Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO 7761 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 6348 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants

VERSUS

B.V.Gopinath

…Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7762 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 25534 of 2011)

Union of India …Appellant

VERSUS

K.K. Kapila

…Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7763 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 26939 of 2011)

Union of India & Anr. …Appellants

VERSUS

Sudhir Ranjan Senapati

…Respondent

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7764 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 28222 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants

VERSUS

S.K. Srivastava

…Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7765 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 25838 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants

VERSUS

Shri H.A. Siddiqui

…Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7766 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 25839 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants

VERSUS

Shri Varinder Mehta

…Respondent

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7767 OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 25841 of 2011)

Union of India & Ors. …Appellants

VERSUS

Shri Paul George

…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

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 7^th/8^th 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

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

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 7^th/8^th 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 approa