Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930

The respondent, a civil servant of Jharkhand, was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct, including financial irregularities and forgery. The draft charge‑sheet and a proposal to suspend him were placed before the Chief Minister, who approved the proposal on 21 March 2014, after which the charg…

Maharana Pratap Singh, a constable in the CID dog squad, was dismissed from service in 1996 following departmental proceedings that found him guilty of four charges, while he was later acquitted of the related criminal charges. The appellant challenged the dismissal, alleging denial of due process, vague charges, and t…

The case concerned three categories of Assistant Engineers in the Uttar Pradesh Service of Engineers (Irrigation Branch) – direct recruits, promoted subordinate engineers and temporary engineers – and their claim to seniority. The petitioners argued that temporary engineers, having fulfilled qualifications, passed prob…

The appellant, an Additional Subordinate Judge of the Bihar Judicial Service, was disciplined with censure, withholding of increments, and denial of promotion benefits. He challenged the order by filing a writ petition and also sought to appeal the punishment to the Governor under the Civil Services (Classification, Co…

The case concerned the seniority of temporary Assistant Engineers in the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II. The petitioners, appointed temporarily between 1947‑1950 and later confirmed, claimed that their seniority should be measured from the date they became members of the ser…

Harendra Arora, an Executive Engineer, was charged with irregularities and, after an enquiry, was dismissed. The enquiry report required by Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 was not furnished to him, leading the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal to quash the dismissal.…

The Constitution Bench examined whether a delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority decides on guilt or punishment, especially after the 42nd Amendment removed the right to show cause on penalty. It held that when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplin…