14. Elective office under Rule 15 (1) (c) Transactions in shares, securities Purchase of properties, misconduct Supreme Court observation

66. Sanction for holding an elective office under Rule 15(1)(c) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 

A Government servant may be allowed to hold elective office in any body, whether incorporated or not, for period of two terms or for a period of 4 years. whichever is earlier, for which prior sanction would be required when a Government servant contests an election in such body, as per existing rules.

DOPT OM No. 11013/1/2016-Estt.A-III Dated the 5th August, 2019

67. CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Revision in limit for intimation in respect of transactions in sale and purchase of shares, securities, debentures etc.

With a view to enable the administrative authorities to keep a watch over such transaction, it has been decided that an intimation may be sent to the prescribed authority in respect of all Government servants, if the total transactions in shares, securities, debentures, mutual funds scheme, etc. exceeds six months' basic pay of Government servant during the calendar year (to be submitted by 31st January of subsequent calendar year).

DOPT OM No. 11013/6/2018-Ett.A-III Dated the 7th February, 2019.

68. Intimation about purchase of immovable property 

Where a Government servant enters into a transaction in respect of movable property either in his own name or in the name of the member of his family, he shall, within one month from the date of such property exceeds two months basic pay of the Government servant:

Provided that the previous sanction of the prescribed authority shall be obtained by the Government servant if any such transaction is with a person having official dealings with him". 

(DOPT OM No. 11013/8/2010-Estt.(A) dated 09.05.2011)

69. What constitutes misconduct of a Government servant 

Failure to attain the highest standard of efficiency in performance of duty, permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules, as would indicate lack of devotion to duty. 

Gross or habitual negligence in performance of duty may not involve mens rea, but still constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings.

[Union of India and others v. ). Ahmed (1979) SLJ 308 (S.C.); 1979 Lab IC 792; 1979 (2) Lab L.J. 14; 1979. SCC (Lab) 157; 1979(2) SCC 286; AIR 1979 SC 1022.]

70. What is "misconduct" - Supreme Court's ruling

The word "misconduct” though not capable of precise definition, its reflections receive its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. It may involve moral turpitude; it must be improper or wrong behaviour, unlawful behaviour, willful in character; forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct but not mere error of judgement, carelessness or negligence in performance of the duty; the act complained of bears forbidden quality of character. Its ambit has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the scope of the statute and the public purpose it seeks to serve. Police service is a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service causing serious effect in the maintenance of law and order.

[State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, Ex-Constable, ATR 1992 (2) SC; (1992) 21 ATC 43560

Your's Kayveeyes