Articles of charge (paragraph 14)

1. As soon as a decision has been taken by the competent authority to start disciplinary proceedings for a major penalty, the Chief Vigilance Officer/Vigilance Officer will draw up on the basis of the material gathered during the Investigation:-

   1. the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles or charge;

   2. a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge which shall contain:

      1. a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant; and

      2. a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. In cases when the charge-sheet has been drafted by the departmental officers or by the CBI, the Chief Vigilance Officer should personally scrutinise the charges.

2. A charge may be described as the prima-facie proven essence of an allegation setting out the nature of the accusation in general terms, such as, negligence in the performance of official duties, inefficiency, acceptance of sub-standard work, false measurement of work executed, execution of work below specification, breach of a conduct rule, etc. a charge should briefly, clearly and precisely identify the misconduct/ misbehaviour. It should also give time, place and persons or things involved so that the public servant concerned has clear notice of his involvement.

3. The articles of charge should be framed with great care. The following guide lines will be of held:-

   1. Each charge should be expressed in clear and precise terms, it should not be vague;

   2. If a transaction/event amount to more than one type of misconduct then all the misconducts should be mentioned;

   3. If a transaction/event shows that the public servant must be guilty of one or the other of misconducts, depending on one or the other set of circumstances, then the charge can be in the alternative;

   4. A separate charge should be framed in respect of each separate transaction/event or a series of related transactions/ events amounting to misconduct, misbehaviour;

   5. Multiplication or splitting up of charges on the basis of the same allegation should be avoided;

   6. The wording of the charge should not appear to be an expression of opinion as to the guilt of the accused;

   7. A charge should not relate to a matter which has already been the subject-matter of an inquiry and decision, unless it is based on benefit of doubt or on technical considerations;

   8. A charge should not refer to the report on Preliminary Investigation or the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission;

   9. The articles of charge should first give the plain facts leading to the charge and then only at the end of it mention the nature of misconduct/misbehavior (violation of Conduct Rules, etc.).

The statement of imputation should give a full and precise recitation of the specific and relevant acts of commission or omission on then part of the Government servant in support of each chargeincluding any admission or confession made by the Government servant and any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration. A statement that a Government servant allowed certain entries to be made with ulterior motive was held to be much too vague. A vague accusation that the Government servant was in the habit of doing certain acts in the past is not sufficient. It should be precise and factual. In particular, in cases of any misconduct/misbehaviour, it should mention the conduct/behaviour expected or the rule violated. It would be improper to call an Investigating Officer's Report a statement of imputations. While drafting the statement of imputations, it would not be proper to mention the defence and enter into a discussion of the merits of the case. Wording of the imputations should be clear enough to justify the imputations in spite of the likely version of the Government servant concerned.

A number of witnesses are usually examined during the course of the preliminary inquiry and their statements are recorded. The list of such witnesses should be carefully checked and only those witnesses who will be able to give positive evidence to substantiate the allegations should be included in the statement for production during the oral inquiry. Formal witnesses to produce documents only need not be mentioned in the list of witnesses.

The documents containing evidence in support of the allegations which are proposed to be listed for production during the inquiry should be carefully scrutinised. All material particulars given in the allegations, such as dates, names, makes, figures, totals of amount, etc., should be carefully checked with reference to the original documents and records.

In cases investigated by the Special Police Establishment, a draft of articles of charge, statement of imputations, and list of documents and witnesses will be drawn up by the Special Police Establishment and sent to the disciplinary authority along with their report. The Chief Vigilance Officer/Vigilance Officer should carefully scrutinise them. If there is any discrepancy or a doubt arises about the correctness of any item and any amendment is considered necessary, the matter should be promptly discussed and cleared with the Special Police Establishment.

Standard skeleton forms of the articles of charge and the statement of imputations and of the covering memorandum are given in Section E. The covering memorandum should be signed by the disciplinary authority or in case in which the President is the Disciplinary Authority by an officer who is authorised to authenticate orders on behalf of the President.

1. the disciplinary authority will deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each charge is proposed to be sustained to the Government servant in person if he is on duty and his acknowledgement taken or by registered post, acknowledgement due. The acknowledgement of the Government servant should be added to the case.

2. If the Government servant evades acceptance of the articles of charge and/or refuses to accept the registered cover containing the articles of charge, the articles of charge will be deemed to have been duly delivered to him as refusal or a registered letter is normally tantamount to proper service of its contents.

3. A copy of the articles of charge and the accompanying papers will be endorsed to the Special Police Establishment in cases in which disciplinary proceedings are instituted on the basis of an investigation made by them.

1. The Government servant should be required to submit his reply to the articles of charge (i.e. his written statement of defence) by a date to be specified in the covering memorandum and should also be required to state whether he pleads guilty and whether he desires to be heard in person. Ordinarily the time allowed to the Government servant for submitting his written statement of defence should not exceed 10 days.

2. Unlike the CCA Rules of 1957, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, do not provide for inspection of documents by the charged official for the submission of written statement of defence. Rule 14 (4) is not intended for submission of elaborate statement of defence, but only to give an opportunity to the Government Servant to admit or deny his guilt. For admitting or denying the charges, no inspection of documents B(125) is necessary and that is why such inspection has not been provided for in Rule 14(4). If a Government servant admits the charges, there will be no need to hold an inquiry. If he does not, an inquiry will be held at which he will be provided with the fullest opportunity to inspect and take extracts of various documents. However, notwithstanding the above position or rules, in the interest of timely conclusion of departmental proceedings, as far as possible, copies of the documents and the statements of witnesses relied upon for proving the charges may be furnished to the charged officer along with the charge-sheet. If the documents are bulky and the copies cannot be given to the Government Servant, he may be given an opportunity to inspect these documents in about 15 days time.

1. On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority should examine it carefully. If all the charges have been admitted by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority will take such evidence as it may think fit and record its findings on each charge. Further action on the findings will be taken in the manner described in Chapter XII. All cases pertaining to Gazetted Government servants and other category "A" officers (please see para 3.1.1. Chapter II) in respect of whom the Central Vigilance Commission is required to be consulted, will be referred to the Commission for advice (second stage advice). The scheme of consultation with the Commission in respect of major penalty cases pertaining to such officers envisages consultation with the Commission at two stages. The first stage of consultation arises when initiating disciplinary proceedings, while second stage consultation is required before a final decision is taken at the conclusion of the proceedings. It follows, therefore, that the Commission should also be consulted for second stage advice in cases where the disciplinary authority having initiated action for major penalty proceedings proposes to close the case on receipt of the Statement of Defence.

2. The disciplinary authority has the inherent power to review and modify the articles of charges or drop some of the charges or all the charges after the receipt and examination of the written statement of defence submitted by the accused Government servant under rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority is not bound to appoint an Inquiry Officer for conducting an inquiry into the charges which are not admitted by the accused Government servant but about which the disciplinary authority is satisfied on the basis of the written statement of defence that there is no further course to proceed with The exercise of the powers to drop the charges after consideration of the written statement of defence will be subject to the following conditions:-

   1. In cases arising out of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, latter should be consulted before a decision is taken to drop any of or all the charges on the basis of the written statement of defence. The reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority for dropping the charges should also be intimated to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

   2. The Central Vigilance Commission should be consulted where the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the advice of the Commission and the intention is to drop any of or all the charges.

3. It will be observed from para 22.1. of this Chapter that the Central Vigilance Commission is consulted at two stages of departmental proceedings against gazetted officer of the Central Government and other category 'A' officers, i.e. before initiating departmental proceedings and again before a final decision is taken on the cases against such officers. A second reference to the Commission is also required to be made for reconsideration of its advice in cases in which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with its advice. In many cases the disciplinary authority decides to disagree with the Commission and then send the case back to the Commission for reconsideration of its advice. This is not quite in order and requests for reconsideration should be made at a stage prior to the final decision, for once the competent authority has decided or resolved to differ with the Commission, the case will be treated as one of non-acceptance of the Commission's advice.

4. With a view to brining about greater uniformity in examining on behalf of the President the advice tendered by the Commission and taking decisions thereon, it has been laid down that the Department of Personnel and Training should be consulted before the Ministries/ Departments finally decide (i.e. after second reference to the CVC for reconsideration), vide previous paragraph, to differ from/not to accept any recommendation of the Commission in those cases which relate to Gazetted Officers for whom the appointing authority is the President. Such a reference to that Department in those cases should be made at the following stages:-

   1. where the CVC advises at the first stage but the authority concerned does not propose to agree with the advice;

   2. where the authority concerned proposes not to accept or differ from the advice of the CVC at the Second Stage. Cases in which the Heads of Department or other authorities like Commissioner of Income-tax, Collector of Central Excise, Chief engineer, etc. are the disciplinary authorities, need not be referred to the Department of Personnel and Training. Similar cases relating to officers of the Public Sector Undertakings in which decisions are to be taken by the Board of Directors need not also be referred to the Department of Personnel and Training. However, in such cases copies of the final orders passed by the concerned public sector undertaking together with a separate note giving reasons for differing from, or non-acceptance of, any recommendation of the Central Vigilance Commission, should be sent to that Department for information as soon as possible.

1. If the disciplinary authority finds that any or all the charges have not been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence or if no written statement of defence is received by him by the date specified, the disciplinary authority may itself inquiry into such charges or appoint an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the truth of the charges. Though the CCA Rules permit such an inquiry being made by the disciplinary authority, itself, the normal practice is to appoint another officer as inquiring authority. It should be ensured that the officers so appointed has no bias and had no occasion to express an opinion in the earlier stages of the case.

2. In all cases pertaining to category 'A' officers in respect of whom the Central Vigilance Commission is required to be consulted or in any other case in which disciplinary proceedings for imposing a major penalty have been initiated on the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, the inquiry will be entrusted to an of the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries borne and the strength of the Commission. In cases where non-gazetted officers are involved with gazetted Officers, the departmental inquiry will be entrusted to a Commissioner for Department Inquiries. In all cases where the Commission advises initiation of major penalty proceedings, it also nominates simultaneously a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries to whom the inquiry should be entrusted. In case the charges are not admitted by the officer concerned or if he does not file a written statement of defence within the prescribed time limit, orders appointing the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries as the Inquiring Authority should be issued by the disciplinary authority straightaway. This procedure obviates correspondence between the Commission and the disciplinary authority at a later stage and the time taken in completing the major penalty proceedings is thus reduced. The appointment of the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries as the Inquiring Authority should be made only after the receipt of the officer's reply to the chargesheet or on the expiry of the date by which his reply was to be received whichever is earlier (Judgement of the Orissa High Court in the case of Rabindranath Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa).

3. If in any particular case covered by the sub-para 23.2 above, the disciplinary authority feels that for any special reasons the inquiry should not be entrusted to a Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, the disciplinary authority may approach the Central Vigilance Commission indicating the circumstances which would warrant an exception being made together with the name and designation of the officer proposed to be appointed as Inquiring Authority. If the Commission accepts the proposal of the disciplinary authority, the latter may appoint an officer other than a C.D.I. as Inquiring Authority. The officer selected should be of sufficiently senior rank and one who is not suspected of any prejudice or bias against the accused officer and who did not have an occasion to express an opinion on the merits of the case at an earlier stage.

4. As soon as the disciplinary authority has decided upon the person who will conduct the oral inquiry, it will issue an order appointing him as the Inquiring Authority in the form given in Section E.

5. In order to expedite disposal of departmental inquiries being conducted by the officers other than the CDIs, the Departments having a large number of inquiries pending should earmark some officers on a full-time basis to complete these inquiries within a specified time limit to be indicated by the disciplinary authority. The time limit should be indicated as an administrative instruction having regard to the nature of the charges and the evidence involved. Similarly where part time Inquiry Officers are appointed, the disciplinary authority could, having regard to the nature of the charges and the evidence involved, specified time limit for the completion of the inquiry as an administrative instruction. The competent authority, with in its financial powers may consider sanction of suitable honorarium, where inquiries are not part of their sphere of duties to the Inquiry Officer subject to a minimum of Rs.250 and maximum of Rs.500. The amount payable on each occasion may be decided on merits taking into account the quality/volume of work and its quick and expeditious completion.

1. the disciplinary authority which initiated the proceedings will also appoint simultaneously a Government servant or a legal practitioner as the Presenting Officer to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge before the Inquiring Authority. Ordinarily a Government servant belonging to the departmental set up who is conversant with the case will be appointed as the Presenting Officer except in cases involving complicated points of law where it may be considered desirable to appoint a legal practitioner to present the case on behalf of the disciplinary authority. An officer who made the preliminary investigation or inquiry into the case should not be appointed as Presenting Officer.

2. While the disciplinary rules under which departmental inquiries are conducted against Central Government employees and Railway servants provide for the appointment of a Presenting Officer by the disciplinary authority to present its case before the Inquiring Authority, the disciplinary rules of certain public undertakings do not contain such a provision. As the appointment of a Presenting Officer would help in the satisfactory conduct of departmental inquiry, the Central Vigilance Commission has advised that even in cases where the disciplinary rules do not contain a specific provision for the appointment of a Presenting Officers, the disciplinary authorities may consider appointing a Presenting Officer for presenting the case before the Inquiring Authority.

3. In cases in which the initiation of disciplinary action is the result of investigation made by the Special Police Establishment, the disciplinary authority will request the S.P.E. for a Presenting Officer. The formal appointment will be made by the disciplinary authority after the S.P.E. nominates an officer.

4. In order to expedite disposal of departmental inquiries, the competent authority within its financial powers may consider sanction of suitable honorarium, where inquires are not part of their sphere of duties, to the Presenting Officer subject to a minimum of Rs.100 and a maximum of Rs.300. The amount payable on each occasion may be decided on merits taking into account the quality/volume of work and its quick and expeditious completion.