CCS Rules | Authority Empowered To Impose Minor Penalties Can Issue Chargesheet For Major Penalties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the authority competent to impose minor penalties under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (“CCS Rules”), can issue a chargesheet for violations involving major penalties.

The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Karnataka High Court's decision which had quashed the charge sheet issued against the Respondent for major penalty, by the authority competent to impose minor penalties.

The Court observed that the authority competent to impose minor penalties had only issued a charge sheet and not imposed a penalty; therefore, the issuance of a charge sheet for major penalties cannot be faulted with as the authority is empowered to initiate proceedings for major penalties.

Briefly put, the Respondent, a former Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), had been charge-sheeted in two departmental proceedings, one related to a trap case and another for possession of disproportionate assets. He was also facing two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in which he had been convicted but secured a stay from the Karnataka High Court.

Despite his pending criminal appeals, two charge-sheets were issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules in 2006 and 2008, respectively. The Respondent challenged their validity before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing that the General Manager (Telecom), who issued the charge-sheets, was not authorized to initiate major penalty proceedings.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled against the Respondent, holding that although the General Manager could not impose major penalties, it was competent to initiate proceedings under Rule 13(2) of the CCS Rules.

Aggrieved by the High Court's reversal of the CAT's ruling, prompted the Union to approach the Supreme Court.

Restoring the CAT's ruling, the judgment authored by Justice SC Sharma observed:

“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.”

Further, the Court distinguished the Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351 precedent relied upon by the Respondent, stating that in that case an IRS officer was involved which required prior sanction by the Finance Minister based on a specific departmental office order. However, no such order existed in the present case. Hence, Gopinath was inapplicable.

“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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS R. SHANKARAPPA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Bani Dkshit, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR