A challenge to a charge sheet becomes infructuous after dismissal under Rule 19.

While posted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the applicant was trapped by the CBI and faced a criminal prosecution.

The respondents issued him a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, based on the same allegations.

The applicant challenged the charge sheet, principally alleging that the prescribed process for obtaining the Central Vigilance Commission’s first-stage advice had not been followed.

The Tribunal stayed the departmental inquiry in November 2015.

In 2022, the applicant was convicted by the Special Court of the CBI.

The respondents then issued a show-cause notice under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules; after considering the applicant’s representation, the President dismissed him from service in February 2024.

The applicant’s appeal against the conviction was pending, and the trial court’s sentence had been suspended.

1. Whether the applicant’s challenge to the 2009 charge sheet under Rule 14 remained capable of adjudication after his dismissal from service under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

2. Whether any separate Rule 14 disciplinary proceeding could continue after the respondents imposed a penalty under Rule 19(i) on the basis of the applicant’s criminal conviction

Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 permits the disciplinary authority to consider the circumstances of a case and impose a penalty on a government servant for conduct leading to conviction on a criminal charge, subject to the prescribed opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that a charge sheet is an intermediate step in disciplinary proceedings and that, once a final penalty order is passed, a challenge to that intermediate step may cease to survive.

The applicant relied on Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142, in support of his challenge to the approval process; the Tribunal did not rely on or determine that precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the Rule 14 inquiry had been stayed and that, following the applicant’s conviction, the respondents had proceeded under Rule 19(i), issued a show-cause notice, considered his representation, and imposed dismissal.

It reasoned that the Rule 19 penalty was based on the conviction and that no separate Rule 14 proceeding could continue alongside it.

On that basis, it treated the challenge to the earlier charge sheet as having become infructuous, without determining the applicant’s substantive objections to the CVC advice or approval process.

It dismissed O.A. No. 971 of 2015, vacated the interim stay, disposed of the associated miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs.