The Supreme Court held that under Rule 13(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties is fully empowered to institute proceedings and issue a charge-sheet for imposing major penalties. The final order, however, must be passed by the authority competent to impose a major penalty.
Facts Of The Case:
The respondent, R. Shankarappa, was a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications who retired in 2018. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the CBI in two cases: one for demanding and accepting a bribe, and another for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He was convicted in both cases, but the High Court later stayed the conviction and sentence, with the criminal appeals remaining pending. Parallelly, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, issuing two charge-sheets in 2006 and 2008 under the CCS (CCA) Rules for the respective criminal cases. The respondent challenged these charge-sheets before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in multiple petitions, arguing that they were void as they were issued by the Principal General Manager—an authority competent only to impose minor penalties—without the approval of the authority competent to impose major penalties. The CAT dismissed his application, upholding the validity of the proceedings. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the CAT’s order and quashed the charge-sheets, relying on the precedent in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against this High Court judgment.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the initiation of two departmental inquiries against the respondent, corresponding to two CBI prosecutions. The respondent challenged the validity of these charge-sheets by filing a series of six Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, attempting to stall the proceedings. His final application, O.A. No. 170/00457/2021, sought to declare the charge memos void, arguing they were issued without the approval of the authority competent to impose major penalties. The CAT dismissed this application, upholding the disciplinary authority’s power to initiate proceedings. The respondent then filed Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the CAT’s order and quashing the charge memos. This decision prompted the Union of India to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 7149 of 2023) in the Supreme Court, which granted leave and culminated in the present civil appeal.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules: Insurer Must Pay Full Claim If It Didn’t Plead ‘Limited Liability’ Earlier
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made key observations on the interpretation of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It held that Rule 13(2) explicitly empowers a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties to institute disciplinary proceedings for major penalties. The Court clarified that the judgment in B.V. Gopinath was specific to its own facts and the office memorandum applicable to the Indian Revenue Service, and was not a general principle of law. It emphasized that no statutory rule in the Department of Telecommunications required prior approval for issuing a charge-sheet. The Court concluded that the initiation of proceedings by the General Manager was valid, as the subsequent inquiry was conducted properly and the final order was to be passed by the authority competent to impose a major penalty.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India. It set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka. Consequently, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondent’s original application, was restored. The Court held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the two charge memos, dated 27.05.2006 and 04.12.2008, issued by the Principal General Manager, were validly instituted. The chargesheets were declared legal and proper.
Case Details:
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Shankarappa Citation: 2025 INSC 898 Appeal No.: Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7149 of 2023) Date of Judgement: July 25, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Download The Judgement Here