Holding

An authority empowered to impose minor penalties may issue a charge‑sheet for major penalties under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules without prior approval from the authority competent to impose major penalties.

Summary

The respondent, a former Sub‑Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunication, was convicted in two criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act and faced parallel disciplinary proceedings for a trap case and for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Two charge‑sheets were issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 by the General Manager, an authority competent only to impose minor penalties. The respondent contended that the charge‑sheets were void because they lacked approval from the authority empowered to impose major penalties, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected this claim, holding that the General Manager could validly issue the charge‑sheets, and the High Court later set aside the Tribunal’s order. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 13(2) and the relevant appendix, concluding that a minor‑penalty authority may indeed initiate proceedings for major penalties and that no statutory requirement for prior approval exists. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal, confirming the validity of the disciplinary proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether a charge‑sheet issued under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules by an authority competent only to impose minor penalties is void for lack of prior approval from the authority competent to impose major penalties.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing the respondent’s challenge to the charge‑sheets.

Legislation cited

Headnote

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 (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

Subjects

Charge-sheetAuthority empowered to inflict minor penaltiesCharge memoApproval by the authority competent to inflict major penaltyTrap caseDisproportionate assetsDisciplinary proceedingsProcedural irregularity

Judgment

[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. Shankarappa,
was an employee serving the Department of Telecommunication as
Sub Divisional Engineer, Group ‘B’ and was posted at Karnataka
LSA (Licensed Service Area) DOT, Bengaluru. He retired from the
service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018. In
2003, the Respondent was subjected to prosecution by the Central
Bureau of Investigation in two cases; namely, Case No. 1 i.e.
Special CC No. 42/2003 instituted for offences punishable under
Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as, “PCA”) for
allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from a
Contractor, and Special CC No. 92/2003 instituted for offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the
PCA for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known
source of income. Respondent was convicted in both cases. The
record before this Court reflects that the respondent preferred
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1625

Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa

Criminal Appeal Nos. 195/2014 and 277/2014 before the High
Court against his conviction, wherein the High Court has stayed his
conviction as well as his sentence vide orders dated 08.04.2014
and 22.04.2014, respectively. The criminal appeals are pending
as on date.
4. Parallelly, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against respondent
while he was working as Sub Divisional Engineer Cable Construction –
II in Bengaluru Telecom SSA (BGTD). Two charge-sheets were issued
under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, “CCS CCA Rules”),
on 27.05.2006 and 04.12.2008 relating to the trap case and the
case in respect of possessing assets disproportionate to his known
source of income, respectively.
5. The record of the case further reveals that the respondent preferred
as many as six cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as, “CAT”), Bengaluru, and made
all possible attempts to derail the departmental inquiry. The list of
six cases preferred by him in respect of the aforesaid two charge-
sheets are detailed as under:
I. In the matter of departmental proceedings relating to alleged
trap case:
(i) OA No. 273/2007 decided on 04.09.2008
(ii) OA No. 486/2017 decided on 18.07.2018
(iii) OA No. 79/2019 decided on 05.03.2020
II. In the matter of departmental proceedings relating to allegation
of disproportionate assets case-
(i) OA No. 67/2010 decided on 15.03.2012
(ii) OA No. 475/2017 decided on 18.07.2018
(iii) OA No. 78/2019 decided on 05.03.2020
6. The respondent raised a ground before the Tribunal in the aforesaid
cases that the charge-sheets have been issued by an authority
which is competent to inflict only minor penalties, therefore, as the
charge-sheet has not been issued with the approval of the disciplinary
authority empowered to inflict major penalty, the charge-sheet itself
1626 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is void. The respondent on this ground finally preferred an Original
Application which was registered as O.A. No. 170/00457/2021
praying thus:
“To declare that the proceedings initiated under charge
memos bearing No. VIG/12-285A/2005/6 dated 27.05.2006
and No. VIG/RS-SDE/BGTD/2008/37 dated 01.12.2008
both issued by Principal General Manager, BGTD,
Bengaluru (Respondent No.4 herein) are void-ab-initio for
want of approval from the appointing authority, in terms of
Apex Court’s ruling in case of Union of India and Others
Vs. B.V.Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351.”
7. The respondent herein before the Tribunal placed heavy reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others
Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351 and prayed
for quashing of disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed
the said Original Application holding that the charge-sheet and
the disciplinary proceedings does not warrant any interference
as they have been issued by a competent disciplinary authority.
It was also held that the disciplinary authority empowered to
inflict minor penalty can issue a charge-sheet even though it’s a
charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules for inflicting a
major punishment, given that the punishment order will have to be
passed by the disciplinary authority empowered to impose a major
penalty.
8. The respondent being aggrieved by the dismissal of Original
Application preferred a Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 before the
High Court and the High Court has allowed the writ petition vide
Impugned Order dated 18.11.2022. The High Court has arrived
at a conclusion that in cases where a charge-sheet has been
issued under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, 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.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union of India vehemently argued
before this Court that the reliance placed by the High Court upon the
judgment delivered in B.V. Gopinath (supra) is misplaced and the
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1627

Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa

statutory provisions governing the field empowers the disciplinary
authority to issue a charge sheet in respect of major penalty even
though the authority who has issued the charge-sheet was competent
to inflict minor penalties only.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently
argued before this Court that the question of interference by this Court
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise
as the judgment delivered by the High Court is squarely covered
by the verdict of this Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra).
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record thoroughly.
12. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the charge-sheet
was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, which provides
for a procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 14 (1) of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965, reads as under:
“14. Procedure for imposing major penalties
(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in
clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made except after
an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided
in this rule and rule 15, or in the manner provided by the
Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where
such inquiry is held under that Act.”
13. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point
out violation of any statutory provision of law and the disciplinary
proceedings were conducted strictly in consonance with procedure
prescribed under the aforesaid Rule.
14. In the present case, as already stated earlier, the charge-sheet
was issued for imposing major penalties by the General Manager
(Telecommunications). As per Appendix 3 appended to the CCS CCA
Rules, the Member Telecommunications Commission is competent
authority to impose major penalties and the General Manager,
Telecommunications is competent to impose minor penalties.
Appendix 3 appended to the CCS CCA Rules is reproduced as
under:
1628 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Serial Description of Appointing Authority Authority competent to impose
Number Service penalties and penalties which it
(3) may impose (with reference to item
(1) (2) numbers in Rule 11)
Authority Penalties

(4) (5)
9. Telecommunication Member, Member, All
Engineering Telecommunications Telecommunications
Service, Group ‘B’ Commission Commission

Adviser (Human
Resources
Development)
Department of
Telecommunications;

Head of Circle;

General Manager;
Telecommunication
Factories;

Head of Telephone
District; Head of
Telecommunication
District/

Telecommunications
Area of Senior
Administrative Grade; (i) to (iv)

General Manager,
Maintenance of Senior
Administrative Grade,
General Manager,
Projects.

15. Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 which provides for initiation of disciplinary
proceedings reads as under:
“13. Authority to institute proceedings
(1) The President or any other authority empowered by
him by general or special order may –
(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any
Government servant;
(b) direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary
proceedings against any Government servant on
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1629

Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa

whom that disciplinary authority is competent to
impose under these rules any of the penalties
specified in rule 11.
(2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules
to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i)
to (iv) of rule 11 may institute disciplinary proceedings
against any Government servant for the imposition of
any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule
11 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not
competent under these rules to impose any of the latter
penalties.”
16. A plain reading of Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules specifies that
a disciplinary authority competent under the rules “may institute
disciplinary proceedings”. 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 (in the present
case, the General Manager) can certainly issue a charge-sheet even
for imposition of major penalties.
17. Thus, in short, initiation of disciplinary proceedings can be done by
Member Telecommunications Commission as well as by General
Manager, Telecommunication. In the present case, initiation has been
done by the General Manager, Telecommunication and, therefore,
in the light of the statutory provisions of the law, this Court is of
the considered opinion that 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 (supra).
18. This Court has carefully considered the judgment delivered in the
case of B.V. Gopinath (supra). The aforesaid case was in respect of
an IRS Officer Mr. B.V. Gopinath who was appointed as an Additional
Commissioner of Income Tax, and the grievance raised was that the
charge-sheet against him was not approved by the Finance Minister,
whereas, an office order dated 19.07.2005 contained a requirement
of such approval. In the present case, there is no such office order
in respect of Department of Telecommunication and the statutory
provisions governing the field also do not provide for any such
approval from the Member, Telecommunications Commission. In the
1630 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

present case, the guilt of the respondent after following due process
of law has been established. The inquiry does not suffer from any
procedural irregularity and the charge-sheet has been issued by the
competent disciplinary authority. The final order has been passed
after following the due process of law by the competent disciplinary
authority empowered to inflict major penalty and, therefore, the
CAT has rightly dismissed the Original Application preferred by the
respondent herein and the order passed by the High Court deserves
to be set aside.
19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order dated
18.11.2022 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 14475 of
2022 is hereby set aside and the proceedings initiated under charge
memos bearing No. VIG/12-285A/2005/6 dated 27.05.2006 and
No. VIG/RS-SDE/BGTD/2008/37 dated 01.12.2008 both issued by
Principal General Manager, BGTD, Bengaluru (Respondent No.4
herein) are held to be validly initiated.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain