Disciplinary action pending — RTI for case status

Suresh works as a junior assistant in the Public Works Division office of a district headquarters town. One Tuesday morning in June 2023, a sealed cover arrived on his desk. It was a charge memorandum under Rule 14 of the State Civil Services (CCA) Rules, alleging that he had misappropriated a departmental advance of Rs.18,400 meant for field survey material. The memorandum listed two articles of charge, attached a list of documents and witnesses, and asked him to submit a written statement of defence within ten days. Suresh filed his defence. He attended two sittings of the inquiry. And then — silence.

More than two years have passed. No inquiry officer has ever handed him a report. No disciplinary authority has ever passed a final order. Suresh's increment is frozen, his promotion is held up, and every time he asks his section officer about the case, the answer is the same: “the inquiry is still pending.” He cannot see the file. He cannot see what the inquiry officer wrote about him. He cannot even find out whether an inquiry officer has actually been appointed, or whether the file is simply gathering dust in a cupboard.

Suresh's situation is extraordinarily common. Government servants across India — Central and State — live for years under the shadow of a departmental inquiry whose status they cannot verify. The Right to Information Act, 2005 gives them, and any citizen, a lawful way to ask the disciplining office a simple set of questions: where is my case, who is handling it, and when will it end. This guide shows you exactly how, using only verified facts about the rules and the case law as they stand today.

“Disciplinary action” against a government servant in India is governed, for Central Government employees, by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 — the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, administered by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. For State Government servants, the applicable rules are the respective State's CCA Rules (for example, the Maharashtra Civil Services (CCA) Rules, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (CCA) Rules), which broadly mirror the Central framework. Source: https://dopt.gov.in/ccs-cca-rules-1965.

The penalties under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules come in two tiers. Minor penalties include censure, withholding of increments of pay (with or without cumulative effect), withholding of promotion, and recovery from pay of pecuniary loss caused by carelessness. Major penalties include compulsory retirement, removal from service, and dismissal. The procedure for major penalties is laid down in Rule 14 — the disciplinary authority issues articles of charge along with a statement of imputations and a list of documents and witnesses under Rule 14(3); the charged officer is delivered a copy and must file a written statement of defence under Rule 14(4); an inquiry officer is appointed to take evidence; and under Rule 15 the disciplinary authority acts on the inquiry report. Minor penalties follow the shorter procedure in Rule 16. Source: https://dopt.gov.in/ccs-cca-rules-1965 ; https://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/CCS(CCA)Rules1965/Rule_14.aspx.

One important correction: many older guides — and the previous version of this article — refer to “DoPT” as the office you file your RTI with for any disciplinary case. That is wrong. DoPT is the nodal ministry for RTI policy and for All-India Services matters, but the disciplinary authority for a given employee is the competent authority in the ministry, department, or state office where the employee actually serves. If you address your RTI to “CPIO, DoPT” when the charged officer works in, say, the Customs Commissionerate or a State PWD division, your application will be transferred under Section 6(3) and you will lose days. Address it to the CPIO of the concerned disciplinary authority / cadre-controlling authority.

To ask a sharp question, you need to know how the process moves. A major-penalty proceeding under Rule 14 has a recognisable shape:

1. Stage 1 — Charge memorandum. The disciplinary authority issues articles of charge, a statement of imputations of misconduct, a list of documents relied upon, and a list of witnesses. This is delivered to the charged officer.
2. Stage 2 — Written statement of defence. The charged officer files a written statement of defence within the time allowed, and may ask for inspection of documents listed against him.
3. Stage 3 — Inquiry. An inquiry officer is appointed (sometimes the disciplinary authority itself, sometimes a distinct officer). The IO takes evidence on oath, examines and cross-examines witnesses, and allows the charged officer to lead his own evidence.
4. Stage 4 — Inquiry officer's report. The IO submits a report recording findings on each article of charge, with reasons.
5. Stage 5 — Advice and final order. The disciplinary authority considers the IO report, gives the charged officer a further opportunity of representation on the proposed penalty, and passes a final order under Rule 15.

The Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 (AIR 1994 SC 1074, decided 1 October 1993) held that where the inquiry officer is distinct from the disciplinary authority, the inquiry officer's report must be furnished to the delinquent employee before the disciplinary authority arrives at its findings. That right is part of natural justice; non-supply is a denial of reasonable opportunity. Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143695/. This is the single most important holding for any employee seeking a copy of the IO report through RTI.

The other Constitutional Bench anchor is Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 (AIR 1985 SC 1416, decided 11 July 1985). Read correctly, Tulsiram Patel upheld the exclusion of inquiry under the second proviso to Article 311(2) — that is, in the three exception categories (criminal conviction, where impracticable to hold inquiry, and where inquiry on adequacy of penalty is refused in writing), no inquiry is required, and Article 14 cannot be used to reintroduce a hearing the Constitution has expressly excluded. It is the boundary case on when natural justice can be dispensed with — not, as the old stub claimed, a general “natural justice framework” case. Source: https://future.indiankanoon.org/doc/1134697/.

Two recent developments shape what you can ask for today.

First, in Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1510 (July 2025), the Supreme Court held that an authority competent to impose minor penalties can issue a charge sheet even for major penalties under Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. This matters because it affects who the disciplinary authority is — and therefore which office you name as PIO in your RTI. Source: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/30/sc-ccs-cca-rules-issuing-charge-sheet-to-impose-major-penalties/.

Second, the Central Information Commission has refined how the Section 8(1)(h) exemption applies to disciplinary proceedings. In K. Nagaraj v. Ministry of Home Affairs, CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166992, decided 30 April 2019, the CIC held that “investigation” in Section 8(1)(h) includes disciplinary proceedings, so disclosure can be refused while the proceedings are pending. Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181754861/. But in K.K. Jaiswal v. CBDT, CIC, 13 October 2023 (IC Saroj Punhani), the Commission clarified that the PIO cannot merely reproduce the Section 8(1)(h) language — the PIO must show how disclosure would impede the inquiry, and may invoke Section 10 severability to redact third-party personal information while disclosing the rest. Source: https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/copy-note-sheet-containing-approval-competent-auth.

And in Union of India v. R.S. Khan, W.P.(C) 9355/2009, Delhi High Court, 7 October 2010 (AIR 2011 DELHI 50), the High Court held that file notings of concluded disciplinary proceedings are disclosable to the delinquent officer himself; Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary cannot be used against the subject officer; and one cannot act on material neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent. Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74243696/.

The practical lesson: status and timeline are almost always disclosable; the evidentiary file is protected while pending; and once the proceeding concludes, the officer's own record becomes accessible.

Step 1 — Identify the public authority.

1. For a Central Government servant: the CPIO of the concerned disciplinary authority / cadre-controlling authority / ministry or department where the employee serves. If you are the charged officer yourself, name the office that issued the charge memorandum. Do not address it generically to DoPT unless DoPT is itself the disciplinary authority (as for certain AIS officers).
2. For a State Government servant: the SPIO of the State department / disciplinary authority (for example, the SPIO, Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD Division, in Suresh's case).
3. Online filing for Central authorities is available at rtionline.gov.in (fee Rs.10 payable online). Second appeals to the Central Information Commission are filed at cic.gov.in/second-appeal. Source: https://cic.gov.in/second-appeal.

Step 2 — Prepare your questions. Ask for specific, dated records, not vague “details.” Five strong sample questions:

1. Status: “Furnish the present status of the departmental inquiry / disciplinary proceeding against [name, designation], charge memorandum No. [..] dated [..], as on [date], including the stage reached under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.”
2. Inquiry officer: “Furnish the date of appointment of the Inquiry Officer in the said proceeding, the name and designation of the Inquiry Officer, and the date on which the Inquiry Officer's report was submitted (or the expected date of submission).”
3. IO report: “Furnish a certified copy of the Inquiry Officer's report in the said proceeding, relying on the principle laid down in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727. Where any portion is claimed exempt under Section 8(1)(h) or 8(1)(j), kindly apply Section 10 severability and furnish the severable portion.”
4. Defence disposition: “Furnish a certified copy of my written statement of defence dated [..] and the disciplinary authority's note on its disposition.”
5. Projected order: “Furnish the projected next step and the indicative date by which the final order under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is expected to be passed.”

Step 3 — Use the right form and fee.

1. Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the application is made in writing or electronic form to the CPIO with the prescribed fee. Under Section 6(2), you need not give any reason for requesting the information. Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1910806/.
2. Under the RTI Rules, 2012 (DoPT, notified 31 July 2012), the application fee is Rs.10, payable by cash, Indian Postal Order, demand draft, or electronic means. The application should ordinarily not exceed 500 words. No fee is payable by a BPL applicant. Photocopy charge is Rs.2 per page; the first hour of inspection is free and Rs.5 per hour thereafter. Source: https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-07/RTI%20Rules%20Final%20PDF.pdf.
3. State fees vary; see RTI Fees by State and Online Portal Directory (2026) for your state's RTI Rules.

Step 4 — Submit and keep proof. File by hand at the PIO's office and take a stamped receiving copy, or send by registered post and keep the acknowledgement, or file online and save the registration number. Proof of submission is your protection if the reply is delayed.

Step 5 — Wait 30 days. Under Section 7(1), the PIO must reply within 30 days of receiving the application (48 hours where the information concerns the life or liberty of a person). If the time limit is exceeded, the information is to be provided free of charge under Section 7(6). Source: https://future.indiankanoon.org/doc/1831074/.

RTI is powerful because it has a built-in ladder. If the PIO ignores you, refuses by merely quoting Section 8(1)(h), or gives a vague reply, you do not stop there.

1. First appeal: Under Section 19(1), file a First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) — an officer senior in rank to the PIO in the same public authority — within 30 days of the expiry of the reply period. The FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days, extendable to 45. Source: https://future.indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/.
2. Second appeal: If the FAA also fails you, file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) with the Central Information Commission (for Central authorities) or your State Information Commission (for State authorities) within 90 days. No fee for a second appeal to the CIC. Source: https://cic.gov.in/second-appeal.
3. Complaint under Section 18: You may also file a direct complaint to the Information Commission if the PIO never replied at all or refused to accept the application.
4. Penalty under Section 20: If the PIO has unreasonably refused or delayed, the Commission may impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs.25,000.

For a disciplinary-status RTI, the most common outcome is that the PIO replies with a one-line refusal quoting Section 8(1)(h) “inquiry pending.” Your first appeal should make four points: (a) status and timeline are not evidence — disclosure of the stage reached does not impede the inquiry; (b) under K.K. Jaiswal (CIC, 2023) the PIO must show how disclosure would impede the inquiry, not merely recite the section; © under R.S. Khan (Delhi HC, 2010) the IO report is disclosable to the delinquent officer himself once the proceeding reaches that stage; and (d) Section 10 severability allows redaction of third-party names while disclosing the rest.

You can draft and check your first appeal with the tools at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html and verify whether a PIO reply is legally adequate at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker-app.html .

1. A copy of the charge memorandum (with its number and date), to help the PIO locate the file.
2. Your written statement of defence, if you are the charged officer asking for its disposition.
3. Any interim orders of the disciplinary authority (for example, an order of suspension under Rule 10).
4. Proof of Rs.10 fee payment — Indian Postal Order receipt, cash receipt, or online transaction reference.
5. If you are a BPL applicant, a copy of the BPL ration card in lieu of the fee.
6. A self-addressed stamped envelope, if filing by post, for the reply.

1. Addressing it to DoPT generically. DoPT is the nodal ministry, not the default disciplinary authority. Name the office that issued the charge memorandum. Misrouting loses 5+ days through Section 6(3) transfer.
2. Asking for “all enquiry evidence” while the inquiry is pending. Witness statements and evidentiary documents are routinely protected under Section 8(1)(h) during pendency. Ask for status, IO report, and projected order instead.
3. Accepting a bare Section 8(1)(h) refusal. Under K.K. Jaiswal (CIC, 2023), the PIO must show how disclosure impedes the inquiry. A one-line refusal is not enough — appeal it.
4. Forgetting Section 10 severability. Even where third-party personal information must be protected under Section 8(1)(j), the PIO must sever that portion and disclose the rest under Section 10, not reject the whole application.
5. Missing the 30-day first-appeal window. Under Section 19(1) you have 30 days from the expiry of the reply period. Miss it and you will have to explain the delay to the Commission.
6. Conflating minor and major penalty procedure. Rule 16 (minor) is short; Rule 14 (major) is full. The documents available, and the natural-justice requirements under B. Karunakar, differ. State in your RTI which procedure your case is under.

To
The Central Public Information Officer / State Public Information Officer,
Office of the [Disciplinary Authority / Executive Engineer / Commissionerate],
[Ministry / Department / State office], [City]

Subject: Application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
— Status of disciplinary proceeding against [Name, Designation]

Sir/Madam,

Pursuant to Section 6(1) and Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, I seek the
following information concerning the disciplinary proceeding against
[Name, Designation], charge memorandum No. [..] dated [..], issued under
Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 [or the relevant State CCA Rules]:

1. The present status and stage of the proceeding as on [date].
2. The date of appointment of the Inquiry Officer, name and designation,
   and the date on which the Inquiry Officer's report was or is expected
   to be submitted.
3. A certified copy of the Inquiry Officer's report, in terms of the
   principle laid down in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar,
   (1993) 4 SCC 727; where any portion is claimed exempt under
   Section 8(1)(h) or 8(1)(j), kindly apply Section 10 severability and
   furnish the severable portion.
4. A certified copy of my written statement of defence dated [..] and
   the disciplinary authority's note on its disposition.
5. The projected next step and the indicative date by which the final
   order under Rule 15 is expected to be passed.

I state that the information sought is personal to the delinquent officer
[or, where applicable: I am the delinquent officer]. Where any exemption
is invoked, kindly record the specific reasoning as required by the CIC
in K.K. Jaiswal v. CBDT (13 October 2023).

The application fee of Rs.10 is paid herewith by [Indian Postal Order /
cash against receipt / online transaction reference No. ..]. Inspection
of records may be intimated so that I may avail the first free hour
under the RTI Rules, 2012.

Date: [..]                                          [Signature]
Place: [..]                                         [Name, Address]

Often, no — but not always. The CIC in K. Nagaraj (2019) has held that “investigation” in Section 8(1)(h) includes disciplinary proceedings, so the PIO may refuse the evidentiary file while the inquiry is pending. However, in K.K. Jaiswal (2023) the Commission clarified that a bare recital of Section 8(1)(h) is not enough — the PIO must show how disclosure would impede the inquiry, and must apply Section 10 severability to redact third-party information while disclosing the rest. The status, stage, and timeline are almost always disclosable even during pendency.

Yes, once the proceeding has concluded. In Union of India v. R.S. Khan (Delhi High Court, 2010), the Court held that file notings of concluded disciplinary proceedings are disclosable to the delinquent officer himself; Section 8(1)(e) fiduciary cannot be used against the subject officer. During pendency, the 8(1)(h) analysis above applies.

At your own office's disciplinary authority — the office that issued the charge memorandum. DoPT is the nodal ministry for RTI policy and for All-India Services matters, but it is not the default disciplinary authority for every Central employee. Naming the correct office avoids a Section 6(3) transfer and saves days.

For Central authorities, the fee is Rs.10 under the RTI Rules, 2012, payable by cash, Indian Postal Order, demand draft, or electronic means (online at rtionline.gov.in). No fee for BPL applicants. Photocopies are Rs.2 per page; the first hour of inspection is free and Rs.5 per hour thereafter. State fees vary — check RTI Fees by State and Online Portal Directory (2026).

File a First Appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days. Argue that (a) status and timeline are not evidence, (b) K.K. Jaiswal (2023) requires the PIO to show how disclosure impedes the inquiry, © R.S. Khan (2010) makes the IO report disclosable to the delinquent officer once the proceeding reaches that stage, and (d) Section 10 severability applies. If the FAA also fails you, file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) to the Central or State Information Commission within 90 days. You can draft the appeal at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html .

A third party faces the Section 8(1)(j) bar on personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and the Section 11 third-party procedure. The delinquent officer's own access is much stronger (R.S. Khan, 2010). A third party seeking status information for a larger public interest (say, a whistleblower case) must demonstrate the public interest override under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j).

Yes. Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides for suspension, and suspension must be reviewed at intervals. File an RTI asking for the date of the last review of your suspension under Rule 10, the order passed on that review, and the date of the next scheduled review. Avoid quoting an unverified “cap” on suspension duration — the review periods vary, so ask the authority for the actual review dates rather than asserting a number.

Yes, after the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1510 (July 2025), an authority competent to impose minor penalties can issue a charge sheet even for major penalties under Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. This affects which office you name as the disciplinary authority in your RTI.

Yes. Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the Information Commission may impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day on the PIO for unreasonable refusal or delay, up to a maximum of Rs.25,000. The Commission may also recommend disciplinary action against a PIO who persists in wrongful refusal.

The PIO must reply within 30 days under Section 7(1). If no reply arrives, the first appeal is filed within 30 days of the expiry of that period. If a reply arrives but you are dissatisfied, the first appeal is filed within 30 days of receiving the reply. The second appeal to the Commission is filed within 90 days. You can calculate your deadlines at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/timeline-calculator-app.html .

1. DoPT — CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: https://dopt.gov.in/ccs-cca-rules-1965
2. DoPT — Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions: https://dopt.gov.in/
3. RTI Act, 2005 — Section 6 (Indian Kanoon): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1910806/
4. RTI Act, 2005 — Section 7 (Indian Kanoon): https://future.indiankanoon.org/doc/1831074/
5. RTI Act, 2005 — Section 19 (Indian Kanoon): https://future.indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/
6. RTI Rules, 2012 (DoPT, notified 31 July 2012, NITI Aayon copy): https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-07/RTI%20Rules%20Final%20PDF.pdf
7. Central Information Commission — Second Appeal: https://cic.gov.in/second-appeal
8. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 (Indian Kanoon): https://future.indiankanoon.org/doc/1134697/
9. Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Indian Kanoon): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143695/
10. K. Nagaraj v. Ministry of Home Affairs, CIC/MHOME/A/2017/166992, 30 April 2019 (Indian Kanoon): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181754861/
11. Union of India v. R.S. Khan, W.P.(C) 9355/2009, Delhi High Court, 7 October 2010 (Indian Kanoon): https://indiankanoon.org/doc/74243696/
12. K.K. Jaiswal v. CBDT, CIC, 13 October 2023 (RTI Foundation of India): https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/copy-note-sheet-containing-approval-competent-auth
13. Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1510 (SCC Online blog, 30 July 2025): https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/30/sc-ccs-cca-rules-issuing-charge-sheet-to-impose-major-penalties/
14. Reference.in — CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, Rule 14: https://www.referencer.in/CS_Regulations/CCS(CCA)Rules1965/Rule_14.aspx

1. RTI for departmental enquiry
2. RTI for vigilance clearance
3. RTI for medical negligence enquiry
4. Certified copy of FIR, chargesheet or closure report not provided
5. Wrongful termination without notice or domestic enquiry
6. Service certificate contains errors
7. RTI for beginners
8. RTI fees by state

Last reviewed: 4 July 2026.