Page 1

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO 7761 OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 63'( !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* + Ors% ,A--.//*n#s
VERSUS
B%V%0!-in*#1 ,R.s-!n).n#
2ITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO%7762 OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 2333' !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* ,A--.//*n#
VERSUS
4%4% 4*-i/* ,R.s-!n).n#
2ITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO%7763 OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 26535 !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* + Anr% ,A--.//*n#s
VERSUS
S")1ir R*n6*n S.n*-*#i ,R.s-!n).n#
1
Page 2
2ITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO%776' OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 2(222 !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* + Ors% ,A--.//*n#s
VERSUS
S%4% Sri7*s#*7* ,R.s-!n).n#
2ITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO%7763 OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 23(3( !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* + Ors% ,A--.//*n#s
VERSUS
S1ri H%A% Si))i8"i ,R.s-!n).n#
2ITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO%7766 OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 23(35 !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* + Ors% ,A--.//*n#s
VERSUS
S1ri V*rin).r M.1#* ,R.s-!n).n#
2
Page 3
2ITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO%7767 OF 2013
(Arisin !"# !$ SLP (C%& N!% 23('1 !$ 2011&
Uni!n !$ In)i* + Ors% ,A--.//*n#s
VERSUS
S1ri P*"/ 0.!r. ,R.s-!n).n#
J U D 0 M E N T
SURINDER SIN0H NIJJAR9 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 inister, had not
given approval for issuing the charge !e!o, even though he
had given approval for initiation of !ajor penalty proceedings
against the respondents.
". Since the issue raised in the present appeals is purely legal,
it would not #e necessary to !a$e a detailed reference to
the facts of individual cases. For convenience and for the
3
Page 4
purpose of reference only, we advert to the facts as pleaded
in %ivil &ppeal 'o.(((((((((() SLP *%ivil+ 'o. ,"-. of
2/11 *Uni!n !$ In)i* + Ors% 0s. B%V%0!-in*#1+.
-. r. 1.0. 2opinath joined the 3ndian 4evenue Service in the
year 15.6 as &ssistant %o!!issioner of 3nco!e Ta7. 3t
appears that he earned pro!otion as 8eputy %o!!issioner
of 3nco!e Ta7 in 155., 9oint %o!!issioner of 3nco!e Ta7 in
1555 and &dditional %o!!issioner of 3nco!e Ta7 in 2///.
:n 6
th
;.
th
Septe!#er, 2//<, whilst wor$ing on the
aforesaid post, r. 2opinath *respondent 'o.1+ was served
with a charge sheet under 4ule 1- of %entral %ivil Services
*%lassification, %ontrol and &ppeal+ 4ules, 15,< *hereinafter
referred to as =%%S *%%&+ 4ules>+. The said charge sheet was
issued on the allegation that in 2//" the respondent was
alleged to have approached one %hartered &ccountant in
%hennai for securing his transfer to u!#ai #y offering #ri#e to
the P.&. to the then inister of State *4evenue+. Thus, the
charge levelled against the respondent was that he failed to
!aintain integrity? and e7hi#ited a conduct which is un#eco!ing
of a govern!ent servant. The respondent su#!itted his reply to
4
Page 5
the allegations wherein he denied the charges levelled against
hi!. @e reAuested for supply of certain docu!ents. 3n due
course, the 3nAuiry :fficer and the Presenting :fficer were
appointed.
<. 8uring the pendency of the inAuiry proceedings, the
respondents filed :.&. 'o..// of 2//.. 3n these
proceedings, the respondents clai!ed that the charge sheet
dated 6
th
;.
th
Septe!#er, 2//< is without jurisdiction,
therefore, lia#le to #e Auashed, as the charge !e!o had not
#een approved #y the Finance inister. Be !ay also notice
here that prior to filing of the aforesaid :.&., the respondent
had already approached %&T twice: firstly, see$ing
direction*s+ to the Cnion of 3ndia to supply all the docu!ents
relied upon in connection with the chargeDsheet issued
against hi!. Secondly, see$ing a direction to the appellant
for ti!ely co!pletion of the depart!ental proceedings
against hi!. The directions given #y %&T in the aforesaid
proceedings, however, have no #earing on the controversy
involved herein.
5
Page 6
,. 3n the present appeal, we are concerned with the legality or
otherwise of the order passed #y %&T on <
th
Fe#ruary, 2//5
in :.&. 'o. .// of 2//.. 1y the aforesaid order, %&T
Auashed the charge sheet dated 6
th
;.
th
Septe!#er, 2//<
issued against the respondent on the ground that there was
nothing on record to show that the Finance inister
approved the charge sheet. The aforesaid order of %&T was
challenged, #y way of Brit Petition *%ivil+ 'o. 1/-<2 of 2//5,
#efore the 8elhi @igh %ourt. 1y order dated 2.
th
9uly 2//5,
which has #een i!pugned #efore this court, the 8elhi @igh
%ourt dis!issed the said writ petition.
A--.//*n#s: S";<issi!ns=
6. s. 3ndira 9aising, learned &dditional Solicitor 2eneral of
3ndia appearing for the appellants, su#!itted that the @igh
%ourt as well as the %&T have co!!itted a grave
jurisdictional error in Auashing the charge sheet, which was
issued #y the co!petent authority, in accordance with the
procedure prescri#ed.

6
Page 7
.. She has ela#orately e7plained the entire procedure that is
followed in each and every case #efore the !atter is put up
#efore the Finance inister for see$ing approval for initiation
of the disciplinary proceedings. &ccording to the learned
&dditional Solicitor 2eneral, the procedure followed ensures
that entire !aterial is placed #efore the Finance inister
#efore a decision is ta$en to initiate the depart!ental
proceedings. She su#!its that approval for initiation of the
depart!ental proceedings would also a!ount to approval of
the charge !e!o. &ccording to the learned &dditional
Solicitor 2eneral, the %&T as well as the @igh %ourt had
co!!itted a grave error in Auashing the depart!ental
proceedings against the respondents, as the procedure for
ta$ing approval of the disciplinary authority to initiate penalty
proceeding is co!prehensive and involved decision !a$ing
at every level of the hierarchy.
5. She pointed out that upon receipt of a co!plaint the sa!e is
e7a!ined #y the %hief 0igilance :fficer in the office of the
8irector 2eneral, 3nco!e Ta7 *0igilance+. & decision is
ta$en upon e7a!ination of the co!plaint as to whether there
7
Page 8
is a vigilance angle involved. 3n case, it is found that a
co!plaint involves a vigilance angle, a preli!inary
investigation is conducted. 8uring the preli!inary
investigation, the version of the officer concerned is also
ta$en. Thereafter, the decision is ta$en #y the %hief
0igilance :fficer *hereinafter referred to as =%0:>+ with the
approval of %entral 1oard of 8irect Ta7es as to whether
disciplinary proceedings are to #e initiated. 3n case, the %0:
decides to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the !atter is then
referred to the %hief 0igilance %o!!ission for first stage
advice. The %hief 0igilance %o!!ission e7a!ines the first
stage advice. 3n case the %hief 0igilance %o!!ission
concurs with the decision ta$en #y the %hief 0igilance
:fficer, a detailed note is prepared for initiation of
disciplinary proceedings which is put up to the Finance
inister. She e!phasised that alongwith note for initiation of
disciplinary proceedings, all relevant supporting !aterial is
also placed #efore the Finance inister. 3t is upon
consideration of the entire !aterial alongwith the e7planatory
note that the Finance inister ta$es a decision to initiate
depart!ental proceedings. 3n view of the aforesaid ela#orate
8
Page 9
procedure, the %&T as well as the @igh %ourt had
erroneously concluded that such procedure would not
a!ount to approval of the charge !e!o.
1/. s. 9aising further su#!itted that :ffice :rder 'o.
2/< of 2//< has #een !isread #y the %ourts #elow. She
points out that to appreciate the true purport of the said
office order, a careful consideration needs to #e given to the
safeguards availa#le to a delinAuent officer under the
%onstitution of 3ndia and the %%S *%%&+ 4ules. Learned
&S2 then su#!itted that &rticle "11 provides for two
safeguards for the delinAuent officer: *i+ the officer cannot #e
dis!issed or re!oved #y the authority su#ordinate to the
appointing authority of the officer concerned E&rticle "11*1+F?
and *ii+ the dis!issal or re!oval can only #e effected after
an enAuiry in which the official has #een infor!ed of the
charges against hi! and is given a reasona#le opportunity to
#e heard in respect of those charges E&rticle "11*2+F. She
su#!its that in the present case, none of the two safeguards
have #een violated. She has ela#orated that the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the respondent in ter!s
9
Page 10
of 4ule 1- of %%S *%%&+ 4ules, which prescri#ed the
procedure for i!posing !ajor penalty. 4elying on 4ule
1-*"+, she again drew our attention to the e7pression that
the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn
up the su#stance of i!putation of !isconduct or
!is#ehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. She
su#!itted that the entire procedure under 4ule 1-*"+ has
#een followed. Cnder 4ule 1-*-+ again disciplinary authority
is reAuired to either deliver or cause to be delivered to the
2overn!ent servant a copy of the articles of charge. This
was also ad!ittedly followed in the present proceeding. She
reiterated that a plain reading of 4ule 1-*"+ would show that
it per!its the disciplinary authority to cause the charge
!e!o to be drawn up #y a su#ordinate authority.
11. The &S2 then su#!itted that the office order
'o.2/< of 2//< was passed in view of the stress on ti!e and
resources #eing felt in the 8epart!ent of Finance due to
insufficient delegation of powers in respect of disciplinary
action cases. &ccordingly, after considering the
reco!!endations of a %o!!ittee for!ed for this purpose,
1
Page 11
the office order was passed prescri#ing the co!petent
decision !a$ing authority for various steps in disciplinary
action cases in %1G% and %18T. The office order
prescri#ed the co!petent authority for granting approval at
different stages. 3t does not prescri#e the stages which
reAuire approval. She further su#!itted that the @igh %ourt
has !isinterpreted clause *.+ of the aforesaid order. She
points out that the e7pression =approval for issuing charge
memo cannot #e read as distinct fro! =approval for initiating
major penalty proceedings. &ccording to the learned &S2,
the office order dated 15
th
9uly, 2//< does not i!pose any
reAuire!ent that the charge !e!o !ust #e approved #y the
disciplinary authority. %lause *.+ of the office order,
according to s. 3ndira 9aising, only provides that the
Finance inister is the co!petent authority for granting
approval =for issuing charge memo, and not for approving
the charge memo>. She su#!its that the procedure for
drawing up the charge !e!o co!!ences when approval is
sought for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. The
actual drawing up of the charge !e!o is a part of and
incidental to the approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings
1
Page 12
and is a !inisterial act. The approval to initiate disciplinary
proceedings is the approval to set the law in !otion and
carries with it, #y necessary i!plication, all things to
effectuate the sa!e. Therefore, the grant of approval for
initiation of disciplinary proceedings a!ounts to grant of
approval for issuance of charge !e!o.
12. The learned &S2 further su#!itted that the office
order does not create any enforcea#le rights in favour of the
respondent, since the said order is intended for internal
functioning of the depart!ent concerned. The order, she
su#!its, !ust #e given a purposive interpretation to discern
its true i!port. 3t was su#!itted #y the learned &S2, it would
#e sufficient co!pliance with the said order if it is shown that
there was approval #y the disciplinary authority to initiate
disciplinary proceedings and approval is granted to the
!aterial on the #asis of which the charge !e!o has #een
drawn. 3n this conte7t, reliance was placed upon S.*$!r)
C!"r# Es#*#.s L#) 0s. As1.r 9
1
M"ni>i-*/ C!r-!r*#i!n !$
0r.*#.r B!<;*? *n) O#1.rs 0s. In)i*n Oi/ C!r-!r*#i!n
1
[1949] 2 KB 481
1
Page 13
L#)%9
2
S#*#. !$ 4*rn*#*@* 0s. A--* B*/" In*/. + Ors%9
3


F!r.s# R*n. O$$i>.r + Ors% 0s. P% M!1*<<*) A/i +
Ors%9
'
S#*#. !$ M*)1?* Pr*).s1 0s. M%V% N*r*si<1*n
3
%
1". Learned &S2 further su#!itted that the @igh %ourt
has wrongly drawn a distinction #etween approval for
initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and approval for
issuance of charge !e!o #y treating the! as two distinct
steps. She reiterated that approval for initiation of
depart!ental proceeding would include approval of the
charge !e!o #y disciplinary authority.
14. The ne7t su#!ission of the learned &S2 is that the charge
sheet is nor!ally not to #e Auashed unless prejudice is
shown to #e caused to the delinAuent officer. &nd since the
respondent has not alleged any prejudice caused to hi! #y
virtue of the charge sheet not having #een approved #y the
disciplinary authority, the charge sheet ought not to have
#een interfered with. 4eliance was placed on S#*#. !$ U##*r
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
Pr*).s1 0s. Br*1< D"## S1*r<* + Anr%9
6
EA.>"#i7.
Enin..r9 Bi1*r S#*#. H!"sin B!*r) 0s. R*<.s1 4"<*r
Sin1 + Ors%9
7
U/**--* + Ors% 0s. Di7% C!<<r%9 M?s!r.
+ Ors%
(
S-.>i*/ Dir.>#!r + Anr% 0s. M!1)% 01"/*<
01!"s. + Anr%
5
*n) Uni!n !$ In)i* + Anr% 0s. 4"nis.##?
S*#?*n*r*?*n
1/
and T1. S.>r.#*r?9 Min% !$ D.$.n>. *n)
Ors% 0s. Pr*;1*s1 C1*n)r* Mir)1*
11
1<. 3n support of her su#!ission that it is not necessary
that charge sheet should #e fra!ed #y the authority
co!petent to i!pose penalty or that enAuiry should #e
conducted #y such authority alone, reliance was placed on
Ins-.>#!r 0.n.r*/ !$ P!/i>. + Anr. 0s. T1*7*si*--*n.
12

1,. Further, it was su#!itted that it is in the interest of
good ad!inistration to interpret said the office order in the
!anner as contended #y the learned &S2 since there are
!ore than <// enAuiries that have #een 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 !anner.
16. Lastly, it was su#!itted that the appellants, out of
a#undant caution, have now a!ended the procedure and
see$ the approval of the Finance inister for charge !e!o.
R.s-!n).n#s: S";<issi!ns=
1.. r. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel,
su#!itted that provisions of %%S *%%&+ 4ules 15,< are
applica#le to the respondent, an officer of 3ndian 4evenue
Service. &nd that since the charge sheet that was issued to
hi! conte!plated a !ajor penalty, 4ule 1- of %%S *%%&+
4ules is attracted. 4eliance was placed upon R.is#r*r !$
C!!-.r*#i7. S!>i.#? 0s. F%B% F.rn*n)!9 (s"-r*& to
contend that the %%S *%%&+ 4ules reAuire a strict
co!pliance. 3t was further su#!itted that it is an ad!itted
fact that the 8isciplinary &uthority has not approved the
charge sheet.
1
Page 16
15. &fter citing 4ule 1- of the %%S *%%&+ 4ules, the
learned senior counsel has ela#orated the various stages
when decisions reAuired to #e ta$en to co!ply with the said
provision:
a. Bhether or not there is justification for initiation of an
enAuiry against a 2overn!ent ServantH This would
also include underta$ing the decision that whether
8isciplinary &uthority would itself hold the enAuiry or
appoint so!e other authority to do the sa!e.
#. The second stage is drawing up of chargesheet? and
that has to #e done #y the 8isciplinary &uthority.
c. Then the 8isciplinary &uthority has to apply its !ind on
the charges fra!ed under 4ule 1-*"+ and has to grant
its approval.
2/. 3t was further su#!itted that there !ay #e so!e
situations where even despite the fact that approval has
#een accorded to initiate the enAuiry, charge sheet !ay not
#e issued or approved. To illustrate, it was pointed out that
there !ay #e circu!stances where the 8isciplinary
&uthority, after approving the initiation of proceedings #ut
1
Page 17
#efore giving approval to the charge sheet, co!es to a
conclusion that a lesser charge or no charge is !ade out
against the concerned officer. 3n such circu!stances, the
8isciplinary &uthority proceeds accordingly and !ay drop
the proceedings. Thus, it is for this reason that 4ule 1-
provides that the 8isciplinary &uthority has to apply its !ind
separately at two different stages: *i+
initiation of proceedings and *ii+ approval of charge sheet.
21. 3n this conte7t, si!ilar su#!issions were also
reiterated #y r. She$har Iu!ar, learned counsel for
respondent in SLP *%ivil+ 'o. 2<."5 of
2/11. 4eferring to 4ule 1- *"+, learned counsel su#!itted
that chargeD!e!o ought to have #een sanctioned #y the
8isciplinary &uthority, especially since there was no su#D
delegation of such power in favour of any other officer.
22. The ne7t su#!ission of r. Patwalia is that the
:ffice :rder 'o. 2/<;2//<, %lause; 3te! 'o. ., !andates
that the approval of the charge sheet has to #e granted #y
the Finance inister. This interpretation is fortified #y clause
1
Page 18
5 of the 2//< office order. %lause 5 reAuires that if there has
to #e any dropping;!odification;a!end!ent of the charges,
after receiving the Britten Su#!ission of 8efence, then the
file has to #e put up to the Finance inister. Learned Senior
%ounsel states that if dropping;!odification;a!end!ent of
charges is reAuired to #e underta$en #y the Finance inister
then it would necessarily !ean that the initial approval of the
charge sheet has to #e sanctioned #y the said !inister only.
3t was further su#!itted that acceptance of the stand of the
appellant that approval granted to initiation of proceedings
includes approval to the chargeD!e!o would lead to the
position where the charge !e!o would get approval even
#efore it has co!e into e7istence.
2". r. Patwalia further su#!itted that the issue in the
present case has already #een decided #y this %ourt in
S#../ A"#1!ri#? !$ In)i*9 S">>.ss!r !$ B!@*r! S#../ L#)%
0s. Pr.si)in O$$i>.r9 L*;!"r C!"r# *# B!@*r! S#../ Ci#?9
D1*n;*) + Anr.
1"
3t was also su#!itted 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
4espondents, the present appeals are lia#le to #e
dis!issed.
2-. r. Patwalia has also su#!itted that the appellants,
in the application for condonation of delay in filing of the
present appeals, contended that the &S2 reco!!ended that
this is not a fit case for filing the SLP. Thus, the %ivil &ppeals
are lia#le to #e dis!issed on this ground as well. The
learned senior counsel also su#!itted that the &ppellants
have already accepted the judg!ent of %&T and the @igh
%ourt since the Finance inister is now approving the
chargeDsheets. Further, it was su#!itted that after receiving
infor!ation upon a 4T3 Auery, it was disclosed that the
Finance inister approved the fresh charge sheet in the
case of the 4espondent in SLP 'o.
,"-.;2//1. Thus, filing of the present appeals is nothing #ut
an Jacade!ic e7ercise.K
2<. r. Patwalia countered the su#!ission of the
learned &S2 that it will not #e in the interest of good
ad!inistration to drop the inAuiries which are already going
1
Page 20
on if the chargeDsheets issued in such inAuiries are reAuired
to #e approved #y the Finance inister. 3n this conte7t, it
was su#!itted that such a contention has already #een
rejected #y this court in C!*/ In)i* L#)% + Ors% 0s. S*r!6
4"<*r Mis1r*%
1'
:ur attention was also drawn to the
following e7cerpt fro! the said case:
=the floodgate argu!ent also does not appeal to
us.The sa!e appears to #e an argu!ent of
desperation. :nly #ecause, there is a possi#ility of
floodgate litigation, a valua#le right of a citiLen
cannot #e per!itted to #e ta$en away. This court is
#ound to deter!ine the respective rights of the
parties.>
Thus, it was su#!itted that the %ivil &ppeals
are reAuired to #e dis!issed.
2,. Si!ilar su#!issions were also reiterated #y r.
1rijender %hahar, learned senior advocate. 1esides, learned
senior counsel su#!itted that the fact that respondent in
SLP *%ivil+ 'o. 2,5"5 of 2/11 #elongs to 3ndian 4evenue
Service would conco!itantly !ean that the President of
3ndia is the appointing authority and there#y, 8isciplinary
&uthority in his case. @owever, the said power of the
14
2007 (9) SCC 625
2
Page 21
President has #een delegated under &rticle 66 *"+ of the
%onstitution and #y the order of the President dated 1-
th
9anuary, 15,1 under the 2overn!ent of 3ndia *&llocation of
1usiness+ 4ules, to the Finance inister. Thus, the Finance
inister acts as the 8isciplinary authority for the purposes of
&rticle "11 of the %onstitution and 4ule 1- of %%S *%%&+
4ules. Therefore, the Finance inister, hi!self, has to apply
his !ind and give approval inter alia to the charge sheet. 3t
was further su#!itted that !atters pertaining to any such
disciplinary action cannot #e further delegated or su#D
delegated to any other authority as the President has
delegated this authority only to the Finance inister.
26. 4elying on 4ule 1- of %%S *%%&+ 4ules, learned
senior counsel su#!itted that the rule conte!plates a
detailed procedure, consisting of four stages, which has to
#e co!pleted #efore any punish!ent can #e i!posed on a
pu#lic servant. These steps are :
*i+ 3nitiation of 8isciplinary proceedings for !ajor
penalties?
*ii+ drawing up of charges of !isconduct?
2
Page 22
*iii+ appoint!ent of 3nAuiry :fficer M Presenting
:fficer and to supervise fair conducting of
inAuiry #y the 3nAuiry :fficer?
*iv+ i!position of penalty, if any.
&ll the a#ove procedures have #een ela#orated in
provisions of 4ule 1- of %entral %ivil Services *%lassification,
%ontrol M &ppeal+ 4ules, 15,<, which reAuire an independent M
un#iased application of !ind and approval, directly #y the
Finance inister and not #y any other su#ordinate &uthority.
2.. Learned senior counsel also su#!itted that the
drawing up charges of !isconduct and issuance;service of
charge !e!o is a crucial function for conducting an inAuiry,
which reAuire the independent M un#iased application of
!ind and approval, directly and solely #y the Finance
inister and not #y any other su#ordinate &uthority.
25. &ccording to the learned senior counsel, the !ost
i!portant issue to #e decided #y this %ourt is that whether
the stage of initiating 8isciplinary Proceedings is the sa!e
as issuing a charge sheet;charge !e!oH & plain reading of
2
Page 23
4ule 1-*2+ and 4ule 1-*"+ of the %entral %ivil Services
*%lassification, %ontrol M appeal+ 4ules, 15,< !a$es it
a!ply clear and the only interpretation possi#le is that the
stage of initiating the disciplinary proceedings C;4ule 1-*2+
is distinct and separate fro! issuing a charge !e!o C;4ule
1-*"+ and it is not a continuing act #ecause it is not
necessary that every disciplinary proceeding initiated would
definitely result in issuing a charge !e!o #ecause after
initiating disciplinary proceedings it !ay #e found fro! the
!aterial on record that, the !e!o of charge need not #e
served #ecause the charges !ay not #e !ade out or a
lesser charge could #e !ade out. ind has to #e applied to
the evidence and !aterial on record pursuant to initiation of
disciplinary proceedings to again co!e to a fresh decision as
to whether now, a charge !e!o deserves to #e issued.
Thus, the !aterial #efore the 8isciplinary authority is
different at #oth the stages of 4ule 1-*2+ and 4ule 1-*"+ of
the %entral %ivil Services *%lassification, %ontrol M &ppeal+
4ules, 15,<.
2
Page 24
"/. Learned senior counsel su#!itted that the appellant
has not denied and in fact accepted that the %harge e!o
dated 1
st
&pril, 2//. was not approved #y the Finance
inister and as such, there was no application of !ind #y
the Finance inister. Therefore, %&T has rightly Auashed
the said charge !e!o.
"1. 3t was further su#!itted that under the relevant
rules, only ancillary actions relating to the issue of charge
sheet !ay #e underta$en #y a su#ordinate authority, #ut the
fra!ing of charge sheet reAuires independent;un#iased
application of !ind and therefore, Finance inister has to
give approval to the charge !e!o.
"2. Learned senior counsel reiterated that once the
disciplinary powers have #een delegated #y the President of
3ndia under &rticle 66 *"+ of the %onstitution to the Finance
inister, then such delegated authority cannot #e reD
delegated;su#Ddelegated #y the 8isciplinary &uthority,
unless statute; constitution provides for the sa!e. 3n this
conte7t, reliance was placed on S*1ni Si/@ Mi//s (P& L#)%+
2
Page 25
Anr% 0s. E%S%I% C!r-!r*#i!n
13
and Dir.>#!r 0.n.r*/9 ESI +
Anr% 0s. T%A;)"/ R*C*@%
1,

"". Learned senior %ounsel further su#!itted that the
provisions of 4ule 1- *2+ of %%S *%%&+ 4ules are separate
provisions. 3n case, the approval of the Finance inister is
ta$en only for provision of 4ule 1- *2+ and no approval is
ta$en for acting under 4ule 1-*"+, then the provision of 4ule
1-*"+ would #e rendered redundant and o#solete. Such a
position, he su#!its, would !ean as if no charges were ever
fra!ed #y the 8isciplinary &uthority.
"-. 3t was further su#!itted that the charges were
fra!ed only on the #asis of the reco!!endations of %13,
which is not the reco!!ending authority as per the %%S
*%%&+ 4ules.
"<. r. She$har Iu!ar, learned counsel, su#!itted that
the contention of the learned &S2 that no prejudice would
#e caused to the 4espondent is pre!ised on an incorrect
15
1994 (5) SCC 346
16
(1996) 4 SCC 708
2
Page 26
notion. Learned counsel further su#!itted that since the
intention of the 2overn!ent is !anifest in the office order
'o. 2/< of 2//<, the said order has to #e co!plied with
strictly, irrespective of the fact whether prejudice is shown to
#e caused to the 2overn!ent Servant or not.
36. 3t was also su#!itted that the charge !e!o drawn #y an
officer other than the specified authority was wholly without
jurisdiction and hence, vitiated the whole disciplinary
enAuiry. 4eliance was placed on 0!7.rn<.n# !$ An)1r*
Pr*).s1 0s. M%A% M*6..) + Anr%
16
3t was also su#!itted
that where a statutory authority is reAuired do so!ething in a
particular !anner, the sa!e !ust #e done in that !anner
only. The State and other authorities, while acting under the
statute, are the creatures of the statue and they !ust act
with in the four corners of the statute. Learned counsel relied
on B1*7n**r Uni7.rsi#? 0s. P*/i#*n* S"*r Mi// (P& L#)%
+ Ors%
1(

17
(2006) 1 ALD 823: (2006) 1 ALT 661
18
(2003) 2 SCC 111
2
Page 27
"6. Lastly, it was su#!itted that a charge sheet can #e
su#jected to judicial review on the ground that it has #een
issued #y an inco!petent authority. Ld. %ounsel relied on
Samaraditya Pal, Law 4elating to Pu#lic Service: & treatise
on the law applica#le to 2overn!ent and Pu#lic
Cnderta$ing, third Gdition *2/11+ Pgs. 6,1, 6,6.
".. Be have considered the ela#orate su#!issions
!ade #y the learned counsel for the parties.
"5. &rticle "11*1+ of the %onstitution of 3ndia ensures
that no person who is a !e!#er of a civil service of the
Cnion or an all 3ndia service can #e dis!issed or re!oved
#y an authority su#ordinate to that #y which he was
appointed. The overwhel!ing i!portance and value of
&rticle "11*1+ for the civil ad!inistration as well as the pu#lic
servant has #een considered stated and reDstated, #y this
%ourt in nu!erous judg!ents, since the %onstitution ca!e
into effect on 15
th
9anuary, 15</. &rticle "11*2+
ensures that no civil servant is dis!issed or reduced in ran$
e7cept after an inAuiry held in accordance with the rules of
2
Page 28
natural justice. To effectuate the guarantee contained in
&rticle "11*1+ and to ensure co!pliance with the !andatory
reAuire!ents of &rticle "11*2+, the 2overn!ent of 3ndia has
pro!ulgated %%S *%%&+ 4ules, 15,<.
-/. 8isciplinary proceedings against the respondent
herein were initiated in ter!s of 4ule 1- of the aforesaid
4ules. 4ule 1-*"+ clearly lays down that where it is proposed
to hold an inAuiry against a govern!ent servant under 4ule
1- or 4ule 1<, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or
cause to be drawn up the charge sheet. 4ule 1-*-+ again
!andates that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or
cause to be delivered to the govern!ent servant, a copy of
the articles of charge, the state!ent of the i!putations of
!isconduct or !is#ehaviour and the supporting docu!ents
including a list of witnesses #y which each article of charge
is proposed to #e proved. Be are una#le to interpret this
provision as suggested #y the &dditional Solicitor 2eneral,
that once the disciplinary authority approves the initiation of
the disciplinary proceedings, the charge sheet can #e drawn
up #y an authority other than the disciplinary authority. This
2
Page 29
would destroy the underlying protection guaranteed under
&rticle "11*1+ of the %onstitution of 3ndia. Such procedure
would also do violence to the protective provisions contained
under &rticle "11*2+ which ensures that no pu#lic servant is
dis!issed, re!oved or suspended without following a fair
procedure in which he;she has #een given a reasona#le
opportunity to !eet the allegations contained in the charge
sheet. Such a charge sheet can only #e issued upon
approval #y the appointing authority i.e. Finance inister.
-1. 3n fact, issuance of the office order 'o.2/<
dated 15
th
9uly, 2//< !a$es it evident that the respondents
were aware of the legal position. The office order clearly sets
out the levels of the decision !a$ing authorities depending
on the gravity of the conseAuences that would have to #e
faced #y a delinAuent pu#lic servant in case the decision is
ta$en to proceed against the pu#lic servant. %lause *1+ deals
with closure of co!plaints which are
anony!ous;pseudony!ous? if the decision is ta$en to close
the co!plaint it can #e ta$en #y the %0:. 1ut in case of
verifia#le facts, the co!plaints have to #e referred to the
2
Page 30
ne7t level of hierarchy %01 *%entral 0igilance 1ureau+. For
placing an officer under suspension, the decision has to #e
ta$en #y the Finance inister hi!self. Gven review of
suspension at Auarterly;half yearly interval rests with the
Finance inister. This is so, as suspension during
conte!plation;pendency of enAuiry, though !ay not #e
penal in nature per se, still has very serious adverse
conseAuences on the professional as well as the personal
life of the officer suspended. The office order recogniLing the
gravity of the conseAuences ensures that the decision in
relation to suspension;review of suspension shall #e ta$en
#y the highest authority in the depart!ent i.e. the Finance
inister. 3n !atters related to reference to %0% for first
stage advice, the co!petent authority is the Secretary
*4evenue+. Si!ilarly, for reconsideration of %0%Ks first stage
advice, again the co!petent authority is the Secretary
*4evenue+, #ut in case of disagree!ent with %0%Ks first
stage advice on approval for referring the case to
8epart!ent of Personal and Training, the co!petent
authority is the Finance inister.
3
Page 31
-2. %lause *.+ of the %ircular !a$es it a#undantly clear
that it relates to approval for issuing charge !e!o;sanction
of prosecution. & plain reading of the aforesaid clause shows
that it relates to a decision to #e ta$en #y the disciplinary
authority as to whether the depart!ental proceedings are to
#e initiated or prosecution is to #e sanctioned or #oth are to
co!!ence si!ultaneously. The co!petent authority for
approval of the charge !e!o is clearly the Finance inister.
There is no second authority specified in the order. Be do
not agree with s. 3ndira 9aising, learned &dditional Solicitor
2eneral that the use of the word approval of is not an
e7pression distinct fro! approval for initiating !ajor penalty
proceedings. Cnder %lause *5+, the depart!ent firstly puts
up the file #efore the Finance inister see$ing =approval for
issuing charge !e!o;sanction of prosecution.> The
depart!ent is see$ing an order as to whether the officer is to
#e proceeded against depart!entally or cri!inal
proceedings are to #e initiated or #oth proceedings are to #e
co!!enced si!ultaneously. Bhen the decision is ta$en #y
the Finance inister that the depart!ental proceedings are
to #e held *initiation+, only then the Auestion of approval of
3
Page 32
charge !e!o arises. The depart!ent would thereafter
co!plete the necessary for!alities and then place the file
#efore the Finance inster, for approval of charge memo.
This provision is in har!ony with the !andate contained
under &rticles "11*1+ and *2+ that no civil servant shall #e
dis!issed or re!oved #y an authority su#ordinating to that
#y which he was appointed. The second li!# of the sa!e
direction is that punish!ent on a pu#lic servant of dis!issal,
re!oval or reduction in ran$ can only #e i!posed when the
charges have #een proved against hi! in a depart!ental
enAuiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
4ule 1- of the %%S *%%&+ 4ules provides for holding a
depart!ental enAuiry in accordance with the provisions
contained in &rticle "11*2+ of the %onstitution of 3ndia.
%lause *.+ also !a$es it clear that when the Finance
inister is approached for approval of charge !e!o,
approval for ta$ing ancillary action such as appointing an
inAuiry officer;presiding officer should also #e ta$en. %lause
*5+ in fact reinforces the provisions in clause *.+ to the effect
that it is the Finance inster, who is reAuired to approve the
charge !e!o. %lause *5+ relates to a stage after the
3
Page 33
issuance of charge sheet and when the charge sheeted
officer has su#!itted the state!ent of defence. 3t provides
that in case the charge sheeted officer si!ply denies the
charges, %0: will appoint an inAuiry officer;presiding officer.
3n case of denial acco!panied #y representation, the
%hair!an is to consider the written state!ent of defence. 3n
case the %hair!an co!es to a tentative conclusion that
written state!ent of defence has pointed out certain issues
which !ay reAuire !odification;a!end!ent of charges then
the file has to #e put up to the Finance inster. So the
intention is clearly !anifest that all decisions with regard to
the approval of charge !e!o, dropping of the charge !e!o,
!odification;a!end!ent of charges have to #e ta$en #y the
Finance inister.
-". &ccepting the su#!ission of s. 3ndira 9aising
would run counter to the well $nown !a7i! delegatus non
protest delegare (or delegari). The principle is su!!ed up
in =9udicial 4eview of &d!inistrative &ction> 8e S!ith, Boolf
and 9owell *Fifth Gdition+ as follows:D
=T1. r"/. **ins# )./.*#i!n
3
Page 34
& discretionary power !ust, in general, #e
e7ercised only #y the authority to which it has #een
co!!itted. 3t is a wellD$nown principle of law that
when a power has #een confided to a person in
circu!stances indicating that trust is #eing placed in
his individual judg!ent and discretion, he !ust
e7ercise that power personally unless he has #een
e7pressly e!powered to delegate it to another.>
The sa!e principle has #een descri#ed in =&d!inistrative
Law> @.B.4. Bade M %.F. Forsyth *'inth Gdition+, %hapter 1/,
as follows:D
=Inalienable discretionary power
&n ele!ent which is essential to the lawful e7ercise
of power is that it should #e e7ercised #y the
authority upon who! it is conferred, and #y no one
else. The principle is strictly applied, even where it
causes ad!inistrative inconvenience, e7cept in
cases where it !ay reasona#ly #e inferred that the
power was intended to #e delega#le. 'or!ally the
courts are rigorous in reAuiring the power to #e
e7ercised #y the precise person or #ody stated in
the statute, and in conde!ning as ultra vires action
ta$en #y agents, su#Dco!!ittees or delegates,
however e7pressly authoriLed #y the authority
endowed with the power.>
--. This principle has #een given recognition in S*1ni
Si/@ Mi//s (P& L#)% (s"-r*&9 wherein it was held as under:
D6% 1y now it is al!ost settled that the legislature
can per!it any statutory authority to delegate its
power to any other authority, of course, after the
policy has #een indicated in the statute itself within
3
Page 35
the fra!ewor$ of which such delegatee (sic+ is to
e7ercise the power. The real pro#le! or the
controversy arises when there is a su#Ddelegation. 3t
is said that when Parlia!ent has specifically
appointed authority to discharge a function, it
cannot #e readily presu!ed that it had intended that
its delegate should #e free to e!power another
person or #ody to act in its place.>
-<. uch was sought to #e !ade #y s. 3ndira 9aising
on clause *1/+ of the order which provides that once the
Finance inister has approved the initiation of depart!ental
proceedings, the ancillary action can #e initiated #y the
%0:. &ccording to the learned &ddl. Solicitor 2eneral, the
decision ta$en #y the Finance inister would also include
the decision for approval of charge !e!o. She pointed out
the procedure followed for initiation of penalty
proceedings;disciplinary proceedings. She su#!itted that the
decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings is #ased on a
Satisfaction e!o prepared #y the %0:. This satisfaction
!e!o is su#!itted to the e!#er *PM0+, %entral 1oard of
8irect Ta7es, 'ew 8elhi who after #eing satisfied that the
!e!o is in order, forwards it to the %hair!an, %18T who in
turn, upon his own satisfaction forwards it to Secretary
3
Page 36
*4evenue+ and finally to the Finance inister. 1ased on the
satisfaction !e!o, the Finance inister, who is the
disciplinary authority in this case, ta$es the decision to
initiate disciplinary proceedings. Bhile ta$ing the said
decision, the Finance inister has #efore hi!, the details of
the alleged !isconduct with the relevant !aterials regarding
the i!putation of allegations #ased on which the charge
!e!o was issued. Therefore, approval #y the Finance
inister for initiation of the depart!ental proceedings would
also cover the approval of the charge !e!o. Be are una#le
to accept the su#!ission of the learned &ddl. Solicitor
2eneral. 3nitially, when the file co!es to the Finance
inister, it is only to ta$e a decision in principle as to
whether depart!ental proceedings ought to #e initiated
against the officer. %lause *11+ deals with reference to %0%
for second stage advice. 3n case of proposal for !ajor
penalties, the decision is to #e ta$en #y the Finance
inister. Si!ilarly, under %lause *12+ reconsideration of
%0%Ks second stage advice is to #e ta$en #y the Finance
inister. &ll further proceedings including approval for
referring the case to 8:P M T, issuance of show cause
3
Page 37
notice in case of disagree!ent with the enAuiry officer
report? tentative decision after %0%Ks second stage advice
on i!position of penalty? final decision of penalty? and
revision;review;!e!orial have to #e ta$en #y the Finance
inister. 3n our opinion, the %entral &d!inistrative Tri#unal
as well as the @igh %ourt has correctly interpreted the
provisions of the :ffice :rder 'o. 2/< of 2//<. Factually
also, a perusal of the record would show that the file was put
up to the Finance inister #y the 8irector 2eneral of 3nco!e
Ta7 *0igilance+ see$ing the approval of the Finance inister
for sanctioning prosecution against one officer and for
initiation of !ajor penalty proceeding under 4ule "*1+*i+ and
*"+ *1+ *iii+ of the %entral %ivil Services *%onduct+ 4ules
against the officers !entioned in the note which included the
appellant herein. Clti!ately, it appears that the charge
!e!o was not put up for approval #y the Finance inister.
Therefore, it would not #e possi#le to accept the su#!ission
of s. 3ndira 9aising that the approval granted #y the
Finance inister for initiation of depart!ental proceedings
would also a!ount to approval of the charge !e!o.
3
Page 38
-,. s. 3ndira 9aising also su#!itted that the purpose
#ehind &rticle "11, 4ule 1- and also the :ffice :rder of
2//< is to ensure that only an authority that is not
su#ordinate to the appointing authority ta$es disciplinary
action and that rules of natural justice are co!plied with.
&ccording to the learned &ddl. Solicitor 2eneral, the
respondent is not clai!ing that rules of natural justice have
#een violated as the charge !e!o was not approved #y the
disciplinary authority. Therefore, according to the &ddl.
Solicitor 2eneral, the %&T as well as the @igh %ourt erred in
Auashing the charge sheet as no prejudice has #een caused
to the respondent. 3n our opinion, the su#!ission of the
learned &ddl. Solicitor 2eneral is not factually correct. The
pri!ary su#!ission of the respondent was that the charge
sheet not having #een issued #y the disciplinary authority is
without authority of law and, therefore, non est in the eye of
law. This plea of the respondent has #een accepted #y the
%&T as also #y the @igh %ourt. The action has #een ta$en
against the respondent in 4ule 1-*"+ of the %%S*%%&+ 4ules
which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause
to be drawn up the su#stance of i!putation of !isconduct or
3
Page 39
!is#ehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges.
The ter! =cause to #e drawn up> does not !ean that the
definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not
have to #e approved #y the disciplinary authority. The ter!
=cause to #e drawn up> !erely refers to a delegation #y the
disciplinary authority to a su#ordinate authority to perfor!
the tas$ of drawing up su#stance of proposed =definite and
distinct articles of charge sheet>. These proposed articles of
charge would only #e finaliLed upon approval #y the
disciplinary authority. Cndou#tedly, this %ourt in the case of
P%V%Srini7*s* S*s#r? + Ors% 0s. C!<-#r!//.r *n) A")i#!r
0.n.r*/ + Ors%
15
has held that &rticle "11*1+ does not say
that even the depart!ental proceeding !ust #e initiated only
#y the appointing authority. @owever, at the sa!e ti!e it is
pointed out that =@owever, it is open to Cnion of 3ndia or a
State 2overn!ent to !a$e any rule prescri#ing that even
the proceeding against any delinAuent officer shall #e
initiated #y an officer not su#ordinate to the appointing
authority.> 3t is further held that =&ny such rule shall not #e
inconsistent with &rticle "11 of the %onstitution #ecause it
19
155" *1+ S%% -15
3
Page 40
will a!ount to providing an additional safeguard or protection
to the holders of a civil post.>
-6. Further, it appears that during the pendency of
these proceedings, the appellants have, after 2//5,
a!ended the procedure which provides that the charge
!e!o shall #e issued only after the approval is granted #y
the Finance inister.
-.. Therefore, it appears that the appeals in these
!atters were filed and pursued for an authoritative resolution
of the legal issues raised herein.
-5. &lthough nu!#er of collateral issues had #een
raised #y the learned counsel for the appellants as well the
respondents, we dee! it appropriate not to opine on the
sa!e in view of the conclusion that the charge sheet;charge
!e!o having not #een approved #y the disciplinary authority
was non est in the eye of law.
4
Page 41
</. For the reasons stated a#ove, we see no !erit in
the appeals filed #y the Cnion of 3ndia. Be !ay also notice
here that %&T had granted li#erty to the appellants to ta$e
appropriate action in accordance with law. Be see no
reasons to distur# the li#erty so granted. The appeals are,
therefore, dis!issed.
N.N.NNNNNNN..9.
ES"rin).r Sin1 Ni66*rF
NNNNNNNNNN9.
EM%G%E8;*/F
N.H D./1iI
S.-#.<;.r 039 2013%
4