it2025_00891 — An authority competent to impose only minor penalties has the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings even for major penalties. – In B.V. Gopinath's case, the office order, dated 19-7-2005 contained a specific requirement of prior approval by the Finance Minister. There is no such statutory provision requiring prior approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission

IT Rules

An authority competent to impose only minor penalties has the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings even for major penalties. – In B.V. Gopinath's case, the office order, dated 19-7-2005 contained a specific requirement of prior approval by the Finance Minister. There is no such statutory provision requiring prior approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission — Appeal Case C.A. No. 9852 of 2025 arising from a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka, regarding disciplinary proceedings instituted despite an authority being competent for minor penalties, and a... — Facts: The present appeal is arising out of judgment and order, dated 18-11-2022 in Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 23-6-2022, in Original Application No. 170/00457 of 2021. The Respondent, Sri R. Shankarappa, served as a Sub-Divisional Engineer (Group ‘B') in the Department of Telecommunications (DOT), Karnataka Licensed Service Area, Bengaluru and retired on 31st May, 2018 upon attaining the age of superannuation. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first case, Special C.C. No. 42 of 2003, involved allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹ 1,00,000 from a contractor, constituting offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Act. The second case, Special C.C. No. 92 of 2003, pertained to possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, punishable under Sections 13 (1)
(e) and 13 (2) of the Act. The trial court convicted Shankarappa in both cases. He subsequently filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 195 of 2014 and 277 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court, challenging his convictions. The High Court granted a stay on both his conviction and sentence by orders, dated 8-4-2014 and 22-4-2014, respectively. The criminal appeals are still pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court. Simultaneously, two charge-sheets were issued against, Sri R. Shankarappa, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, one, dated 27-5-2006 concerning a trap case and another, dated 4-12-2008 regarding possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. In connection with these cases, the Respondent filed multiple cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, i.e. O.A. Nos. 273 of 2007, 486 of 2017 and 79 of 2019 for the trap case and O.A. Nos. 67 of 2010, 475 of 2017, and 78 of 2019 for the disproportionate assets case, apparently to delay or obstruct the departmental inquiries. His main contention in all these proceedings was that, the charge-sheets were issued by an authority competent to impose only minor penalties and lacked the approval of the disciplinary authority authorized to impose major penalties. On this basis, he argued that the charge-sheets were void ab initio. Subsequently, he filed O.A. No. 170/00457 of 2021 before the CAT seeking a declaration that both charge-memos, dated 27-5-2006 and 4-12-2008 were invalid in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India and Others v. B.V. Gopinath [ (2014) 1 SCC 351 ]. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Others v. B.V. Gopinath [ (2014) 1 SCC 351 ] to seek quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that both the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings were validly issued by a competent disciplinary authority. It further observed that even if the authority issuing the charge-sheet is empowered only to impose minor penalties, it can still issue a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for a major penalty - provided that the final punishment order is passed by the authority competent to impose such major penalties. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 before the High Court. The High Court, through its judgment, dated 18-11-2022, allowed the Writ Petition. It held that when a charge-sheet is issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules by an authority competent only to impose minor penalties, such a charge-memo must be approved by the authority competent to impose major penalties before it can be considered valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner–Union of India strongly contended before this Court that the High Court had wrongly relied on the judgment in B.V. Gopinath (supra). It was argued that the statutory provisions applicable to the case authorize a disciplinary authority to issue a charge-sheet for a major penalty, even if that authority is competent to impose only minor penalties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent strenuously contended before this Court that no interference is warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the judgment of the High Court is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra).

IT Rules

An authority competent to impose only minor penalties has the authority to institute disciplinary proceedings even for major penalties. – In B.V. Gopinath's case, the office order, dated 19-7-2005 contained a specific requirement of prior approval by the Finance Minister. There is no such statutory provision requiring prior approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission — Appeal Case C.A. No. 9852 of 2025 arising from a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka, regarding disciplinary proceedings instituted despite an authority being competent for minor penalties, and a... — Facts: The present appeal is arising out of judgment and order, dated 18-11-2022 in Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru by which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 23-6-2022, in Original Application No. 170/00457 of 2021. The Respondent, Sri R. Shankarappa, served as a Sub-Divisional Engineer (Group ‘B') in the Department of Telecommunications (DOT), Karnataka Licensed Service Area, Bengaluru and retired on 31st May, 2018 upon attaining the age of superannuation. In 2003, he was prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first case, Special C.C. No. 42 of 2003, involved allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹ 1,00,000 from a contractor, constituting offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Act. The second case, Special C.C. No. 92 of 2003, pertained to possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, punishable under Sections 13 (1)
(e) and 13 (2) of the Act. The trial court convicted Shankarappa in both cases. He subsequently filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 195 of 2014 and 277 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court, challenging his convictions. The High Court granted a stay on both his conviction and sentence by orders, dated 8-4-2014 and 22-4-2014, respectively. The criminal appeals are still pending consideration before the Hon'ble High Court. Simultaneously, two charge-sheets were issued against, Sri R. Shankarappa, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, one, dated 27-5-2006 concerning a trap case and another, dated 4-12-2008 regarding possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. In connection with these cases, the Respondent filed multiple cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, i.e. O.A. Nos. 273 of 2007, 486 of 2017 and 79 of 2019 for the trap case and O.A. Nos. 67 of 2010, 475 of 2017, and 78 of 2019 for the disproportionate assets case, apparently to delay or obstruct the departmental inquiries. His main contention in all these proceedings was that, the charge-sheets were issued by an authority competent to impose only minor penalties and lacked the approval of the disciplinary authority authorized to impose major penalties. On this basis, he argued that the charge-sheets were void ab initio. Subsequently, he filed O.A. No. 170/00457 of 2021 before the CAT seeking a declaration that both charge-memos, dated 27-5-2006 and 4-12-2008 were invalid in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India and Others v. B.V. Gopinath [ (2014) 1 SCC 351 ]. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and Others v. B.V. Gopinath [ (2014) 1 SCC 351 ] to seek quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that both the charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings were validly issued by a competent disciplinary authority. It further observed that even if the authority issuing the charge-sheet is empowered only to impose minor penalties, it can still issue a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for a major penalty - provided that the final punishment order is passed by the authority competent to impose such major penalties. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 before the High Court. The High Court, through its judgment, dated 18-11-2022, allowed the Writ Petition. It held that when a charge-sheet is issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules by an authority competent only to impose minor penalties, such a charge-memo must be approved by the authority competent to impose major penalties before it can be considered valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner–Union of India strongly contended before this Court that the High Court had wrongly relied on the judgment in B.V. Gopinath (supra). It was argued that the statutory provisions applicable to the case authorize a disciplinary authority to issue a charge-sheet for a major penalty, even if that authority is competent to impose only minor penalties. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent strenuously contended before this Court that no interference is warranted in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the judgment of the High Court is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra).

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text