Section 68

Government employees, especially those in transferable jobs, defence, police, or postings that keep them away from their listed home address, can be hard for court process-servers to physically locate. This provision creates a practical channel: route the summons through the person's employer (the department head), who has reliable knowledge of the employee's whereabouts and duty status. This avoids repeated failed attempts at service and delays in criminal proceedings, while still requiring that the actual delivery follow the normal personal-service procedure under Section 64.

Courts have generally treated this as a facilitative, alternative mode of service for government servants rather than a mandatory exclusive route — 'ordinarily' signals discretion, so courts can still attempt direct personal service if convenient. Judicial decisions under the equivalent earlier provision (Section 62 of the CrPC, 1973) have held that the head of office's endorsed signature is strong evidence of service, and that failure by the office head to forward the summons does not automatically invalidate proceedings, though it may require the court to explore other modes of service.

• Myth: This is the only way courts can serve summons on government employees.
  Fact: The word 'ordinarily' means courts have discretion; they can still use standard personal service methods under Section 64 directly if appropriate.
• Myth: The office head's signature alone means the case can proceed even if the employee never actually got the summons.
  Fact: The signature is evidence of due service, but it still certifies that the underlying delivery followed Section 64's procedure — it's not a substitute for actual delivery, just proof of it.