IMPORTANT POINT
Charge memo must be approved by the Disciplinary Authority.

Headnote:(a) Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(3) - Charge sheet - Disciplinary authority shall "draw up or cause to be drawn up" the charge sheet - Does not mean that once the disciplinary authority approves the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the charge sheet can be drawn up by an authority other than the disciplinary authority - Charge sheet can only be issued after approval by the appointing authority - Not doing so will violate Article 311 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. (Para 40)
        (b) Words and Phrases - 'Approval of' and 'approval for' - Are two distinct expressions - "Approval for issuing charge memo/sanction of prosecution" and "approval of charge memo" - Distinct actions at distinct stages - Decision at both stages has to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority - Approval of charge memo by any authority subordinate to Disciplinary Authority would violate the maxim delegatus non protest delegare (or delegari). (Paras 42 and 43)
        (1994) 5 SCC 346 - Relied upon
        (1996) 4 SCC 708 - Relied upon impliedly
        (c) Service Law - Departmental proceedings - Sanction for initiating proceedings, approval of charge memo, consideration of enquiry report, deciding penalty - All are distinct stages requiring approval of Disciplinary Authority - Finance Minister being Disciplinary Authority, his approval at every stage was mandatory. (Para 45)
        (1980) 3 SCC 734 - Relied upon impliedly
        [1949] 2 KB 481; 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 18; 1995 Supp (4) SCC 469; 1993 Supp (3) SCC 627; (1975) 2 SCC 377 - Distinguished impliedly
        AIR 1987 SC 943; (1996) 1 SCC 327; AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2); AIR 2004 SC 1467; AIR 2007 SC 906; (2012) 11 SCC 565; (2007) 9 SCC 625 - Referred
        (d) Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14(3) - Charge sheet - Caused to be drawn - "Definite and distinct articles of charge sheet" - Does not mean that the definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by the disciplinary authority - 'Drawing' and 'Finalizing' - Distinction. (Para 46)
        (1993) 1 SCC 419 - Relied upon
        (2003) 2 SCC 111 - Relied upon impliedly
        (2006) 1 ALD 823: (2006) 1 ALT 661 - Approved impliedly
        (1996) 2 SCC 145 - Distinguished impliedly
       Facts of the case:
        The question arising in these appeals is, in service matters, whether and in what circumstances a charge sheet may be quashed.
        The precise question is whether approval for initiation of the departmental proceedings would also amount to approval of the charge memo?
       Finding of the Court:
        The charge sheet/charge memo having not been approved by the disciplinary authority was non est in the eye of law.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2. The central issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is: whether the charge sheet issued against the respondents is without jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Finance Minister, had not given approval for issuing the charge memo, even though he had given approval for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the respondents.

3. Since the issue raised in the present appeals is purely legal, it would not be necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts of individual cases. For convenience and for the purpose of reference only, we advert to the facts as pleaded in Civil Appeal No.__________@ SLP (Civil) No. 6348 of 2011 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V.Gopinath).

4. Mr. B.V. Gopinath joined the Indian Revenue Service in the year 1987 as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. It appears that he earned promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in 1998, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in 1999 and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in 2000. On 7th/8th September, 2005, whilst working on the aforesaid post, Mr. Gopinath (respondent No.1) was served with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "CCS (CCA) Rules").

The said charge sheet was issued on the allegation that in 2003 the respondent was alleged to have approached one Chartered Accountant in Chennai for securing his transfer to Mumbai by offering bribe to the P.A. to the then Minister of State (Revenue). Thus, the charge levelled against the respondent was that he failed to maintain integrity; and exhibited a conduct which is unbecoming of a government servant. The respondent submitted his reply to the allegations wherein he denied the charges levelled against him. He requested for supply of certain documents. In due course, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed.

5. During the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, the respondents filed O.A. No.800 of 2008. In these proceedings, the respondents claimed that the charge sheet dated 7th/8th September, 2005 is without jurisdiction, therefore, liable to be quashed, as the charge memo had not been approved by the Finance Minister. We may also notice here that prior to filing of the aforesaid O.A., the respondent had already approached CAT twice: firstly, seeking direction(s) to the Union of India to supply all the documents relied upon in connection with the charge-sheet issued against him. Secondly, seeking a direction to the appellant for timely completion of the departmental proceedings against him. The directions given by CAT in the aforesaid proceedings, however, have no bearing on the controversy involved herein.

6. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the legality or otherwise of the order passed by CAT on 5th February, 2009 in O.A. No. 800 of 2008. By the aforesaid order, CAT quashed the charge sheet dated 7th/8th September, 2005 issued against the respondent on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the Finance Minister approved the charge sheet. The aforesaid order of CAT was challenged, by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10452 of 2009, before the Delhi High Court. By order dated 28th July 2009, which has been impugned before this court, the Delhi High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Appellants' Submissions:

7. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants, submitted that the High Court as well as the CAT have committed a grave jurisdictional error in quashing the charge sheet, which was issued by the competent authority, in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

8. She has elaborately explained the entire procedure that is followed in each and every case before the matter is put up before the Finance Minister for seeking approval for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. According to the lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 823

IMPORTANT POINT Charge memo must be approved by the Disciplinary Authority.

Cases Referred (17)

IMPORTANT POINT
Charge memo must be approved by the Disciplinary Authority.