PerHon’bleMr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-A

The main issue which arises in this case is that whether the

Minister of State (Independent Charge) is the competent authority for

approving various stages of disciplinary proceedings or whether the

approval of the Prime Minister and the President is mandatory for such

approvals in case of an officer who had retired from a post, appointment

Page 2 of 12

to which requires approval of the Appointments Committee of the

Cabinet (ACC).

2.1

The facts of the case are that the applicant, an officer belonging to

1978 batch of the Indian Postal Services, who joined the service on

30.11.1978 and retired from the post of Post Master General (PMG) on

31.12.2015, was issued, after his retirement, an order (Annexure 1 of

OA) sanctioninginitiation of disciplinary proceedings under rule9(2)(b)(i)

of

the

Central

Civil

Services

(Pension)

Rules,

1972,

and

the

memorandum of charge (Annexure 2 of OA) on 10.04.2017.

2.2

The applicant submitted a representation dated 06.04.2018

(Annexure-4 of OA) asserting that formal approval of the Prime Minister

and the President had not been obtained as required interms of the

provision 3 and 4 of the Government of India decision (GID) No. 38

printed below Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification,

Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules], but it was rejected by

the respondents vide their letter dated 03.05.2018 (Annexure-3 of OA).

2.3

Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA seeking following

reliefs:

(i) to quash the orders dated 10.04.2017 contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2

and order dated 03.05.2018 contained in Annexure 3 to this OA, being non

est in the eyes of law since the same have been issued without the approval

of the Competent Authority.

(ii) to issue any other order which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems just and

proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) to award the cost of the application to the applicant.

3.1

It is the contention of the applicant that as per rule 8 of the

Transaction of Business Rules, 1961 all cases of the nature specified in

the Third Schedule are required to be submitted to the Prime Minister

and/or the President. According to the entry 39(i) of the Third Schedule

of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, cases

relating to dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or reduction in

Page 3 of 12

rank of an officer of the All India Service or Central Government Service

Group ‘A’ holding a post, appointment to which requires the approval

ofthe ACC, are required to be submitted to the Prime Minister and the

President. The provisions of this rule have been reiterated in GID no. 38

below rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. As the appointment to the post of

PMG in Department of Posts is required to be approved by the ACC, the

procedure for approval of disciplinary proceedings is covered by entry

39(i) of the Third Schedule to the Transaction of Business Rules as well

as paragraph3 of GID no. 38 ibid requiring the approval of the Prime

Minister and the President. However, the approval in his case has been

given by the Minister of State. The action of respondents is, therefore, in

violation of provisions of Transaction of Business Rules as well as GID 38

below Rule 14 ibid. Further, the respondents, have also violated rule 4(3)

of the Manual of Office Procedure as they failed to submit the case of the

applicant to the Prime Minister and the President.

3.2

Citing Union of India & Others Vs. B. V. Gopinath and Others

the applicant contends that approval of competent disciplinary authority

is required to be obtained at each stage of the proceedings where such

intervention is required.The issue of memorandum of charge has not

been approved by the appropriate disciplinary authority and is,

therefore,nonest in the eyes of law.

3.3

It was also been contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.V.

Gopinath(supra) has emphasised that the role of a Minister as

mentioned in proviso 1 and 2 of the Government o