As soon as the report about the conviction is received from the S.P.E., and if it happens that the Government servant convicted had not been placed under suspension, the appropriate disciplinary authority should decide whether he should now be suspended. In cases where the conviction is for a term of imprisonment exceeding 48 hours, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been suspended under Rule 10(2)(b) of Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. A formal order about such deemed suspension will be issued by the disciplinary authority for purpose of administrative record.

Having come to know of the conviction of a Government servant on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority must consider whether his conduct, which had led to his conviction, was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and if so, what that penalty should be. In considering the matter the disciplinary authority should take into account the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, the impact which his misconduct is likely have on the administration and other extenuating circumstances or redeeming features. Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the government servant's conduct was blameworthy and punishable, it must decide upon the penalty that should be imposed on the Government servant keeping in mind that the penalty imposed is not grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed, or one not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the offence for which the public servant has been convicted was such as to render his retention in the public service prima facie undesirable, it can impose upon him under Rule 19(i) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965, the penalty of dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement from service, as may be considered appropriate, with reference to the gravity of the office, without holding any enquiry, referred to in the proviso to article 311 (2) of the constitution.

In a case in which the offence for which a Government servant has been convicted is not considered such as to render his retention in public service prima facie undesirable, the appropriate disciplinary authority may impose any of the penalties, other than those of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from the service, specified in Rule 11 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965, as may be considered appropriate under Rule 19(i) of the rules without holding any further enquiry.

The disciplinary authority may, if it comes to the conclusion that an order with a view to imposing a penalty on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge should be issued, issue such an order without waiting for the period of filing an appeal or, if an appeal has been filed, without waiting for the decision in the first court of appeal. If, however, a restraining order from an appellate court is produced, action has, of course, to be withheld or taken according to the Court's direction.

In cases in which a public servant is acquitted by the trial court, the judgement will be examined by the S.P.E. to consider whether an appeal or an application for revision should be filed in the first court of appeal. If the S.P.E. come to the conclusion that such an appeal or an application for revision should be filed, a copy of the judgment together with the copy of the comments of the S.P.E. will be forwarded by them to the concerned administrative Department. If that Department agree with the recommendation of the S.P.E., a certified copy of the judgment and of the comments of the S.P.E. will be forwarded by them to the State counsel for filing an appeal or application for revision, as the case may be . A copy of such reference will be endorsed by the Department to the Central Bureau of Investigation

In the case of a Government servant who was under suspension and against whose acquittal an appeal or a revision application is filed, it may be considered whether it is necessary to continue him under suspension. If not, the order of suspension may be revoked immediately.

If the Government servant is acquitted by the first appellate court, the S.P.E. will decide whether the acquittal should be challenged in a still higher court, and if it is so decided, action to institute proper proceedings will be taken by the S.P.E.

If the Government servant is acquitted by trial or appellate court and if it is decided that the acquittal should not be challenged in a higher court, the competent authority should decide whether or not despite the acquittal, the facts and circumstances of the case are such as to call for a departmental enquiry on the basis of the allegations on which he was previously charged and convicted. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Nagpur City Corporation vs. Ram Chandra and other [SC 396 of 1980-SLR 1981 (2)], even where the accused public servant is acquitted and exonerated of an offence, such acquittal does not bar a departmental authority from holding or continuing disciplinary proceedings against the accused public servant.

On identical set of facts and allegations may constitute a criminal offence as well as misconduct punishable under the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules or other corresponding rules. If the facts or allegations had been examined by a court of competent jurisdiction and if the court held that the allegations were not true, it will not be permissible to hold a departmental enquiry in respect of a charge based on the same facts or allegations.

If, on the other hand, the court has merely expressed a doubt about the correctness of the allegations, a departmental enquiry may be held into the same allegations, if better proof than what was produced before the court is forthcoming.

If the court has held that the allegations are proved but do not constitute the criminal offence with which the Government servant was charged, a departmental enquiry could be held on the basis of the same allegations if they are considered good and sufficient ground for departmental action. Departmental action could also be taken if the allegations were not examined by court, e.g., the discharge of the accused on technical grounds without going into the merits of the allegations, but if the allegations are considered good and sufficient for departmental action.

A departmental enquiry may be held after acquittal in respect of a charge which is not identical with or similar to the charge in the criminal case and is not based on any allegations which have been negatived by the criminal court.

If an appeal or application for revision filed by a Government servant against his conviction in a court higher than the first court of appeal succeeds, the order imposing any penalty which may have been passed on the basis of earlier conviction should be set aside, if it is decided not to challenge the acquittal in a still higher court. Such penalty should be set aside even in cases where it is decided to start disciplinary proceedings against such a Government servant as mentioned in the previous para.

Advice of CVC must be obtained before sanctioning prosecution and at every subsequent stage when departmental penalties are considered for imposition.

Where it is decided to proceed departmentally instead of instituting prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, such cases are called Inquiries in respect of misconduct with vigilance angle. The procedure for such Inquiries is discussed subsequently.

Relevant guidelines of CVC in their Manual are reproduced:

"In cases relating to Gazetted Officers and other category 'A' officers (read as officers in senior management under compulsory jurisdiction of CVC) the CBI send their reports recommending regular departmental action or such action as deemed fit to the Central Vigilance Commission. Simultaneously, a copy of the report is sent by the CBI to the disciplinary authority concerned. If the disciplinary authority has any comments on such a report, the same should be sent to the Central Vigilance Commission within two months of the receipt of the CBI report, so that the Commission may take them into consideration while tendering its advice. It will, however, be open to the Ministries/ Departments, if there are any special circumstances, to approach the Commission in individuals cases for reasonable extension of time to enable them to furnish their comments. If no comments are received within the prescribed/extended period, the Commission will tender advice, on the basis of material before it. It is not necessary to call for the explanation of the officer at this stage as the comments of the authorities required are only on the CBI report. The comments of the Ministries/Departments/Public Undertakings/Nationalised Banks should specifically deal with the following :

1. If the CBI report deals with technical matters, does the disciplinary authority agree with view taken by the CBI on such question?

2. If the CBI report deals with departmental procedure and practices, has the position been stated correctly?

3. Has the factual position as obtainable from the records of the Department correctly stated by the CBI?

4. If the report deals with the use or abuse of discretion by the accused officer, what has the disciplinary authority to say about the discretionary powers and their use by the accused officer in the case(s) under discussion and also about the exercise of such discretion by other officers in similar situations?

5. In the Department's view, are there some material witnesses who should have been examined by the CBI but whom the CBI has not, in fact, examined?

6. Are there any extenuating circumstances in favour of the accused? If so, what are these?

7. Does the Department agree with the conclusion drawn by the CBI? If not, what are its own conclusions/ recommendations?

8. If the accused has submitted any representation to the Department relating to the CBI report, the Department should also give its commends on such representation. The above list is only illustrative and the Department is not precluded from offering comments of a general nature or bringing any other relevant matter to the Commission's notice that it may consider necessary.

9. While furnishing the comments to the Central Vigilance Commission, the Ministries/Departments/Public Undertakings/ Nationalised Banks may clearly indicate the respective functions, duties and responsibilities of all the Suspect Officers involved in the case with regard to the impugned transaction.

The CBI need not send the original documents to the disciplinary authorities as a matter of course. If in any particular case the disciplinary authority feels the necessity of examining the records in original, it should make a request for the particular records to the CBI, who will arrange to produce the requisitioned documents before the disciplinary authority expeditiously. The disciplinary authority will, however, ensure the safety of the records.

The report of the Central Bureau of Investigation is a confidential document and should not be produced before the Inquiry Officer or even before a Court of Law. Privilege can be claimed in a Court of Law under Section 123 or 124 of the Evidence Act. No direct reference should be made about the CBI Report in the statements/ affidavits filed in the Courts of Law, as it would be difficult to claim privilege for the production of documents before a court of law, if a direct reference is made in the statements/affidavits. Reference in the statements/affidavits may be restricted to the material which is contained in the statements of charges and allegations served on the accused public servant."

A charge sheet may be issued by the disciplinary authority incorporating the lapses detected and reported by the CBI, after receipt of advice from the CVC. A draft charge sheet sent by CBI may also be taken into consideration.

In case after receipt of the written reply to the charge sheet from the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority, if of the view, that it is not advisable to continue the inquiry, but to either drop the charges or close the case imposing a minor penalty, this should be referred to both the CVC and the CBI and their views/advice obtained.

Regular inquiry proceedings will thereafter to commence as per procedure given. The advice of CVC is to be followed if the Inquiry is advised to be entrusted to the CDI of CVC. The name of the CDI to whom the inquiry is to be entrusted to be ascertained from CVC and orders of appointing him as Inquiry Officer issued accordingly.

In respect of appointment of Presenting officer, reference to be made to CBI, if their officer will be available for presenting the case before Inquiry Officer, and if so, the name and designation of such officer. Appointment of presenting officer to be made accordingly.