Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa
Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated
18.11.2022 in Writ Petition No. 14475/2022 (hereinafter referred
to as, “Impugned Order”) passed by High Court of Karnataka
at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court ”) by which
the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.06.2022, in Original Application
No. 170/00457/2021.
3. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent, Sri R. Shankarappa,
was an employee serving the Department of Telecommunication as
Sub Divisional Engineer, Group ‘B’ and was posted at Karnataka
LSA (Licensed Service Area) DOT, Bengaluru. He retired from the
service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. In
2003, the Respondent was subjected to prosecution by the Central
Bureau of Investigation in two cases; namely, Case No. 1 i.e.
Special CC No. 42/2003 instituted for offences punishable under
Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “PCA”) for
allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from a
Contractor, and Special CC No. 92/2003 instituted for offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the
PCA for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known
source of income. Respondent was convicted in both cases. The
record before this Court reflects that the respondent preferred
Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa
Criminal Appeal Nos. 195/2014 and 277/2014 before the High
Court against his conviction, wherein the High Court has stayed his
conviction as well as his sentence vide orders dated 08.04.2014
and 22.04.2014, respectively. The criminal appeals are pending
as on date.
4. Parallelly, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against respondent
while he was working as Sub Divisional Engineer Cable Construction –
II in Bengaluru Telecom SSA (BGTD). Two charge-sheets were issued
under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, “CCS CCA Rules”),
on 27.05.2006 and 04.12.2008 relating to the trap case and the
case in respect of possessing assets disproportionate to his known
source of income, respectively.
5. The record of the case further reveals that the respondent preferred
as many as six cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as, “CAT”), Bengaluru, and made
all possible attempts to derail the departmental inquiry. The list of
six cases preferred by him in respect of the aforesaid two charge-
sheets are detailed as under:
I. In the matter of departmental proceedings relating to alleged
trap case:
(i) OA No. 273/2007 decided on 04.09.2008
(ii) OA No. 486/2017 decided on 18.07.2018
(iii) OA No. 79/2019 decided on 05.03.2020
II. In the matter of departmental proceedings relating to allegation
of disproportionate assets case-
(i) OA No. 67/2010 decided on 15.03.2012
(ii) OA No. 475/2017 decided on 18.07.2018
(iii) OA No. 78/2019 decided on 05.03.2020
6. The respondent raised a ground before the Tribunal in the aforesaid
cases that the charge-sheets have been issued by an authority
which is competent to inflict only minor penalties, therefore, as the
charge-sheet has not been issued with the approval of the disciplinary
authority empowered to inflict major penalty, the charge-sheet itself
1626 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is void. The respondent on this ground finally preferred an Original
Application which was registered as O.A. No. 170/00457/2021
praying thus:
“To declare that the proceedings initiated under charge
memos bearing No. VIG/12-285A/2005/6 dated 27.05.2006
and No. VIG/RS-SDE/BGTD/2008/37 dated 01.12.2008
both issued by Principal General Manager, BGTD,
Bengaluru (Respondent No.4 herein) are void-ab-initio for
want of approval from the appointing authority, in terms of
Apex Court’s ruling in case of Union of India and Others
Vs. B.V.Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351.”
7. The respondent herein before the Tribunal placed heavy reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others
Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351 and prayed
for quashing of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed
the said Original Application holding that the charge-sheet and
the disciplinary proceedings does not warrant any interference
as they have been issued by a competent disciplinary authority.
It was also held that the disciplinary authority empowered to
inflict minor penalty can issue a charge-sheet even though it’s a
charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules for inflicting a
major punishment, given that the punishment order will have to be
passed by the disciplinary authority empowered to impose a major
penalty.
8. The respondent being aggrieved by the dismissal of Original
Application preferred a Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 before the
High Court and the High Court has allowed the writ petition vide
Impugned Order dated 18.11.2022. The High Court has arrived
at a conclusion that in cases where a charge-sheet has been
issued under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, by an authority
empowered to inflict minor penalties, then the charge memo has
to be approved by the authority which is competent to inflict major
penalty.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union of India vehemently argued
before this Court that the reliance placed by the High Court upon the
judgment delivered in B.V. Gopinath (supra) is misplaced and the
Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa
statutory provisions governing the field empowers the disciplinary
authority to issue a charge sheet in respect of major penalty even
though the authority who has issued the charge-sheet was competent
to inflict minor penalties only.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently
argued before this Court that the question of interference by this Court
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise
as the judgment delivered by the High Court is squarely covered
by the verdict of this Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra).
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record thoroughly.
12. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the charge-sheet
was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, which provides
for a procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 14 (1) of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965, reads as under:
“14. Procedure for imposing major penalties
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in
clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made except after
an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided
in this rule and rule 15, or in the manner provided by the
Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where
such inquiry is held under that Act.”
13. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point
out violation of any statutory provision of law and the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted strictly in consonance with procedure
prescribed under the aforesaid Rule.
14. In the present case, as already stated earlier, the charge-sheet
was issued for imposing major penalties by the General Manager
(Telecommunications). As per Appendix 3 appended to the CCS CCA
Rules, the Member Telecommunications Commission is competent
authority to impose major penalties and the General Manager,
Telecommunications is competent to impose minor penalties.
Appendix 3 appended to the CCS CCA Rules is reproduced as
under:
1628 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Serial
Number
(1)
Description of
Service
(2)
Appointing Authority
(3)
Authority competent to impose
penalties and penalties which it
may impose (with reference to item
numbers in Rule 11)
Authority
(4)
Penalties
(5)
9. Telecommunication
Engineering
Service, Group ‘B’
Member,
Telecommunications
Commission
Member,
Telecommunications
Commission
Adviser (Human
Resources
Development)
Department of
Telecommunications;
Head of Circle;
General Manager;
Telecommunication
Factories;
Head of Telephone
District; Head of
Telecommunication
District/
Telecommunications
Area of Senior
Administrative Grade;
General Manager,
Maintenance of Senior
Administrative Grade,
General Manager,
Projects.
All
(i) to (iv)
15. Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 which provides for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings reads as under:
“13. Authority to institute proceedings
(1) The President or any other authority empowered by
him by general or special order may –
(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any
Government servant;
(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary
proceedings against any Government servant on
Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa
whom that disciplinary authority is competent to
impose under these rules any of the penalties
specified in rule 11.
(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules
to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i)
to (iv) of rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings
against any Government servant for the imposition of
any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule
11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not
competent under these rules to impose any of the latter
penalties.”
16. A plain reading of Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules specifies that
a disciplinary authority competent under the rules “may institute
disciplinary proceedings”. When the aforementioned Rule is read
with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS CCA Rules, it is very clear
that an authority empowered to inflict minor penalties (in the present
case, the General Manager) can certainly issue a charge-sheet even
for imposition of major penalties.
17. Thus, in short, initiation of disciplinary proceedings can be done by
Member Telecommunications Commission as well as by General
Manager, Telecommunication. In the present case, initiation has been
done by the General Manager, Telecommunication and, therefore,
in the light of the statutory provisions of the law, this Court is of
the considered opinion that issuance of charge-sheet by General
Manager, Telecommunication could not have been faulted upon by
the High Court solely by placing reliance upon the judgment delivered
by this Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra).
18. This Court has carefully considered the judgment delivered in the
case of B.V. Gopinath (supra). The aforesaid case was in respect of
an IRS Officer Mr. B.V. Gopinath who was appointed as an Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax, and the grievance raised was that the
charge-sheet against him was not approved by the Finance Minister,
whereas, an office order dated 19.07.2005 contained a requirement
of such approval. In the present case, there is no such office order
in respect of Department of Telecommunication and the statutory
provisions governing the field also do not provide for any such
approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission. In the
1630 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
present case, the guilt of the respondent after following due process
of law has been established. The inquiry does not suffer from any
procedural irregularity and the charge-sheet has been issued by the
competent disciplinary authority. The final order has been passed
after following the due process of law by the competent disciplinary
authority empowered to inflict major penalty and, therefore, the
CAT has rightly dismissed the Original Application preferred by the
respondent herein and the order passed by the High Court deserves
to be set aside.
19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order dated
18.11.2022 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 14475 of
2022 is hereby set aside and the proceedings initiated under charge
memos bearing No. VIG/12-285A/2005/6 dated 27.05.2006 and
No. VIG/RS-SDE/BGTD/2008/37 dated 01.12.2008 both issued by
Principal General Manager, BGTD, Bengaluru (Respondent No.4
herein) are held to be validly initiated.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†