CCS (CCA) Rules | Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Proceedings Initiated by Minor Penalty Authority for Major Charges | Sets Aside Karnataka HC Relief to Retired Telecom Officer
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka that had quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired Sub Divisional Engineer from the Department of Telecommunications. The Court upheld the authority of the General Manager (Telecommunications) to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 13(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, even in matters warranting major penalties. It stated that the High Court's reliance on the judgment in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath was misplaced in the absence of any statutory requirement or specific office order necessitating approval from the higher authority for initiating such proceedings in the present case.
Allowing the Union of India’s appeal, the Court declared the issuance of charge sheets by the General Manager to be in accordance with statutory provisions and not void. Consequently, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the employee’s challenge to the charge sheets was restored. The High Court's earlier decision quashing the disciplinary proceedings was thus reversed, with the Court affirming the validity and procedural propriety of the actions taken by the departmental authorities.
The respondent, a retired Sub Divisional Engineer (Group ‘B’) in the Department of Telecommunications, served in Karnataka LSA, Bengaluru. He retired on 31.05.2018 upon superannuation. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in two separate criminal cases. The first was Special CC No. 42/2003, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning the alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe amounting to ₹1 lakh from a contractor. The second case, Special CC No. 92/2003, involved allegations under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the same Act, relating to assets allegedly disproportionate to known sources of income.
Convictions were recorded in both criminal matters. However, the respondent challenged them in Criminal Appeal Nos. 195/2014 and 277/2014 before the High Court, which granted stay orders against both conviction and sentence dated 08.04.2014 and 22.04.2014, respectively. These appeals remain pending.
Parallel disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Department. Two charge sheets were issued under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules. The first, dated 27.05.2006, pertained to the trap case. The second, dated 04.12.2008, concerned the assets case. Both were issued by the Principal General Manager, BGTD, Bengaluru.
In response, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), filing six Original Applications (OAs) over time. For the trap case, he filed OA Nos. 273/2007, 486/2017, and 79/2019. For the disproportionate assets case, he filed OA Nos. 67/2010, 475/2017, and 78/2019. In all applications, he sought to derail the disciplinary inquiry on procedural and substantive grounds.
Ultimately, he filed OA No. 170/00457/2021 before the CAT, arguing that the charge sheets were void ab initio as they were not approved by the authority empowered to impose major penalties. He relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [(2014) 1 SCC 351], where it was held that a charge sheet must receive approval from the competent authority for imposing major penalties.
The CAT dismissed the OA, holding that the charge sheets were validly issued and that an authority competent to impose minor penalties could initiate proceedings under Rule 14 meant for major penalties, so long as the final order was passed by the competent authority for major penalties.
Aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 before the High Court of Karnataka, which allowed the petition. The High Court held that charge sheets under Rule 14, issued by an authority only competent to impose minor penalties, were not valid unless approved by an authority competent to impose major penalties. This formed the basis of the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the relevant statutory provisions. It recorded: “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.”
Referring to Rule 13 of the CCS CCA Rules, the Court noted: “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.”
The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, stating: “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... can certainly issue a charge-sheet even for imposition of major penalties.”
The Court also distinguished the judgment in B.V. Gopinath, observing: “The aforesaid case was in respect of an IRS Officer... where an office order dated 19.07.2005 contained a requirement of approval. In the present case, there is no such office order... and the statutory provisions governing the field also do not provide for any such approval.”
It concluded that: “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.”
The Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and reversed the High Court’s decision. It stated: “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.”
Further, it declared: “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.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 898
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 7149 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
