CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 and CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 – MCQ from Study Material (Basic Level)

This action is specifically mentioned in the Explanation as a violation of the rule against using influence.

This is the standard the government expects, as private conduct can reflect on the service as a whole.

This document (Annexure B) is required to ensure the CVO takes responsibility for the comprehensiveness and verification of the report.

The provided circular is from the CVC and details the procedure for CVOs to seek its first stage advice on vigilance matters.

Rule 5(3) explicitly states that the decision of the Government on this matter shall be final.

This rule comprehensively covers the restrictions on Government servants' involvement in political activities and the electoral process.

The rule acknowledges they might be unavoidable but focuses on the procedure to follow (written confirmation) rather than listing specific circumstances.

The NTIPRIT presentation provides this specific definition for 'integrity' as the foremost requirement for a public servant.

Both the video transcript and the presentation list a rule against employing a child below this specific age.

The video explicitly warns against misusing one's position to gain personal or familial advantages, directly or indirectly.

The training material specifically identifies this rule as the one forbidding the sub-letting of government-provided housing.

This is listed as a circumstance where a behavior, connected with an act of a sexual nature, can amount to sexual harassment.

The Conduct Rules enforce discipline, while the CCA (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules provide procedural safeguards against arbitrary action.

The circular states that each case provides an opportunity to identify and plug gaps in systems and procedures.

This was the specific rule cited in the chargesheet issued to the officer, stemming from allegations of inappropriate behaviour.

This is listed as an example, indicating that a Government servant's conduct in their private life is also under scrutiny.

This correctly captures the meaning, which is about commitment and a serious approach to one's responsibilities.

Rule 15 explicitly states that a Government servant cannot engage in trade or business without the previous sanction of the Government.

This is the correct limit specified for both Group 'A' and Group 'B' officers.

This rule was specifically introduced to prohibit the social evil of dowry among Government servants.

This is the precise wording of the rule, covering the entire period when the servant is expected to perform their official functions.

This is a primary stated objective, aiming to set standards for integrity, efficiency, and good behaviour.

This is the correct term used, distinguishing between failing to do something (omission) and actively doing something wrong (commission).

This is the exact phrase used, as it deceives other qualified individuals who did not apply based on the stated requirements.

This is one of the specific policy areas, along with age of marriage and crime against women, that Rule 3B requires servants to observe.

The court declared that a chargesheet issued without proper authority is considered to have no legal existence from the beginning.

The ruling clarified that the authority to initiate proceedings and issue a charge-sheet is distinct from the authority to impose the final penalty.

These are the precise three clauses that form the cornerstone of the general conduct expected from a Government servant under this rule.

This rule was specifically inserted to address and prevent any act of sexual harassment at any workplace.

This is the specific provision that allows a government servant to participate in the democratic process while maintaining neutrality.

This rule directly prohibits willfully causing delays or using tactics that slow down the disposal of work.

Rule 5(2) explicitly states that if the servant is unable to prevent such activity, they must report the fact to the Government.

The court used this analogy to explain that if a proceeding is invalid from its inception (nullity), no subsequent procedural arguments can make it valid.

This correctly captures the essence of the term, covering actions that may not be illegal but are contrary to the expected standards of a Government servant.

A personal record is not sufficient; the rule requires an official confirmation from the superior.