2013 (9) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary proceedings against a government servant - Decision for suspension/review of suspension lies with highest departmental authority - Finance Minister - seeking approval for issuing charge memo/sanction of prosecution - Department seeking order for Initiation of departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings or both simultaneously - Disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up - the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges - Delinquent officer - HELD THAT - to ensure that only an authority that is not subordinate to the appointing authority takes disciplinary action and that rules of natural justice are complied with. The primary submission of the respondent was that the charge sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is non est in the eye of law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the CAT and by the High Court. The action has been taken against the respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges. The term cause to be drawn up does not mean that the definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The term cause to be drawn up merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary authority to a subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up substance of proposed definite and distinct articles of charge sheet . These proposed articles of charge would only be finalized upon approval by the disciplinary authority. The Court in the case P.V. SRINIVASA SASTRY VERSUS COMPTROLLER AUDITOR GENERAL 1992 (12) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT HELD THAT - Undoubtedly Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. Inconsistency with Article 311 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - At the same time it is pointed out by the court that However, it is open to Union of India or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority. It is further held that Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holders of a civil post.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the charge sheet issued without the Finance Minister's approval.
2. Compliance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
3. Interpretation of Office Order No. 205 of 2005.
4. Delegation and sub-delegation of disciplinary authority.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Charge Sheet Issued Without the Finance Minister's Approval:
The central issue in these appeals was whether the charge sheet issued against the respondents was without jurisdiction due to the lack of approval from the Finance Minister, despite his approval for initiating major penalty proceedings. The respondents contended that the charge sheet dated 7th/8th September 2005 was invalid as it lacked the Finance Minister's approval. The CAT quashed the charge sheet on this ground, and the High Court upheld this decision.

Compliance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965:
Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules mandates that the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge sheet. Rule 14(4) requires the disciplinary authority to deliver or cause to be delivered the articles of charge to the government servant. The appellants argued that the approval for initiating disciplinary proceedings implicitly included approval of the charge memo. However, the court held that the charge sheet must be approved by the appointing authority, i.e., the Finance Minister, to ensure compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution, which provides safeguards against dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

Interpretation of Office Order No. 205 of 2005:
The office order delineates the levels of decision-making authorities for various stages of disciplinary action. Clause (8) specifies that the Finance Minister is the competent authority for approving the issuance of the charge memo. The court interpreted this clause to mean that the charge memo requires explicit approval from the Finance Minister, separate from the approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings. This interpretation aligns with the constitutional mandate to protect civil servants from arbitrary dismissal or removal.

Delegation and Sub-delegation of Disciplinary Authority:
The principle of "delegatus non potest delegare" (a delegate cannot further delegate) was emphasized. The court noted that discretionary powers must be exercised by the authority to which they are entrusted unless expressly permitted to delegate. The Finance Minister, as the disciplinary authority, could not delegate the approval of the charge memo to a subordinate authority. The court rejected the appellants' argument that the procedure followed for initiating disciplinary proceedings inherently included approval of the charge memo.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the CAT and the High Court, concluding that the charge sheet issued without the Finance Minister's approval was non est in the eye of law. The appeals filed by the Union of India were dismissed, with the court granting liberty to the appellants to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards under Article 311 of the Constitution and the CCS (CCA) Rules, ensuring that disciplinary actions against civil servants are conducted lawfully and justly.