The Supreme Court has held that under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS CCA Rules), an authority competent to impose only minor penalties is legally empowered to issue a charge-sheet even in proceedings meant for imposing major penalties. The decision came in Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa (Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 7149 of 2023), allowing the Union’s appeal and setting aside a Karnataka High Court judgment.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma reversed the High Court’s ruling that had invalidated disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the charge-sheets were issued by an authority not competent to impose major penalties.
Background of the Case
The respondent, R. Shankarappa, a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunication, retired on 31 May 2018. He was prosecuted by the CBI in two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — one for allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹1 lakh and another for possessing disproportionate assets. Though convicted in both cases, his appeals are pending before the Karnataka High Court, which has stayed the convictions and sentences.
Parallelly, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules. Two charge-sheets were issued — dated 27.05.2006 and 04.12.2008 — by the Principal General Manager, BGTD, Bengaluru.
Shankarappa challenged these proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), raising the ground that the officer issuing the charge-sheets was competent to impose only minor penalties and had not obtained prior approval from the competent authority for major penalties. He relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351.
The CAT rejected his claims, holding that the charge-sheets were valid. However, the Karnataka High Court, in its judgment dated 18.11.2022, quashed the departmental proceedings, accepting the respondent’s argument based on Gopinath.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The apex court disagreed with the High Court’s reliance on B.V. Gopinath, clarifying that the facts and service rules involved in that case differed significantly.
It noted that Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules expressly permits a disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties to initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties. Rule 14 prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties, and nothing in the rules prohibits an authority like the General Manager, who is empowered to inflict minor penalties, from issuing a charge-sheet under Rule 14.
The Court explained:
“When the aforementioned Rule is read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS CCA Rules, it is very clear that an authority empowered to inflict minor penalties… can certainly issue a charge-sheet even for imposition of major penalties.”
The Court further distinguished Gopinath, observing that it involved a specific office order requiring approval by the Finance Minister, which did not exist in the Department of Telecommunications. It stated:
“In the present case, there is no such office order… and the statutory provisions governing the field also do not provide for any such approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission.”
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held:
“The issuance of charge-sheet by General Manager, Telecommunication could not have been faulted upon by the High Court solely by placing reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath.”
It upheld the CAT’s findings and ruled that the departmental proceedings initiated under the two charge memos dated 27.05.2006 and 01.12.2008 were validly initiated.
The High Court’s judgment was accordingly set aside.
