rational connection with his present employment and renders him unfit and unsuitable for continuing in service. When such action is taken, the charge should specifically state that the misconduct alleged is such that it renders him unfit and unsuitable for continuance in service.

[MHA OM No. 39/1/67-Ests.(A), dated 21.02.1967]

(10) Display of posters and other notices by Government servants/Union Associations on the walls, etc., of Government Offices and buildings

Of late, growing tendency has been noticed among Government servants, acting individually or though their unions/associations, of affixing posters and other notices on the wall, doors, etc., of Government offices and buildings.

2. In this connection attention is invited to the Department of Labour and Employment OM No. 18/21/60-LRI dated the 9th May, 1961 (extract below), which prescribed the nature of posters that can be displayed by the recognized associations/trade unions on notice boards in the office premises with the permission of the competent authority at the places specified for this purpose. The facility so provided to recognized associations/unions does not confer on individual Government servants or their associations/unions any right to display posters or other notices on the walls, doors, etc., of the office premises.

3. The Ministry of Finance, etc., are requested to enlist the cooperation of their employees and the recognized staff associations/unions in the matter for ensuring maintenance of neat and tidy appearance of the office buildings and premises. Government servants who affix or display posters/notices or are responsible for the display of such notices in violation of these instructions would be rendering themselves liable to appropriate action.

[Department of Personnel OM No. 25/17/71-Ests.(A), dated 26.08.1971]

(11) Duty of Supervisory Officers for ensuring the integrity and devotion to duty.

Under Rule 3 (2) (i) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, “every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority”.

2. The National Council set up under the Machinery for Joint Consultation and Compulsory Arbitration in its meeting held on 28th July, 1972 adopted a recommendation of the committee set up by the Council to consider the item “Amendment of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, to the effect that clarification may be issued that sub-rule (i) of rule 3 (2) is intended to be invoked only in cases where there has been a failure on the part of supervisory officer concerned to take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of Government servants under his control and authority.

[Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel OM No. 25/2/72-Ests. (A), dated 10.01.1973]

(12) Third Report of the Committee of the National Council (JCM) set up to consider the item ‘Amendment of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Read full text?

[MHA, Department of Personnel & A.R. OM No. 11013/18/76-Est.(A) dated the 7th February, 1977]

(13) Oral instructions by Superior Officers – to be avoided

That the practice adopted by the senior officials and the personal staff of the Ministers in conveying oral instruction to their subordinates has been brought to the notice of the Department of Personnel and A.R. It has further been suggested to this Department that the role of oral instruction in the transaction of business of the Government has to be defined and definite guidelines set down. The matter has been carefully examined and the Government has taken the decisions contained in the succeeding paragraphs.

2. The role of oral instructions in the transaction of business of Government has already been specified under sub-rule 2 (ii) [now sub-rule (iii) and (iv)] of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which inter alia, provides as follows:-

“No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible.”

3. Clarificatory instructions were issued vide this Department’s OM No. 11013/18/76-Estt.(A), dated 07.02.1977 (decision No. 12) to the effect that it is the duty of the superior official giving direction to confirm it in writing when such confirmation is sought by his subordinates. It is not open to the superior officer to refuse to confirm in writing the direction given by him orally, just as it is open to him to state immediately that no such direction was given.

4. In the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Conduct Rules, and the instructions issued thereunder, it is impressed upon all Government servants that:-

(i) Oral instructions should not, as far as possible, be issued by senior officers to their subordinates;

(ii) if the oral instructions are issued by any senior officer they should be confirmed by him in writing immediately thereafter;

(iii) if a junior officer seeks confirmation to the oral instructions given by the senior, the latter should confirm it in writing whenever such confirmation is sought.

(iv) a junior officer who has received oral orders from his superior officer should seek confirmation in writing as early as practicable;

(v) whenever a member of the personal staff of a Minister communicates an oral order on behalf of the Minister, it should be confirmed by him in writing immediately thereafter;

(vi) if a junior officer receives oral instructions from the Minister or from his personal staff and the orders are in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations or procedures, they should be brought to the notice of the Secretary or the Head of the Department, as the case may be, for information.

(vii) if a junior officer receives oral instructions from the Minister or from his personal staff and the orders are not in accordance with the norms, rules, regulations or procedures, they should seek further clear orders from the Secretary or the Head of the Department, as the case may be, about the line of action to be taken, stating clearly that the oral instructions are not in accordance with the rules, regulations, norms or procedures.

5. Since the personal staff of Minister whether belonging to organized services or otherwise are governed by the provisions of the Conduct Rules, 1964, they are also required to observe the orders outlined in the preceding paragraph.

[MHA, DP & AR OM No. 11013/12/78-Ests.(A), dated 01.08.1978]

(14) Joining of Educational Institution by Government servants outside normal office hours –

Please see decisions Nos. (1) and (2) under Rule 15.

(15) Conviction of Government servants - Requirements regarding intimation to department superiors –

Please see decision No. (1) under Rule 19.

(16) Government servants seeking redress in Courts of Law of their grievances arising out of their employment or Conditions of Service –

Please see decision No. (2) under Rule 19.

(17) Participation in shramdan activities Organised by Government departments or Bharat Sevak Samaj –

Please see decision No. 3 under Rule 15.

(18) Joining Civil Defence – Permissible –

Please see decision No. (8) under Rule 15.

(19) Incentives to Central Government Servants who are members of St. John Ambulance Brigade –

Please see decision No. (11) under Rule 15.

(20) Role of oral instructions in the transaction of Government business.

Attention is invited to the provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and paras 25 to 25-C of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure (paras 31 to 34 of eleventh edition 1996) which define the scope and role of oral instructions in the transaction of Government business and also lay down the detailed procedure to be followed whenever it becomes necessary to give oral directions by a higher officer to a subordinate or when a member of the Personal Staff of the Minister communicates an oral order on behalf of the Minister. Instances have come to notice where the above provisions have not been followed.

2. The purpose for keeping a proper written record of policy decisions taken by the various Government functionaries, when action in this regard is to be initiated on the basis of oral instructions given by senior officers, is to ensure proper accountability of the decisions taken on important matters and have a record of the considerations leading to the decision. It is, therefore, reiterated that the procedure prescribed in the Manual of Office Procedure and the provisions of the Conduct Rules referred to above should be scrupulously followed at all levels in order to avoid ambiguity or doubts and to specify responsibility when important decisions are taken. It is clarified that these provisions apply equally to matters, which may be considered sensitive or secret. In such cases of sensitive nature, adequate care should however be taken to accord proper security classification to the relevant papers and to ensure their safe custody as envisaged in the Manual of Departmental Security Instructions.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/4/88-Estt.(A), dated 19.04.1988]

(21) Association of Secretaries to the Government of India with Public Sector Undertakings

Reference is invited to this Department’s OM No. 11017/11/93-AIS (III) dated 12th July, 1993 wherein it was conveyed, with the approval of Prime Minister, that as a general policy, Secretaries to Government need not be appointed to the Boards of Public Sector Undertakings or in such companies with which Public Sector Undertakings are intimately involved. It is hereby clarified that the policy referred to above would apply to Secretaries of Departments irrespective of the service to which they belong.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/11/93-Estt.(A), dated 25.10.1993]

(22) Need to maintain independence and impartiality by Government servants in the discharge of their duties

In the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 41/2/55(II)-Estt. (A), dated 23rd April, 1955, instructions were issued emphasizing the need for Government servants, especially those holding positions of trust and responsibility, remaining not only honest and impartial in the discharge of their duties but also having the reputation of being so. Despite these instructions, it is not uncommon that complaints of favourtism or illwill shown by officers in supervisory positions towards their subordinates or other members of public are received every now and then.

2. While reiterating the instructions, issued in the Ministry of Home Affairs OM referred to above, it is again stressed that a Government servant must be impartial and must not show undue favour or illwill in his official dealings. If a Government servant is found to misuse his official position or to abet and connive at improper and illegal acts, he would render himself liable for disciplinary action for violation of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/10/93-Estt.(A), dated 06.10.1993]

(23) Requirement of taking prior permission by Government servants for leaving station/headquarters – clarification regarding

Doubts have been expressed by Ministries/Departments as to whether a Government servant is required to take permission before leaving station/headquarters during leave or otherwise, especially for visits abroad.

2. Attention of the Ministries/Departments is invited in this connection to the provisions of FR 11 which provides that ‘unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him….’ Article 56 of the Civil Service Regulations also provides that ‘no officer is entitled to pay and allowance for any time he may spend beyond the limits of his charge without authority.’ It is implicit in these provisions that a Government servant is required to take permission for leaving station/headquarters. It is thus clear that such permission is essential before a Government servant leaves his station or headquarters and more so when he proposes to go abroad during such absence, as such visit may have wider implications.

3. However, separate permission may not be necessary where a Government servant has indicated his intention of leaving headquarters/station alongwith leave address while applying for leave. The leave application form prescribed under the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 contains necessary columns in this regard. In case the leave applied for the purpose of visiting foreign country is sanctioned, it would imply that permission for going abroad is also granted and therefore leave sanctioning authorities should keep this aspect in mind while granting the leave applied for. In the case of officers who are competent to sanction leave for themselves they should obtain permission for leaving station from their superior authority. Failure to obtain permission of competent authority before leaving station/headquarters especially for foreign visits is to be viewed seriously and may entail disciplinary action.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/7/94-Estt.(A), dated 18.05.1994]

(23A) Requirement of taking prior permission by Government servants for leaving station/headquarters – Clarification regarding.

Reference is invited to Department’s OM No. 11013/7/94-Estt. (A) dated 18th May, 1994 (decision No. 23) on the subject mentioned above in which it has inter-alia been clarified that separate permission may not be necessary where a Government servant has indicated his intention of leaving headquarters/station alongwith leave address while applying for leave. It has also been clarified that in case leave applied for the purpose of visiting foreign country is sanctioned, it would imply that permission for going abroad is also granted and, therefore, leave sanctioning authority should keep this aspect in mind while granting the leave applied for.

2. The above instructions have been reviewed and it has been decided that while granting leave the sanctioning authority shall take prior approval, if required, for permitting the officer to go abroad as per the existing instructions.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/8/2000-Estt.(A), dated 07.11.2000]

(23B) Requirement of taking prior permission by Government servants for leaving station/headquarters – Clarification regarding.

Reference is invited to this Department’s O.M. No. 11013/7/94-Estt. (A) dated the 18th May, 1994 in which it has inter alia, been clarified that the Government servant should take permission for leaving station/headquarters especially for private visits abroad. It has also been clarified in O.M. No. 11013/8/2000-Estt. (A) dated the 7th November, 2000 that the leave sanctioning authority while granting leave shall take prior approval, if required, for permitting the officer to go abroad as per the existing instructions. Despite these instructions, instances have come to the notice of the Government where Government servants have left their headquarters without taking prior permission and proceeded abroad.

2. The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment dated the 28th May, 2004 in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1004/03 (Chandra Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India,) has observed that a Government servant who had visited some foreign countries 161 times on private visits without permission was never questioned and no one in the customs and the other departments suspected why a Government servant was so frequently (161 times) making private visits without permission. The High Court has, therefore, directed the Central Government to frame guidelines on foreign private visits of the Government servants.

3. Keeping in view the observation of the High Court the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the existing instructions on the subject matter to the notice of all concerned and ensure that Government servants take prior permission before leaving for visits abroad as required under these instructions. When such permissions to visit abroad sought the Government servant is required to furnish information relating to the proposed and previous private visits as per the proforma (enclosed).

PROFORMA

(See O.M. No. 11013/7/2004-Estt.(A) dated 5th October, 2004)

1. Name
2. Designation
3. Pay
4. Ministry/Department (Specify Centre/State/PSU)
5. Passport No.
6. Details of private foreign travel to be undertaken

Period abroad Names of Foreign Countries to be visited Purpose Estimated Expenditure (Travel; board/ lodging, visa, misc. etc.) Source of Funds Remarks
From To



 
           

7. Details of previous private foreign travel, if any
undertaken during the last one year (as under item No. 6)

  Name:
           Designation:
Date:

[DOPT OM No. 11013/7/2004-Estt.(A), dated 05.10.2004]

(23C) Requirement of taking prior permission by Government servants for leaving station/headquarters – Clarification regarding.

Reference is invited to this Department’s O.M. dated 5th October, 2004 (decision No. 23B) under which a proforma has been prescribed for the Government servants to furnish details of the private foreign travel proposed as well as undertaken during the last one year by them. The High Court of Delhi during further hearing in respect of direction given in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1004/2003 (Chandra Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India) observed on 17.11.2004 that it would be advisable for the Department of Personnel & Training, to amend the proforma published with the Office Memorandum dated 5th October, 2004 so as to obtain details of previous private foreign travel, if any, undertaken by the Central Government employees during the last four to five years.

2. The matter has been considered and it has been decided that in the entries against serial number 7 of the proforma prescribed under the O.M. dated 5th October, 2004, the words “last one year” may be substituted by the words “last four years”. A revised proforma is enclosed.

3. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the contents of the Office Memorandum dated 5th October, 2004 as well as this Office Memorandum to the notice of all Government servants serving under their control and ensure that these are strictly followed by all concerned.

PROFORMA

(See O.M. No. 11013/7/2004-Estt.(A) dated 5th Oct, 2004 and dated 15th Dec, 2004)

1. Name
2. Designation
3. Pay
4. Ministry/Department (Specify Centre/State/PSU)
5. Passport No.
6. Details of private foreign travel to be undertaken

Period abroad Names of Foreign Countries to be visited Purpose Estimated Expenditure (Travel; board/ lodging, visa, misc. etc.) Source of Funds Remarks
From To



           

7. Details of previous private foreign travel, if any
undertaken during the last four years (as under item No. 6)

  Name:
           Designation:
Date:

[DOPT OM No. 11013/7/2004-Estt.(A), dated 15.12.2004]”

(24) Implementation of prescribed procedure, rules, orders etc. on service matters.

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions and the Ministry of Finance are the nodal Ministries responsible for formulating policies and framing rules and regulations relating to service conditions and other aspects of personnel administration of Government servants. The administrative Ministries/Departments are responsible for considering individual cases of Government servants and issuing appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the rules and instructions on the subject.

2. Complaints have been received in this Department that litigation on service matters is on the increase due to non-implementation or incorrect implementation of laid down policies and rules. Every Government servant is required to maintain at all times devotion to duty. Every Government servant is also required to act in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties or in exercise of powers conferred on him. It is thus enjoined upon all Government servants that they should faithfully implement the laid down policies, rules and regulations, etc. in service matters. If the prescribed policies, rules, orders etc. on service matters are adhered to and implemented properly by administrative authorities etc., litigation on service matters would be considerably reduced.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/6/94-Estt.(A), dated 27.05.1994]

(25) Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan regarding sexual harassment of working women.

Read full text?

[DOPT OM No. 11013/10/97-Estt.(A), dated 13.02.1998]

(25A) Prevention of sexual harassment of working women

The above guidelines (decision No. 25) inter-alia stipulate for the creation of an appropriate complaint mechanism in every organization for re-dressal of the complaints made by the victims. It has come to the notice of this Department that in one of the Central Government Offices, the Committee constituted for the purpose was headed by an official of the rank of Upper Division Clerk. As an official not sufficiently higher in rank may not be able to express views independently/freely especially when the perpetrator is holding an higher position, the arrangement makes mockery of the system. It is, therefore, requested that the Committee constituted for redressal of the complaints by the victims of sexual harassment should be headed by an officer sufficiently higher in rank, so as to lend credibility to the investigations.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/10/97-Estt.(A), dated 13.07.1999]

(25B) Report of the Complaints Committee constituted for prevention of sexual harassment of women at work places – follow up action

Reference is invited to this Department’s OM No. 11013/10/97-Estt. (A) dated 13th February, 1998 under which the guidelines and norms laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (JT 1997 (7) SC 384) for prevention of sexual harassment of women at work places, were circulated to all Ministries/Departments for compliance by all concerned.

2. The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court provide, inter-alia, for the constitution of a Complaints Committee in the employer’s organization for redress of the complaint made by the victim. In this connection, a question has been raised regarding the status of the inquiry held by the Complaints Committee. It is clarified that the findings of the Complaints Committee regarding sexual harassment of the complainant/victim will be binding on the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Government servant(s) concerned under the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The report of the Complaints Committee should be treated as a preliminary report against the accused Government servant.

[DOPT OM No. 11013/11/2001-Estt.(A), dated 12.12.2002]

(25C). Report of the Complaints Committee constituted for prevention of sexual harassment of women at work places – follow up action.

Reference is invited to this Department’s O.M. of even number dated 12th December, 2002 in which it has been clarified that the report of the Complaints Committee should be treated as a preliminary report against the accused Government servant.

2. In the order dated 26.04.2004 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 173-177/1999 (Medha Kotwal Lele & Others Vs. Union of India and others) the Supreme Court has directed that “the report of the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the rules.” Sub-rule (2) of rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has accordingly been amended to provide that the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these Rules by the Notification No. 11012/5/2001-Estt. (A) dated 01.07.2004 (GSR 225 dated 10th July, 2004).

3. In view of the said amendment made to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the instructions contained in the O.M. No. 11013/11/2001-Estt. (A) dated 12th December, 2002 should be treated as modified and the report of the Complaints Committee should be treated as an enquiry report and not a preliminary report.


Disclaimer | Updated on
All Rights Reserved ©2005-16.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Referencer®
webadmin@referencer.in