UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus R. SHANKARAPPA

Citation: [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1622 · Decided: 25-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1622 : 2025 INSC 898
Union of India & Ors.  
v. 
R. Shankarappa
(Civil Appeal No. 9852 of 2025)
25 July 2025
[Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the 
High Court that in cases where a charge-sheet has been issued 
u/r.14 of the CCS CCA Rules, by authority empowered to inflict 
minor penalties, then the charge memo has to be approved by 
the authority competent to inflict major penalty.
Headnotes†
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) 
Rules, 1965 – rr.14, 13(2) – Procedure for imposing major 
penalties – Case relating to the trap case and the case of 
possessing assets disproportionate to known source of 
income against the government employee – Disciplinary 
proceedings against him – Issuance of chargesheets u/r.14, 
for imposing major penalties by the General Manager – 
Applications before the tribunal that the charge-sheets 
have been issued by an authority competent to inflict only 
minor penalties, thus, as the charge-sheet not issued with 
the approval of the disciplinary authority empowered to 
inflict major penalty, the charge-sheet itself is void; and to 
declare that the proceedings initiated under charge memos 
issued by the General Manager as void-ab-initio for want 
of approval from the appointing authority  – Dismissal of 
the applications – However, the High Court allowed the 
writ petition by the employee holding that in cases where 
a charge-sheet has been issued u/r.14, by an authority 
empowered to inflict minor penalties, then the charge memo 
has to be approved by the authority which is competent to 
inflict major penalty – Correctness:
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 
1623
Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa
Held: Authority empowered to inflict minor penalties (in the instant 
case, the General Manager) can certainly issue a charge-sheet even 
for imposition of major penalties – There has been no violation of 
any statutory provision of law and the disciplinary proceedings were 
conducted strictly in consonance with procedure prescribed under 
the Rule – Initiation has been done by the General Manager and, 
thus, the issuance of charge-sheet by General Manager could not 
have been faulted upon by the High Court – Guilt of the respondent 
after following due process of law established – Inquiry does not 
suffer from any procedural irregularity and the charge-sheet has 
been issued by the competent disciplinary authority – Final order 
has been passed after following the due process of law by the 
competent disciplinary authority empowered to inflict major penalty 
and, thus, the tribunal rightly dismissed the application – Impugned 
order passed by the High Court set aside and proceedings initiated 
under charge memos both issued by General Manager held to be 
validly initiated. [Paras 13, 14, 16-19]
Case Law Cited
Union of India and Others v. B.V. Gopinath [2013] 14 SCR 185 : 
(2014) 1 SCC 351 – distinguished.
List of Acts
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 
1965; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Charge-sheet; Authority empowered to inflict minor penalties; 
Charge memo; Approval by the authority competent to inflict major 
penalty; Trap case; Case of possessing assets disproportionate to 
his known source of income; Disciplinary proceedings; Procedural 
irregularity.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9852  
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2022 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 14475 of 2022
1624
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Sudarshan Lamba, Piyush Beriwal, Arkaj 
Kumar, Padmesh Mishra, Ms. Bani Dkshit, Shailesh Madiyal, Anuj 
Srinivas Udupa, Amrish Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondent:
P.A. Kulkarni, Ms. Punam Kumari.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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. Shank

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.