Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 898
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 7149 of 2023)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
R. SHANKARAPPA ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as, “ High
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.25
17:20:04 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 1 of 11
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 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
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 2 of 11
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
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 3 of 11
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 is void. The petitioner 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
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 4 of 11
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 statutory provisions governing the
field empowers the disciplinary authority to issue a charge sheet
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 5 of 11
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.”
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 6 of 11
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:
Serial
Number
Description of
Appointing
Authority competent to impose
penalties and penalties which it
Service
Authority
(1)
(2)
(3)
may impose (with reference to
item numbers in Rule 11)
Authority
Penalties
(4)
(5)
9. Telecommunication
Engineering
Service, Group ‘B’
Member,
Telecommunications
Commission
Member,
Telecommunications
Commission
Adviser (Human
Resources
Development)
Department of
Telecommunications;
Head of Circle;
All
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 7 of 11
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.
(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 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
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 8 of 11
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).
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 9 of 11
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
present case, the guilt of the appellant 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
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 10 of 11
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.
……………………………………J.
[SANJAY KUMAR]
....…………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
July 25, 2025.
SLP(C) No. 7149/2023 Page 11 of 11