1. Disciplinary proceedings against a government servant for corruption and disproportionate assets — challenge to validity of charge-sheets issued by an authority competent only to impose minor penalties. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1117
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kumar, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
R. Shankarappa – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9852 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 7149 of 2023)
Decided On : 25-07-2025
Important Points
Disciplinary authority competent for minor penalties can validly issue charge-sheets for major penalties under statutory provisions.
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.13, R.13(2), R.14
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.13(1)(d), S.7
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT: S.13(1)(d), S.7
Headnote
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Disciplinary proceedings against government servant - Charge-sheet issued by authority competent to impose minor penalties - High Court's ruling set aside, affirming that such authority can initiate proceedings for major penalties. (Paras 12-19)
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings - Court emphasized that procedural adherence is paramount and the authority's competence to issue charge-sheets must align with statutory provisions. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was an employee of the Department of Telecommunication, convicted in corruption cases, and faced disciplinary proceedings. He challenged the validity of charge-sheets issued by an authority competent only for minor penalties.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the charge-sheet was validly issued under the CCS CCA Rules, rejecting the High Court's contrary findings.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheet issued by an authority competent for minor penalties can initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the statutory provisions allow an authority to issue charge-sheets for major penalties, and adherence to procedural requirements was met in this case.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside.
(B) Judicial Review - Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings - Court emphasized that procedural adherence is paramount and the authority's competence to issue charge-sheets must align with statutory provisions. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was an employee of the Department of Telecommunication, convicted in corruption cases, and faced disciplinary proceedings. He challenged the validity of charge-sheets issued by an authority competent only for minor penalties.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the charge-sheet was validly issued under the CCS CCA Rules, rejecting the High Court's contrary findings.
Issues: Whether the charge-sheet issued by an authority competent for minor penalties can initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the statutory provisions allow an authority to issue charge-sheets for major penalties, and adherence to procedural requirements was met in this case.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Subramaniam, Adv. 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. Amrish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Ms. Yogya Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Subramaniam, Adv. 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. Amrish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Punam Kumari, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether a charge-sheet for major penalties issued by an authority competent only for minor penalties is void without approval from the authority empowered to impose major penalties. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 )
3. Rule 13(2) of CCS CCA Rules explicitly permits an authority competent to impose minor penalties to institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of major penalties. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Under Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules, a disciplinary authority empowered to inflict minor penalties is legally competent to institute proceedings for major penalties. (Para 15 , 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — disciplinary proceedings initiated via charge-sheets issued by the authority competent for minor penalties held valid. (Para 19 )
6. Can an authority competent only to impose minor penalties initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties under CCS CCA Rules?
Yes. Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules explicitly provides that a disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties (clauses i to iv of Rule 11) may institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of major penalties (clauses v to ix of Rule 11). (Para 15 , 16 )
7. Does a charge-sheet for a major penalty issued by a minor-penalty authority require approval from the major-penalty authority?
Not unless specifically required by statutory provisions or a specific office order. In the absence of such requirements, Rule 13(2) allows the minor-penalty authority to institute the proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
8. How does the ruling in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath apply to the validity of charge-sheets?
The B.V. Gopinath ruling applied where a specific office order required approval from a higher authority. It does not invalidate charge-sheets where no such statutory or administrative requirement for approval exists. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is arising out of judgment and order dated 18.11.2022 in Writ Petition No. 14475/2022 (hereinafter referred to as, “Impugned Order”) passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”) by which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.06.2022, in Original Application No. 170/00457/2021.
3. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent, Sri R. Shankarappa, was an employee serving the Department of Telecommunication as Sub Divisional Engineer, Group ‘B’ and was posted at Karnataka LSA (Licensed Service Area) DOT, Bengaluru. He retired from the service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. In 2003, the Respondent was subjected to prosecution by the Central Bureau of Investigation in two cases; namely, Case No. 1 i.e. Special CC No. 42/2003 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “PCA”) for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from a Contractor, and Special CC No. 92/2003 instituted for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PCA for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income. Respondent was convicted in both cases. The record before this Court reflects that the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 195/2014 and 277/2014 before the High Court against his conviction, wherein the High Court has stayed his conviction as well as his sentence vide orders dated 08.04.2014 and 22.04.2014, respectively. The criminal appeals are pending as on date.
4. Parallelly, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against respondent while he was working as Sub Divisional Engineer Cable Construction – II in Bengaluru Telecom SSA (BGTD). Two charge-sheets were issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, “CCS CCA Rules”), on 27.05.2006 and 04.12.2008 relating to the trap case and the case in respect of possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income, respectively.
5. The record of the case further reveals that the respondent preferred as many as six cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as, “CAT”), Bengaluru, and made all possible attempts to derail the departmental inquiry. The list of six cases preferred by him in respect of the aforesaid two charge-sheets are detailed as under:
I. In the matter of departmental proceedings relating to alleged trap case:
(i) OA No. 273/2007 decided on 04.09.2008
(ii) OA No. 486/2017 decided on 18.07.2018
(iii) OA No. 79/2019 decided on 05.03.2020
II. In the matter of departmental proceedings relating to allegation of disproportionate assets case-
(i) OA No. 67/2010 decided on 15.03.2012
(ii) OA No. 475/2017 decided on 18.07.2018
(iii) OA No. 78/2019 decided on 05.03.2020
6. The respondent raised a ground before the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases that the charge-sheets have been issued by an authority which is competent to inflict only minor penalties, therefore, as the charge-sheet has not been issued with the approval of the disciplinary authority empowered to inflict major penalty, the charge-sheet itself is void. The petitioner on this ground finally preferred an Original Application which was registered as O.A. No. 170/00457/2021 praying thus :
“To declare that the proceedings initiated under charge memos bearing No. VIG/12-285A/2005/6 dated 27.05.2006 and No. VIG/RS- SDE/BGTD/2008/37 dated 01.12.2008 both issued by Principal General Manager, BGTD, Bengaluru (Respondent No.4 herein) are void-ab-initio for want of approval from the appointing authority, in terms of Apex Court’s ruling in case of Union of India and Others Vs. B.V.Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351.”
