As per Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, the scope of "censure" is summarised as follows:

" an order of 'censure' is a formal and public act intended to convey that the person concerned has been guilty of some blame-worthy act or omission for which it has been found necessary to award him a formal punishment, and nothing can amount to a 'censure' unless it is intended to be such a formal punishment and imposed for good and sufficient reasons after following the prescribed procedure. A record of the punishment so imposed is kept on this officer's confidential rolls and the fact that he has been censured will have its bearing on the assessment of his merit or suitability for promotion to higher posts."
[Circular No.29/32//5/Ests(A)dated 13.12.56 - Ministry of Home Affairs]

In a subsequent circular the Ministry has clarified the procedure for making the punishment of censure. It has further pointed out that the officer making the formal order of censure should act in a responsible manner and should make an objective analysis.

In a more recent clarification it is observed, that at least 'censure' to be awarded if the official is to be penalised. In other words it is pointed out that 'warning' should not be issued as a result of such proceedings. The penalty of 'censure' is the minimum to be imposed, when it is found that as a result of the proceedings some blame attaches to the officer.
[OM.No.2011/1/79 Estt (A) dated the 30th Januar,1982]

The clarifications conclusively convey that 'censure' is an outlet, to close the disciplinary case, where the main allegations are not proved, but some minor blame is found still attaching to the delinquent officer. It is neither justified to inflict harsh punishment to the delinquent officer, nor possible to award him totally a clean chit. The punishment of 'censure' is a way out in such situations.

If the employer or the organization that the employee serves incurs any loss on account of the employee, it can be recovered invoking the contractual obligations of the employee and no inquiry is needed. If such loss is recovered it is not a punishment, it is by way of recompensation. The fact is that merely invoking a contractual obligation and recovering the loss, does not amount to a punishment, while it is done through a disciplinary action, it lends a stigma to the employee and recognizes that he has committed a misconduct. It is also possible that the employee may not be co-operating and resisting recovery, when requested for outside a departmental inquiry. In such a case initiating a disciplinary case and serving a charge sheet is the answer.

Further it is also clarified that "while normally there should be no necessity to imposing two penalties at a time, there is no bar to awarding the penalty of recovery along with any other penalty. But in such cases also the severity of the strain vis-a-vis the nature of the offence committed by the official should be carefully assessed and borne in mind by the punishing authority.

Further the penalties indicated in Rule 11 of C.C.S.(C.C.A) Rules are graded only. Accordingly when the penalty of recovery is awarded, there should be no necessity to award a lower penalty. The necessity to award another penalty should arise only when it is considered absolutely necessary to award a higher penalty like 'reduction'.
[D & G, P & T.No.105/26/8-Vig III dated 30.03.81]

In such cases it is expedient to effect recovery in convenient installments spread over a period of time, so that undue hardship is not caused to the employee. It is desirable that the employee's take home pay is not less than 50% of his gross emoluments, less deduction for P.F and Life Insurance.(which are in the nature of savings and not loan repayments)

Withholding of increment can be effected only on increments accruing after date of punishment order. It cannot affect the increment which was due prior to the date of the punishment order, even though it may not have been actually released due to any administrative reasons of delay.

When the penalty of withholding increment is awarded to an employee, it is obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to specify the period for which the penalty must remain current. It is further clarified that where an order of penalty purports to withhold, the "next increment" for a specified period, it implies that all the increments falling due during that period will be withheld, because without getting the next increment, an officer cannot get increments falling after the next increment. All disciplinary authorities should therefore, ensure that the orders of penalty are correctly worded in accordance with their intention. Thus if it is desired that only one increment should be withheld over a specified period it should not be stated in the order that the "next increment" be withheld for a specified period. The proper course of action in such a case would be to specifically order that "one increment' be withheld for a specified period. Such an order will have the effect of withholding one increment only over a specified period and the official concerned will be able to draw the subsequent increments falling during the period, of course depressed by one increment which is withheld.
[D.G & P.T. Letter No.20/41/66-Disc., dated the 14th April,1967]

This punishment should not be awarded when the employee/officer has already reached the ceiling of his scale of pay and has no more increments due to be secured in the existing scale. In such a case the punishment becomes illogical and unenforceable. A milder form of this punishment is to withhold increment without cumulative effect. In this case, the next ensuing increment is not released on due date, but released along with the increment for the subsequent year after the next year or after the specific period of withholding expires.

In case of all minor penalties, the employee continues to draw his current remuneration, and only one or more benefits to accrue in future may be suspended or stopped.

But when a punishment of withholding of increment is awarded and its effects are in operation, i.e. the officer employee has not reached the level of salary, that he would reach, but for the punishment, a second punishment of withholding of increments, if awarded can be implemented, only after the full effects of the first punishment are cleared. The relevant clarifications of the Government of India are as under:

"..it has now been decided that where the disciplinary authority imposes penalties of stoppage of increment one after the other in separate cases, on the Government Servant, the effect of the first punishment order of stoppage of increment will continue for the period specified in the punishment order. Thereafter the pay of the government servant will be raised by giving him increments, which, but for the position of the penalty, would have been admissible to him and only then the second order of stoppage of increment will be made effective, which will continue for the period specified in the second punishment order for stoppage of increment and so on."
[Director General, Posts & Telegraphs No.230/308/75--Disc.II, dated 3rd May,1976]

Guidelines issued by the Director of Posts & Telegraphs are quoted as under:

A question has been raised as to how the penalties imposed on a Government Servant are to be implemented, when the punishment awarded to him against the earlier proceeding is already current. In other words, when the first penalty imposed against the Government Servant is of a lower Grade and the second penalty of higher grade is imposed against him during the currency of the first penalty.

The normal procedure should be that when any disciplinary case crops up during the currency of an earlier penalty, the disciplinary authority should clearly indicate in the punishment order whether the two penalties should run concurrently or the subsequent penalty should be implemented only after expiry of the first penalty. It has been decided that where, however, such a specific mention has not been made, two punishments should run concurrently and the higher penalty, even though ordered later, should be implemented immediately and after expiry of its period, if the currency of the period of earlier punishment, i.e. lower punishment, still continues, then the same may be implemented for the balance period. In this context the example may bring the point home.

Supposing an official was punished vide order dated, 1st December, 1977 with reduction to the minimum stage of Rs.425/- in the scale of Rs.425-640 for a period of four years with effect from 1st January 1978. Another punishment order against him was issued on 28th June, 1978 inflicting a penalty of reduction from L.S.G Scale (Rs.425-640)to time scale (Rs.280-480) at the stage of Rs.396/- for a period of three years with effect from 1st July, 1978. In this case, it would be observed that the currency of the first penalty is from 1-1-1978 to 31.12.81 and that of the second penalty (higher one) from 1-7-78 to 30.06.81. With the imposition of the higher penalty during the period of the first punishment, the second punishment, i.e. the higher one, would become effective from 1-07-1978 and would last up to 30.06.81. For the balance period, i.e. from 01.07.1981 to 31.12.1981, the first penalty which is deemed to be running concurrently would be implemented.
[Director of Posts & Telegraphs in Letter No.154/5//78-Disc.II, dated the 30th July, 1981]

Obviously if the officer is a misfit and not eligible for promotion in the foreseeable future, this punishment if awarded to him has no significance. If the promotion is already approved and the employee is kept in panel along with other officers, this punishment may normally be considered and the effective date of his promotion deferred. However if the officer is not already selected and paneled, awarding this penalty should not stop the eligibility of the officer for being considered for promotion. And if he is selected for the promotion, he must be allowed to join the higher post, i.e. enjoy the benefit of promotion, after the period of with holding is over.

Whether the penalty of 'censure' is a bar to eligibility to sit for departmental Examination for promotion or for promotion proper?

"The fact of the imposition of the minor penalty of censure on a government servant does not by itself stand against the consideration of such person for promotion, as his fitness for the promotion has to be judged, in the case of promotion by seniority, on the basis of the over-all assessment of his service record, and in the case of promotion by selection by merit, on the basis of his merit categorisation, which is again based upon an overall assessment of his service record. So far as the eligibility of the government servant who has been awarded the penalty of 'censure', to appear at a departmental promotional examination is concerned, the same principle would apply, viz. that he cannot, merely because of the penalty of 'censure' be debarred at appearing for such examination. In case, however, the rules of such examination lay down that only those eligible persons can be allowed to appear at the examination, who are considered fit for the purpose, the fitness of an eligible candidate, who has been awarded the penalty of censure, to appear at the examination has to be considered on the basis of an overall assessment of his service record and not merely on the basis of the penalty of censure."
[Govt. of India, Chief Secretary, (Departmental personnel) O.M.No.21/5/70-Ests.(A) dated the 15th May 197l]

Whether the Responsibility of the Employee for any loss is indirect, should he be debarred from being considered for promotion during the period of recovery of loss; and In case of stoppage of increment should an employee be debarred from being considered for promotion?

"Recovery from the pay of the government servant of the whole or any part of pecuniary loss caused by him to the government by negligence or breach of orders, of withholding of pay are also minor penalties laid down in Rule No.11 of the (C.C.S.(C.C.A)Rules. As in the case of promotion of a government servant, who has been awarded the penalty of censure, the penalty of recovery from his pay of the loss caused by him to government or of withholding of his increment(s) does not stand in the way of his consideration of promotion though in the latter case promotion is not given effect to during currency of the penalty. While therefore the imposition of such a penalty does not by itself debar, it is also taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee, or the competent authority, as the case may be, in the overall assessment of his service record for judging his suitability or otherwise for promotion and of his fitness for admission to a Departmental Promotional Examination (where fitness of the candidate is a condition precedent to such admission")
[Govt. of India, Chief Secretary, (Departmental personnel) O.M.No.21/5/70-Ests.(A) dated the 15th May 197l]

An officer whose increments have been withheld or who has been reduced to a lower stage in the time scale, cannot be considered on that account to be ineligible for promotion to higher grade, as the specific penalty of withholding promotion has not been imposed on him. The suitability of the officer for promotion should be assessed by the competent authority, as and when occasion arises for such assessment. In assessing the suitability the competent authority will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of the general service record of the officer and the fact of the imposition of the penalty he should be considered suitable for promotion. Even when, however, the competent authority considers that in spite of the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer should not be promoted during the currency of the penalty.
[Govt. of India, Chief Secretary, (Departmental personnel) O.M.No.22011/6/75-Ests.(D) dated the 30th December, 1976]