Disciplinary authority competent for minor penalties can validly issue charge-sheets for major penalties under statutory provisions.

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.”

7. The respondent herein