Summary
Disciplinary charge-sheets for major penalties against a Group B telecom engineer had been issued by the General Manager, an authority competent to impose only minor penalties, and the High Court quashed the proceedings relying on B.V. Gopinath. The Court held that Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 expressly permits an authority competent to impose minor penalties to institute proceedings for major penalties, that Gopinath turned on a departmental office order requiring ministerial approval which has no counterpart in the Department of Telecommunications, and restored the Tribunal's dismissal of the employee's challenge.
Issues
- Whether a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for a major penalty, issued by a disciplinary authority competent to impose only minor penalties, is void for want of approval by the authority competent to impose major penalties.
- Whether the ratio of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath governs disciplinary proceedings in the Department of Telecommunications.
Provisions considered
- Rule 13(2), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965Rule 13(2) allows a disciplinary authority competent to impose the penalties in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 to institute proceedings for the penalties in clauses (v) to (ix) although it cannot itself impose them. Read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3, this entitled the General Manager, Telecommunications to issue a charge-sheet for a major penalty. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Rule 14(1), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965Rule 14 lays down the inquiry procedure before any penalty in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 is imposed. The charge-sheets were issued under this rule and the respondent could not point to any breach of its procedure. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16)
- Appendix 3, Serial No. 9 (Telecommunication Engineering Service, Group B), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965Appendix 3 names the Member, Telecommunications Commission as appointing authority competent to impose all penalties and the General Manager (among others) as competent to impose penalties (i) to (iv). The Court read it with Rules 13(2) and 14 to hold that either authority could initiate proceedings. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17)
Held
- On a plain reading of Rule 13(2), read with Rule 14 and Appendix 3 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, an authority empowered to inflict minor penalties (here the General Manager, Telecommunications) can issue a charge-sheet even for the imposition of major penalties; initiation of the proceedings could therefore be done either by the Member, Telecommunications Commission or by the General Manager, and the High Court could not fault the charge-sheet solely on the strength of B.V. Gopinath. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- B.V. Gopinath concerned an IRS officer and rested on an office order dated 19.07.2005 which required the Finance Minister's approval of the charge-sheet. No such office order exists for the Department of Telecommunications and the statutory provisions do not require approval of the Member, Telecommunications Commission, so that decision does not apply. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The inquiry suffered from no procedural irregularity, the charge-sheet was issued by a competent disciplinary authority and the final order was passed, after due process, by the authority empowered to inflict a major penalty; the Tribunal had therefore rightly dismissed the Original Application and the High Court's contrary order could not stand. (¶¶ 13, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order dated 18.11.2022 in Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022 set aside; the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the two charge memos issued by the Principal General Manager, BGTD, Bengaluru in 2006 and 2008 held to have been validly initiated.