Page 1

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

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

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

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  

4

Page 5

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.  

5

Page 6

6. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the legality or  

otherwise of the order passed by CAT on 5 th 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 28 th 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.

6

Page 7

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  learned  

Additional Solicitor General, the procedure followed ensures  

that  entire  material  is  placed  before  the  Finance  Minister  

before  a  decision  is  taken  to  initiate  the  departmental  

proceedings. She submits that approval for initiation of the  

departmental proceedings would also amount to approval of  

the  charge  memo.  According  to  the  learned  Additional  

Solicitor  General,  the CAT as well  as the High Court  had  

committed  a  grave  error  in  quashing  the  departmental  

proceedings against the respondents, as the procedure for  

taking approval of the disciplinary authority to initiate penalty  

proceeding is comprehensive and involved decision making  

at every level of the hierarchy.  

9. She pointed out that upon receipt of a complaint the same is  

examined by the Chief Vigilance Officer in the office of the  

Director  General,  Income  Tax  (Vigilance).  A  decision  is  

taken upon examination of the complaint as to whether there  

7

Page 8

is  a  vigilance  angle  involved.  In  case,  it  is  found  that  a  

complaint  involves  a  vigilance  angle,  a  preliminary  

investigation  is  conducted.  During  the  preliminary  

investigation,  the  version  of  the  officer  concerned  is  also  

taken.  Thereafter,  the  decision  is  taken  by  the  Chief  

Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CVO”) with the  

approval  of  Central  Board  of  Direct  Taxes  as  to  whether  

disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated. In case, the CVO  

decides to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the matter is then  

referred  to  the  Chief  Vigilance  Commission  for  first  stage  

advice. The Chief Vigilance Commission examines the first  

stage  advice.  In  case  the  Chief  Vigilance  Commission  

concurs  with  the  decision  taken  by  the  Chief  Vigilance  

Officer,  a  detailed  note  is  prepared  for  initiation  of  

disciplinary  proceedings  which  is  put  up  to  the  Finance  

Minister. She emphasised that alongwith note for initiation of  

disciplinary proceedings, all  relevant supporting material  is  

also  placed  before  the  Finance  Minister.  It  is  upon  

consideration of the entire material alongwith the explanatory  

note  that  the Finance Minister  takes a  decision to  initiate  

departmental proceedings. In view of the aforesaid elaborate  

8

Page 9

procedure,  the  CAT  as  well  as  the  High  Court  had  

erroneously  concluded  that  such  procedure  would  not  

amount to approval of the charge memo.  

10. Ms. Jaising further submitted that Office Order No.  

205 of  2005 has been misread by the Courts below. She  

points  out  that  to  appreciate  the  true  purport  of  the  said  

office order, a careful consideration needs to be given to the  

safeguards  available  to  a  delinquent  officer  under  the  

Constitution  of  India  and  the  CCS (CCA)  Rules.  Learned  

ASG  then  submitted  that  Article  311  provides  for  two  

safeguards for the delinquent officer: (i) the officer cannot be  

dismissed or  removed by the authority  subordinate  to  the  

appointing authority of the officer concerned [Article 311(1)];  

and (ii) the dismissal or removal can only be effected after  

an enquiry  in  which the official  has been informed of  the  

charges against him and is given a reasonable opportunity to  

be heard in respect of those charges [Article 311(2)].  She  

submits that in the present case, none of the two safeguards  

have been violated. She has elaborated that the disciplinary  

proceedings were initiated against the respondent in terms  

9

Page 10

of  Rule  14  of  CCS  (CCA)  Rules,  which  prescribed  the  

procedure  for  imposing  major  penalty.  Relying  on  Rule  

14(3), she again drew our attention to the expression that  

the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn  

up the  substance  of  imputation  of  misconduct  or  

misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. She  

submitted that  the entire  procedure under  Rule  14(3)  has  

been followed. Under Rule 14(4) again disciplinary authority  

is required to either  deliver  or  cause to be delivered to the  

Government servant a copy of the articles of charge. This  

was also admittedly followed in the present proceeding. She  

reiterated that a plain reading of Rule 14(3) would show that  

it  permits  the  disciplinary  authority  to  cause  the  charge  

memo to be drawn up by a subordinate authority.  

11. The  ASG  then  submitted  that  the  office  order  

No.205 of 2005 was passed in view of the stress on time and  

resources being felt  in  the Department  of  Finance due to  

insufficient  delegation  of  powers  in  respect  of  disciplinary  

action  cases.  Accordingly,  after  considering  the  

recommendations of a Committee formed for this purpose,  

1

Page 11

the  office  order  was  passed  prescribing  the  competent  

decision  making  authority  for  various  steps  in  disciplinary  

action  cases  in  CBEC  and  CBDT.  The  office  order  

prescribed the competent authority for granting approval at  

different  stages.  It  does  not  prescribe  the  stages  which  

require approval. She further submitted that the High Court  

has  misinterpreted  clause  (8)  of  the  aforesaid  order.  She  

points out that the expression “approval for issuing charge  

memo” cannot be read as distinct from “approval for initiating  

major penalty proceedings”. According to the learned ASG,  

the office order dated 19th July, 2005 does not impose any  

requirement that the charge memo must be approved by the  

disciplinary  authority.  Clause  (8)  of  the  office  order,  

according  to  Ms.  Indira  Jaising,  only  provides  that  the  

Finance  Minister  is  the  competent  authority  for  granting  

approval “for  issuing charge memo”, and not for  “approving  

the  charge  memo”.  She  submits  that  the  procedure  for  

drawing up the charge memo commences when approval is  

sought  for  initiation  of  the  disciplinary  proceedings.  The  

actual  drawing  up  of  the  charge  memo  is  a  part  of  and  

incidental to the approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings  

1

Page 12

and is a ministerial act. The approval to initiate disciplinary  

proceedings is  the approval  to  set  the law in  motion and  

carries  with  it,  by  necessary  implication,  all  things  to  

effectuate  the  same.  Therefore,  the  grant  of  approval  for  

initiation  of  disciplinary  proceedings  amounts  to  grant  of  

approval for issuance of charge memo.  

12. The learned ASG further submitted that  the office  

order does not create any enforceable rights in favour of the  

respondent,  since  the  said  order  is  intended  for  internal  

functioning  of  the  department  concerned.  The  order,  she  

submits, must be given a purposive interpretation to discern  

its true import. It was submitted by the learned ASG, it would  

be sufficient compliance with the said order if it is shown that  

there  was approval  by  the  disciplinary  authority  to  initiate  

disciplinary  proceedings  and  approval  is  granted  to  the  

material on the basis of which the charge memo has been  

drawn.  In  this  context,  reliance was placed upon  Seaford  

Court Estates Ltd  Vs.  Asher  ,  1 Municipal Corporation of  

Greater Bombay and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation  

1 [1949] 2 KB 481

1

Page 13

Ltd.,  2   State of Karnataka    Vs. Appa Balu Ingale & Ors.,  3    

Forest  Range  Officer  &  Ors. Vs.  P.  Mohammad  Ali  &  

Ors.,  4   State of Madhya Pradesh   Vs. M.V. Narasimhan  5  .    

13. Learned ASG further submitted that the High Court  

has  wrongly  drawn  a  distinction  between  approval  for  

initiation  of  the  disciplinary  proceedings  and  approval  for  

issuance of charge memo by treating them as two distinct  

steps.  She  reiterated  that  approval  for  initiation  of  

departmental  proceeding  would  include  approval  of  the  

charge memo by disciplinary authority.

14. The next submission of the learned ASG is that the charge  

sheet  is  normally  not  to  be  quashed  unless  prejudice  is  

shown to be caused to the delinquent officer. And since the  

respondent has not alleged any prejudice caused to him by  

virtue of the charge sheet not having been approved by the  

disciplinary  authority,  the charge  sheet  ought  not  to  have  

been interfered with. Reliance was placed on State of Uttar  

2 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 18 3 1995 Supp (4) SCC 469 4 1993 Supp (3) SCC 627 5 (1975) 2 SCC 377

1

Page 14

Pradesh   Vs.  Brahm  Dutt  Sharma  &  Anr.,6 Executive  

Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar  

Singh & Ors.,  7   Ulagappa & Ors.   Vs. Div. Commr., Mysore  

&  Ors.  8   Special  Director  &  Anr.   Vs.  Mohd.  Ghulam  

Ghouse & Anr.  9   and Union of India & Anr.   Vs. Kunisetty  

Satyanarayan10 and  The Secretary, Min. of Defence and  

Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha     11

15. In support of her submission that it is not necessary  

that  charge  sheet  should  be  framed  by  the  authority  

competent  to  impose  penalty  or  that  enquiry  should  be  

conducted by such authority alone, reliance was placed on  

Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. Thavasiappan.12  

16. Further, it was submitted that it is in the interest of  

good administration to interpret said the office order in the  

manner as contended by the learned ASG since there are  

more  than  500  enquiries  that  have  been  initiated  in  the  

6 AIR 1987 SC 943 7 (1996) 1 SCC 327 8 AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2) 9 AIR 2004 SC 1467 10 AIR 2007 SC 906 11 2012 (11) SCC 565 12 1996 (2) SCC 145  

1

Page 15

aforesaid manner.   

17. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellants, out of  

abundant  caution,  have now amended the  procedure  and  

seek the approval of the Finance Minister for charge memo.  

Respondents’ Submissions:  

18. Mr.  P.S.  Patwalia,  learned  senior  counsel,  

submitted  that  provisions  of  CCS  (CCA)  Rules  1965  are  

applicable to the respondent, an officer of Indian Revenue  

Service. And that since the charge sheet that was issued to  

him contemplated a major penalty, Rule 14 of CCS (CCA)  

Rules is attracted. Reliance was placed upon  Registrar of  

Cooperative  Society  Vs. F.X.  Fernando, (supra) to  

contend  that  the  CCS  (CCA)  Rules  require  a  strict  

compliance. It  was further submitted that it  is an admitted  

fact  that  the  Disciplinary  Authority  has  not  approved  the  

charge sheet.  

1

Page 16

19. After citing Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the  

learned senior  counsel  has  elaborated  the various  stages  

when decisions required to be taken to comply with the said  

provision:

a. Whether or not there is justification for initiation of an  

enquiry  against  a  Government  Servant?  This  would  

also  include  undertaking  the  decision  that  whether  

Disciplinary Authority would itself  hold the enquiry or  

appoint some other authority to do the same.

b. The second stage is drawing up of chargesheet; and  

that has to be done by the Disciplinary Authority.

c. Then the Disciplinary Authority has to apply its mind on  

the charges framed under Rule 14(3) and has to grant  

its approval.

20. It  was  further  submitted  that  there  may be  some  

situations  where  even  despite  the  fact  that  approval  has  

been accorded to initiate the enquiry, charge sheet may not  

be issued or approved. To illustrate, it was pointed out that  

there  may  be  circumstances  where  the  Disciplinary  

Authority,  after  approving  the  initiation  of  proceedings  but  

1

Page 17

before  giving  approval  to  the  charge  sheet,  comes  to  a  

conclusion that a lesser charge or no charge is made out  

against  the  concerned officer.  In  such  circumstances,  the  

Disciplinary  Authority  proceeds  accordingly  and  may  drop  

the  proceedings.  Thus,  it  is  for  this  reason  that  Rule  14  

provides that the Disciplinary Authority has to apply its mind  

separately at two different stages:                                       (i)  

initiation of proceedings and (ii) approval of charge sheet.    

21. In  this  context,  similar  submissions  were  also  

reiterated  by  Mr.  Shekhar  Kumar,  learned  counsel  for  

respondent in                           SLP (Civil) No. 25839 of   

2011. Referring to Rule 14 (3),  learned counsel submitted  

that  charge-memo ought  to  have  been sanctioned by the  

Disciplinary  Authority,  especially  since  there  was  no  sub-

delegation of such power in favour of any other officer.

22. The  next  submission  of  Mr.  Patwalia  is  that  the  

Office Order No. 205/2005, Clause/ Item No. 8, mandates  

that the approval of the charge sheet has to be granted by  

the Finance Minister. This interpretation is fortified by clause  

1

Page 18

9 of the 2005 office order. Clause 9 requires that if there has  

to be any dropping/modification/amendment of the charges,  

after receiving the Written Submission of Defence, then the  

file has to be put up to the Finance Minister. Learned Senior  

Counsel  states  that  if  dropping/modification/amendment  of  

charges is required to be undertaken by the Finance Minister  

then it would necessarily mean that the initial approval of the  

charge sheet has to be sanctioned by the said minister only.  

It was further submitted that acceptance of the stand of the  

appellant that approval  granted to initiation of proceedings  

includes  approval  to  the  charge-memo would  lead  to  the  

position where the charge memo would get approval even  

before it has come into existence.  

23. Mr. Patwalia further submitted that the issue in the  

present  case  has  already  been  decided  by  this  Court  in  

Steel Authority of India, Successor of Bokaro Steel Ltd.  

Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Bokaro Steel City,  

Dhanbad & Anr.13 It was also submitted that since the law  

laid down in the aforesaid case is in the favour of the present  

13 1980 (3) SCC 734

1

Page 19

Respondents,  the  present  appeals  are  liable  to  be  

dismissed.

24. Mr. Patwalia has also submitted that the appellants,  

in  the application for  condonation of  delay in  filing  of  the  

present appeals, contended that the ASG recommended that  

this is not a fit case for filing the SLP. Thus, the Civil Appeals  

are  liable  to  be  dismissed  on  this  ground  as  well.  The  

learned senior  counsel  also  submitted that  the Appellants  

have already accepted the judgment of CAT and the High  

Court  since  the  Finance  Minister  is  now  approving  the  

charge-sheets. Further, it was submitted that after receiving  

information  upon  a  RTI  query,  it  was  disclosed  that  the  

Finance  Minister  approved  the  fresh  charge  sheet  in  the  

case of the Respondent in                        SLP No.  

6348/2001. Thus, filing of the present appeals is nothing but  

an ‘academic exercise.’

25. Mr.  Patwalia  countered  the  submission  of  the  

learned  ASG  that  it  will  not  be  in  the  interest  of  good  

administration to drop the inquiries which are already going  

1

Page 20

on if the charge-sheets issued in such inquiries are required  

to be approved by the Finance Minister.  In this context,  it  

was  submitted  that  such  a  contention  has  already  been  

rejected by this court in  Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Vs.  Saroj  

Kumar  Mishra.  14   Our  attention  was  also  drawn  to  the  

following excerpt from the said case:

“the  floodgate  argument  also  does  not  appeal  to  us.The  same  appears  to  be  an  argument  of  desperation. Only because, there is a possibility of  floodgate  litigation,  a  valuable  right  of  a  citizen  cannot be permitted to be taken away. This court is  bound  to  determine  the  respective  rights  of  the  parties.”   

Thus, it was submitted that the Civil Appeals  

are required to be dismissed.

26. Similar  submissions  were  also  reiterated  by  Mr.  

Brijender Chahar, learned senior advocate. Besides, learned  

senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  fact  that  respondent  in  

SLP (Civil) No. 26939 of 2011 belongs to Indian Revenue  

Service  would  concomitantly  mean  that  the  President  of  

India  is  the  appointing  authority  and  thereby,  Disciplinary  

Authority  in  his  case.  However,  the  said  power  of  the  14 2007 (9) SCC 625

2

Page 21

President  has been delegated under  Article  77  (3)  of  the  

Constitution  and  by  the  order  of  the  President  dated  14 th  

January, 1961 under the Government of India (Allocation of  

Business) Rules, to the Finance Minister. Thus, the Finance  

Minister acts as the Disciplinary authority for the purposes of  

Article 311 of the Constitution and Rule 14 of CCS (CCA)  

Rules. Therefore, the Finance Minister, himself, has to apply  

his mind and give approval  inter alia to the charge sheet. It  

was further  submitted that  matters  pertaining to  any such  

disciplinary  action  cannot  be  further  delegated  or  sub-

delegated  to  any  other  authority  as  the  President  has  

delegated this authority only to the Finance Minister.  

27. Relying on Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, learned  

senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  rule  contemplates  a  

detailed procedure, consisting of four stages, which has to  

be completed before any punishment can be imposed on a  

public servant. These steps are :

(i) Initiation of Disciplinary proceedings for major  

penalties;

(ii) drawing up of charges of misconduct;

2

Page 22

(iii) appointment  of  Inquiry  Officer  &  Presenting  

Officer  and  to  supervise  fair  conducting  of  

inquiry by the Inquiry Officer;  

(iv) imposition of penalty, if any.

All  the  above  procedures  have  been  elaborated  in  

provisions of Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification,  

Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, which require an independent &  

unbiased  application  of  mind  and  approval,  directly  by  the  

Finance Minister and not by any other subordinate Authority.  

28.  Learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that  the  

drawing up charges of misconduct and issuance/service of  

charge memo is a crucial function for conducting an inquiry,  

which  require  the  independent  &  unbiased  application  of  

mind  and  approval,  directly  and  solely  by  the  Finance  

Minister and not by any other subordinate Authority.

29. According to the learned senior counsel, the most  

important issue to be decided by this Court is that whether  

the stage of initiating Disciplinary Proceedings is the same  

as issuing a charge sheet/charge memo? A plain reading of  

2

Page 23

Rule  14(2)  and  Rule  14(3)  of  the  Central  Civil  Services  

(Classification,  Control  &  appeal)  Rules,  1965  makes  it  

amply clear and the only interpretation possible is that the  

stage of initiating the disciplinary proceedings U/Rule 14(2)  

is distinct and separate from issuing a charge memo U/Rule  

14(3)  and  it  is  not  a  continuing  act  because  it  is  not  

necessary that every disciplinary proceeding initiated would  

definitely  result  in  issuing  a  charge  memo  because  after  

initiating disciplinary proceedings it may be found  from the  

material  on record that,  the memo of  charge need not be  

served  because  the  charges  may  not  be  made  out  or  a  

lesser charge could be made out. Mind has to be applied to  

the evidence and material on record pursuant to initiation of  

disciplinary proceedings to again come to a fresh decision as  

to  whether  now,  a  charge  memo deserves  to  be  issued.  

Thus,  the  material  before  the  Disciplinary  authority  is  

different at both the stages of Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3) of  

the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal)  

Rules, 1965.     

2

Page 24

30. Learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant  

has not denied and in fact accepted that the Charge Memo  

dated  1st April,  2008  was  not  approved  by  the  Finance  

Minister and as such, there was no application of mind by  

the Finance Minister.  Therefore,  CAT has rightly  quashed  

the said charge memo.

31. It  was  further  submitted  that  under  the  relevant  

rules, only ancillary actions relating to the issue of charge  

sheet may be undertaken by a subordinate authority, but the  

framing  of  charge  sheet  requires  independent/unbiased  

application of  mind and therefore, Finance Minister  has to  

give approval to the charge memo.  

32. Learned  senior  counsel  reiterated  that  once  the  

disciplinary powers have been delegated by the President of  

India under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution to the Finance  

Minister,  then  such  delegated  authority  cannot  be  re-

delegated/sub-delegated  by  the  Disciplinary  Authority,  

unless  statute/  constitution  provides  for  the  same.  In  this  

context, reliance was placed on Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd.&  

2

Page 25

Anr. Vs. E.S.I. Corporation15 and Director General, ESI &  

Anr. Vs. T.Abdul Razak.16  

33. Learned senior Counsel further submitted that the  

provisions of Rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules are separate  

provisions. In case, the approval of the Finance Minister is  

taken only for provision of Rule 14 (2) and no approval is  

taken for acting under Rule 14(3), then the provision of Rule  

14(3) would be rendered redundant  and obsolete.  Such a  

position, he submits, would mean as if no charges were ever  

framed by the Disciplinary Authority.

34. It  was  further  submitted  that  the  charges  were  

framed only on the basis of  the recommendations of  CBI,  

which is  not  the recommending authority  as  per  the CCS  

(CCA) Rules.

35. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel, submitted that  

the contention of the learned ASG that no prejudice would  

be caused to the Respondent is premised on an incorrect  15 1994 (5) SCC 346 16 (1996) 4 SCC 708

2

Page 26

notion.  Learned  counsel  further  submitted  that  since  the  

intention of the Government is manifest in the office order  

No.  205 of  2005,  the said  order  has to  be complied with  

strictly, irrespective of the fact whether prejudice is shown to  

be caused to the Government Servant or not.  

36. It  was also submitted that the charge memo drawn by an  

officer  other than the specified authority was wholly without  

jurisdiction  and  hence,  vitiated  the  whole  disciplinary  

enquiry.  Reliance was placed on  Government of Andhra  

Pradesh Vs. M.A. Majeed & Anr.17 It  was also submitted  

that where a statutory authority is required do something in a  

particular manner, the same must be done in that manner  

only. The State and other authorities, while acting under the  

statute,  are the creatures of  the statue and they must act  

with in the four corners of the statute. Learned counsel relied  

on Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.  

& Ors.  18   

17 (2006) 1 ALD 823: (2006) 1 ALT 661 18 (2003) 2 SCC 111

2

Page 27

37. Lastly, it was submitted that a charge sheet can be  

subjected to judicial review on the ground that it has been  

issued by an incompetent authority.  Ld. Counsel relied on  

Samaraditya Pal, Law Relating to Public Service: A treatise  

on  the  law  applicable  to  Government  and  Public  

Undertaking, third Edition (2011) Pgs. 761, 767.

38. We  have  considered  the  elaborate  submissions  

made by the learned counsel for the parties.   

39. Article  311(1) of  the Constitution of  India ensures  

that  no person who is  a member of  a civil  service of  the  

Union or an all India service can be dismissed or removed  

by  an  authority  subordinate  to  that  by  which  he  was  

appointed.  The  overwhelming  importance  and  value  of  

Article 311(1) for the civil administration as well as the public  

servant has been considered stated and re-stated, by this  

Court in numerous judgments, since the Constitution came  

into effect                     on 19 th January, 1950. Article 311(2)  

ensures that no civil servant is dismissed or reduced in rank  

except after an inquiry held in accordance with the rules of  

2

Page 28

natural  justice.  To  effectuate  the  guarantee  contained  in  

Article 311(1) and to ensure compliance with the mandatory  

requirements of Article 311(2), the Government of India has  

promulgated CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

40. Disciplinary  proceedings  against  the  respondent  

herein  were initiated in  terms of  Rule 14 of  the aforesaid  

Rules. Rule 14(3) clearly lays down that where it is proposed  

to hold an inquiry against a government servant under Rule  

14 or  Rule  15,  the  disciplinary  authority  shall  draw up or  

cause to be drawn up the charge sheet. Rule 14(4) again  

mandates  that  the  disciplinary  authority  shall  deliver  or   

cause to be delivered to the government servant, a copy of  

the articles of  charge, the statement of  the imputations of  

misconduct or misbehaviour and the supporting documents  

including a list of witnesses by which each article of charge  

is proposed to be proved. We are unable to interpret  this  

provision as suggested by the Additional Solicitor General,  

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. This  

2

Page 29

would  destroy  the  underlying protection guaranteed under  

Article 311(1) of  the Constitution of India. Such procedure  

would also do violence to the protective provisions contained  

under Article 311(2) which ensures that no public servant is  

dismissed,  removed or  suspended without  following a  fair  

procedure  in  which  he/she  has  been  given  a  reasonable  

opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the charge  

sheet.  Such  a  charge  sheet  can  only  be  issued  upon  

approval by the appointing authority i.e. Finance Minister.

41. In  fact,  issuance  of  the  office  order  No.205  

dated 19th July, 2005 makes it evident that the respondents  

were aware of the legal position. The office order clearly sets  

out the levels of the decision making authorities depending  

on the gravity of the consequences that would have to be  

faced by a delinquent public servant in case the decision is  

taken to proceed against the public servant. Clause (1) deals  

with  closure  of  complaints  which  are  

anonymous/pseudonymous; if the decision is taken to close  

the complaint it  can be taken by the CVO. But in case of  

verifiable  facts,  the complaints  have to  be referred to  the  

2

Page 30

next level of hierarchy CVB (Central Vigilance Bureau). For  

placing an officer under suspension, the decision has to be  

taken  by  the  Finance  Minister  himself.  Even  review  of  

suspension  at  quarterly/half  yearly  interval  rests  with  the  

Finance  Minister.  This  is  so,  as  suspension  during  

contemplation/pendency  of  enquiry,  though  may  not  be  

penal  in  nature  per  se, still  has  very  serious  adverse  

consequences on the professional as well as the personal  

life of the officer suspended. The office order recognizing the  

gravity  of  the  consequences  ensures  that  the  decision  in  

relation to suspension/review of suspension shall be taken  

by the highest authority in the department i.e. the Finance  

Minister.  In  matters  related  to  reference  to  CVC  for  first  

stage  advice,  the  competent  authority  is  the  Secretary  

(Revenue). Similarly, for reconsideration of CVC’s first stage  

advice,  again  the  competent  authority  is  the  Secretary  

(Revenue),  but  in  case  of  disagreement  with  CVC’s  first  

stage  advice  on  approval  for  referring  the  case  to  

Department  of  Personal  and  Training,  the  competent  

authority is the Finance Minister.

3

Page 31

42. Clause (8) of the Circular makes it abundantly clear  

that it relates to approval  for issuing charge memo/sanction  

of prosecution. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause shows  

that it  relates to a decision to be taken by the disciplinary  

authority as to whether the departmental proceedings are to  

be initiated or prosecution is to be sanctioned or both are to  

commence  simultaneously.  The  competent  authority  for  

approval of the charge memo is clearly the Finance Minister.  

There is no second authority specified in the order. We do  

not agree with Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor  

General  that  the  use  of  the  word  “approval  of” is  not  an  

expression distinct from “approval for” initiating major penalty  

proceedings. Under Clause (9),  the department firstly puts  

up the file before the Finance Minister seeking “approval for  

issuing  charge  memo/sanction  of  prosecution.”  The  

department is seeking an order as to whether the officer is to  

be  proceeded  against  departmentally  or  criminal  

proceedings are to be initiated or both proceedings are to be  

commenced simultaneously. When the decision is taken by  

the Finance Minister that the departmental proceedings are  

to be held (initiation), only then the question of approval  of  

3

Page 32

charge  memo  arises.  The  department  would  thereafter  

complete the necessary formalities and then place the file  

before the Finance Minster, for  “approval of” charge memo.  

This  provision  is  in  harmony  with  the  mandate  contained  

under Articles 311(1) and (2) that no civil  servant shall  be  

dismissed or removed by an authority subordinating to that  

by which he was appointed. The second limb of the same  

direction is that punishment on a public servant of dismissal,  

removal or reduction in rank can only be imposed when the  

charges have been proved against  him in  a departmental  

enquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice.  

Rule  14  of  the  CCS (CCA)  Rules  provides  for  holding  a  

departmental  enquiry  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  

contained  in  Article  311(2)  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  

Clause  (8)  also  makes  it  clear  that  when  the  Finance  

Minister  is  approached  for  approval  of  charge  memo,  

approval  for  taking ancillary  action such as appointing an  

inquiry officer/presiding officer should also be taken. Clause  

(9) in fact reinforces the provisions in clause (8) to the effect  

that it is the Finance Minster, who is required to approve the  

charge  memo.  Clause  (9)  relates  to  a  stage  after  the  

3

Page 33

issuance  of  charge  sheet  and  when  the  charge  sheeted  

officer has submitted the statement of defence. It  provides  

that  in  case the charge sheeted officer  simply denies the  

charges, CVO will appoint an inquiry officer/presiding officer.  

In  case  of  denial  accompanied  by   representation,  the  

Chairman is to consider the written statement of defence. In  

case  the  Chairman  comes  to  a  tentative  conclusion  that  

written statement of defence has pointed out certain issues  

which may require modification/amendment of charges then  

the  file  has  to  be  put  up  to  the  Finance  Minster.  So  the  

intention is clearly manifest that all decisions with regard to  

the approval of charge memo, dropping of the charge memo,  

modification/amendment of charges have to be taken by the  

Finance Minister.  

43. Accepting  the  submission  of  Ms.  Indira  Jaising  

would run counter to the well known maxim  delegatus non  

protest delegare (or delegari).  The principle is summed up  

in “Judicial Review of Administrative Action” De Smith, Woolf  

and Jowell (Fifth Edition) as follows:-

“The rule against delegation

3

Page 34

A  discretionary  power  must,  in  general,  be  exercised only by the authority to which it has been  committed.  It is a well-known principle of law that  when a power  has  been confided to  a  person in  circumstances indicating that trust is being placed in  his  individual  judgment  and  discretion,  he  must  exercise that power personally unless he has been  expressly empowered to delegate it to another.”  

The same principle has been described in “Administrative  

Law”  H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth (Ninth Edition), Chapter 10,  

as follows:-

“Inalienable discretionary power

An element which is essential to the lawful exercise  of  power  is  that  it  should  be  exercised  by  the  authority upon whom it is conferred, and by no one  else.  The principle is strictly applied, even where it  causes  administrative  inconvenience,  except  in  cases where it may reasonably be inferred that the  power was intended to be delegable.  Normally the  courts  are  rigorous  in  requiring  the  power  to  be  exercised by the precise person or body stated  in  the statute, and in condemning as ultra vires action  taken  by  agents,  sub-committees  or  delegates,  however  expressly  authorized  by  the  authority  endowed with the power.”  

44. This principle has been given recognition in  Sahni  

Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:  

“6. By now it is almost settled that the legislature  can  permit  any  statutory  authority  to  delegate  its  power  to  any other  authority,  of  course,  after  the  policy has been indicated in the statute itself within  

3

Page 35

the framework of which such delegatee  (sic) is to  exercise  the  power.  The  real  problem  or  the  controversy arises when there is a sub-delegation. It  is  said  that  when  Parliament  has  specifically  appointed  authority  to  discharge  a  function,  it  cannot be readily presumed that it had intended that  its  delegate  should  be  free  to  empower  another  person or body to act in its place.”

45. Much was sought to be made by Ms. Indira Jaising  

on clause (10)  of  the order  which provides that  once the  

Finance Minister has approved the initiation of departmental  

proceedings,  the  ancillary  action  can  be  initiated  by  the  

CVO. According to the learned Addl. Solicitor General, the  

decision taken by the Finance Minister  would also include  

the decision for approval of charge memo. She pointed out  

the  procedure  followed  for  initiation  of  penalty  

proceedings/disciplinary proceedings. She submitted that the  

decision to  initiate  disciplinary  proceedings is  based on a  

Satisfaction Memo prepared by the CVO. This satisfaction  

memo is submitted to the Member (P&V), Central Board of  

Direct Taxes, New Delhi who after being satisfied that the  

memo is in order, forwards it to the Chairman, CBDT who in  

turn,  upon  his  own  satisfaction  forwards  it  to  Secretary  

3

Page 36

(Revenue) and finally to the Finance Minister. Based on the  

satisfaction  memo,  the  Finance  Minister,  who  is  the  

disciplinary  authority  in  this  case,  takes  the  decision  to  

initiate  disciplinary  proceedings.  While  taking  the  said  

decision, the Finance Minister has before him, the details of  

the alleged misconduct with the relevant materials regarding  

the  imputation  of  allegations  based  on  which  the  charge  

memo  was  issued.  Therefore,  approval  by  the  Finance  

Minister for initiation of the departmental proceedings would  

also cover the approval of the charge memo. We are unable  

to  accept  the  submission  of  the  learned  Addl.  Solicitor  

General.  Initially,  when  the  file  comes  to  the  Finance  

Minister,  it  is  only  to  take  a  decision  in  principle  as  to  

whether  departmental  proceedings  ought  to  be  initiated  

against the officer. Clause (11) deals with reference to CVC  

for  second  stage  advice.  In  case  of  proposal  for  major  

penalties,  the  decision  is  to  be  taken  by  the  Finance  

Minister.  Similarly,  under  Clause  (12)  reconsideration  of  

CVC’s second stage advice is to be taken by the Finance  

Minister.  All  further  proceedings  including  approval  for  

referring  the  case  to  DOP &  T,  issuance  of  show cause  

3

Page 37

notice  in  case  of  disagreement  with  the  enquiry  officer  

report;  tentative decision after CVC’s second stage advice  

on  imposition  of  penalty;  final  decision  of  penalty;  and  

revision/review/memorial  have to be taken by the Finance  

Minister. In our opinion, the Central Administrative Tribunal  

as  well  as  the  High  Court  has  correctly  interpreted  the  

provisions of the Office Order No. 205 of 2005.  Factually  

also, a perusal of the record would show that the file was put  

up to the Finance Minister by the Director General of Income  

Tax (Vigilance) seeking the approval of the Finance Minister  

for  sanctioning  prosecution  against  one  officer  and  for  

initiation of major penalty proceeding under Rule 3(1)(i) and  

(3)  (1)  (iii)  of  the  Central  Civil  Services  (Conduct)  Rules  

against the officers mentioned in the note which included the  

appellant  herein.  Ultimately,  it  appears  that  the  charge  

memo was not put up for approval by the Finance Minister.  

Therefore, it would not be possible to accept the submission  

of  Ms.  Indira  Jaising  that  the  approval  granted  by  the  

Finance Minister  for  initiation of  departmental  proceedings  

would also amount to approval of the charge memo.  

3

Page 38

46. Ms. Indira Jaising also submitted that the purpose  

behind  Article  311,  Rule  14  and  also  the  Office  Order  of  

2005  is  to  ensure  that  only  an  authority  that  is  not  

subordinate  to  the  appointing  authority  takes  disciplinary  

action and that  rules  of  natural  justice  are  complied with.  

According  to  the  learned  Addl.  Solicitor  General,  the  

respondent is not claiming that rules of natural justice have  

been violated as the charge memo was not  approved by the  

disciplinary  authority.  Therefore,  according  to  the  Addl.  

Solicitor General, the CAT as well as the High Court erred in  

quashing the charge sheet as no prejudice has been caused  

to  the  respondent.  In  our  opinion,  the  submission  of  the  

learned Addl. Solicitor General is not factually correct. The  

primary submission of the respondent was that the charge  

sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is  

without authority of law and, therefore, non est in the eye of  

law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the  

CAT as also by the High Court. The action has been taken  

against the respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules  

which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause  

to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or  

3

Page 39

misbehaviour  into  definite  and distinct  articles  of  charges.  

The term “cause to be drawn up” does not mean that the  

definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not  

have to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The term  

“cause to be drawn up” merely refers to a delegation by the  

disciplinary authority  to  a subordinate  authority  to  perform  

the task of drawing up substance of proposed “definite and  

distinct articles of charge sheet”. These proposed articles of  

charge  would  only  be  finalized  upon  approval  by  the  

disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly, this Court in the case of  

P.V.Srinivasa Sastry & Ors. Vs. Comptroller and Auditor  

General & Ors.  19   has held that Article 311(1) does not say  

that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only  

by the appointing authority. However, at the same time it is  

pointed out that “However, it is open to Union of India or a  

State Government  to make any rule prescribing that  even  

the  proceeding  against  any  delinquent  officer  shall  be  

initiated  by  an  officer  not  subordinate  to  the  appointing  

authority.” It is further held that “Any such rule shall not be  

inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it  

19 1993 (1) SCC 419

3

Page 40

will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection  

to the holders of a civil post.”

47. Further,  it  appears  that  during  the  pendency  of  

these  proceedings,  the  appellants  have,  after  2009,  

amended  the  procedure  which  provides  that  the  charge  

memo shall be issued only after the approval is granted by  

the Finance Minister.

48. Therefore,  it  appears  that  the  appeals  in  these  

matters were filed and pursued for an authoritative resolution  

of the legal issues raised herein.  

49. Although  number  of  collateral  issues  had  been  

raised by the learned counsel for the appellants as well the  

respondents,  we deem it  appropriate  not  to  opine  on  the  

same in view of the conclusion that the charge sheet/charge  

memo having not been approved by the disciplinary authority  

was    non est in the eye of law.      

4

Page 41

50. For the reasons stated above, we see no merit in  

the appeals filed by the Union of India. We may also notice  

here that CAT had granted liberty to the appellants to take  

appropriate  action  in  accordance  with  law.  We  see  no  

reasons to disturb the liberty so granted. The appeals are,  

therefore, dismissed.     

        ….….…………………..J.            [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

…………………………J.    [M.Y.Eqbal]

New Delhi; September 05, 2013.

4