LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus B.V. GOPINATH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 185 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH (Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2013 etc.) SEPTEMBER 05, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y.EQBAL, JJ.] Service Law: A B Disciplinary proceedings - Under s. 14 of CCS (CCA) c Rules - Issuance of Charge sheet/charge memo, without approval of disciplinary authority - Validity of - Held: Even though the disciplinary authority has given approval for initiation of major penalty_ proceedings, in absence of approval by the disciplinary authority, the charge sheet/charge memo o would be non-est in the eye of law - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings u/r. 14(2) is distinct and separate from issuing a charge memo u/r. 14(3) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rules 14(2) and 14(3). E The question for consideration in the present case was whether the charge-sheet issued against the respondents (who were issued charge-sheet u/s. 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) was without jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the disciplinary authority i.e. Finance Minister has F not given approval for issuing the Charge Memo, even though he had given approval for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the respondents. Dismissing the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1. A plain reading of Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules, 1965 makes it amply clear and the only 185 H 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A interpretation possible is that the stage of initiating the disciplinary proceedings u/r. 14(2) is distinct and separate from issuing a charge memo u/r. 14(3) and it is not a continuing act because it is not necessary that every disciplinary proceeding initiated would definitely result in B 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 c to the evidence and material on record pursua·nt 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 0 Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. [Para 29) [202-E-H; 203-A] 2. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. E 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 F 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. If the G provision is interpreted 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 would destroy the underlying protection guaranteed under H Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. Such procedure UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH 187 would also do violence to the protective provisions A 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 B sheet can only be issued upon approval by the appointing authority i.e. Finance Minister. [Para 40] [205- D-H; 206-A] 3. Issuance of the Office Order No.205 dated 19th C 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 D public servant. As per Clause 1 of the office order recognizing the gravity of the consequences ensures that the decisio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.