A minor-penalty disciplinary authority may institute proceedings for major penalties under Rule 13(2).

The applicant, a Barrack and Store Officer (BSO), Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officer in the Military Engineer Services, was posted at GE (West), Prayagraj.

Following a vigilance inspection and a subsequent Board of Officers’ inquiry into alleged procedural and financial irregularities in the management and procurement of store items, the applicant was suspended and later issued a show-cause notice dated 22 May 2024 by respondent no. 4 and a charge memorandum dated 4 October 2024 by respondent no. 3.

The applicant contended that the authorities had not supplied the Board of Officers’ report and other relevant documents, and that respondent no. 3 lacked jurisdiction to issue the charge memorandum because respondent no. 2 was the competent disciplinary authority for imposing major penalties.

The respondents maintained that respondent no. 3 was competent to institute proceedings under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and that the relied-upon documents had been supplied or would be made available for inspection during the inquiry.

The applicant also claimed discriminatory treatment because the co-delinquent military officer had received only a punishment of “Reproof”.

1. Whether respondent no. 3 was competent under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to institute disciplinary proceedings and issue the charge memorandum against the applicant, notwithstanding that respondent no. 2 was competent to impose a major penalty?

2. Whether the show-cause notice and charge memorandum were liable to be quashed because the applicant had not been supplied with the Board of Officers’ report and other documents relied upon by the authorities?

3. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by the alleged unequal treatment of the applicant vis-à-vis the co-delinquent officer who was punished with “Reproof”?

The Tribunal applied Rules 10, 13(2), 14 and 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

Rule 13(2) permits a disciplinary authority competent to impose any minor penalty to institute disciplinary proceedings for major penalties, even though it may not itself impose those major penalties.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 INSC 898, which clarified that initiation of proceedings and imposition of penalty are distinct powers and that an authority competent to impose minor penalties may issue a charge sheet for major penalties; it distinguished Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351, where a separate administrative requirement of approval was involved.

The Tribunal also applied the principles of natural justice, holding that relevant relied-upon documents must be supplied or their non-supply must be explained by a reasoned order, and that documents not supplied should not be relied upon in the inquiry.

The decisions in Deepak Puri v. State of Haryana, State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, 2025 INSC 412, Ch. Appala Reddy v. Eastern Power Distribution, and Prabhu Narain Ram v. Union of India, O.A. No. 1544/2014, were considered in relation to supply of documents, competent authority, and the stage and validity of disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s jurisdictional objection.

Although respondent no. 2 was competent to impose a major penalty, respondent no. 3, being competent to impose minor penalties, could institute proceedings for a major penalty under Rule 13(2); therefore, issuance of the charge memorandum by respondent no. 3 was not without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also declined to quash the proceedings merely because the co-delinquent had received a lesser punishment, observing that the co-delinquent’s case had been dealt with by the appropriate authority and that the applicant’s proceedings were still pending.

However, the Tribunal found that proceeding with the inquiry without satisfactorily supplying relevant documents requested by the applicant would offend natural justice.

The applicant was therefore entitled to a meaningful opportunity to inspect or obtain relevant documents, and any refusal had to be supported by a speaking order identifying their irrelevance; documents withheld without such compliance could not be relied upon.

The Original Application was disposed of with directions that the applicant submit a fresh, comprehensive representation specifying the documents required; the competent authority must supply the relevant documents or pass a reasoned order explaining their non-supply.

Documents not supplied to the applicant could not be relied upon in the inquiry.

After receipt of the documents, the applicant was to submit his reply to the charge memorandum, following which the competent authority was directed to consider, in light of the action taken against the co-delinquent, whether to conduct a regular inquiry or drop the charge memorandum.

The interim stay relating to the inquiry stood merged with the final order, all miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.