9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that, he accumulated wealth disproportionate to his known source of income; to the extent of 285%. Other charges were also framed. The said charge sheet was challenged in O.A No. 3732/2010, by raising a plea that the initiation of proceedings as well as the charge memo was not approved as required under law. Accordingly, the OA was allowed on August 26, 2011, following the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, W.P. (C) No. 10452/2009. It was left open to the respondents to issue a fresh charge memo, in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, a charge memo dated August 28, 2014, was issued referring to the earlier developments and by stating that the Competent Authority has accorded its approval at various stages. 4. It was the case of the petitioner that, even though the earlier charge memo was set aside, there still remained several lapses. According to the petitioner, if the record is called for, it can be verified whether the approval was accorded by the concerned authority at appropriate stage. Another contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that, as per the approval, there was non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Respondents shall also examine the feasibility of identifying the officers and authorities, who were responsible for not taking up the proceedings against the applicant though there was no stay in the OA." 7. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath2 has clearly held that, Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ('Rules of 1965', in short) contemplates approval by the Disciplinary Authority at two stages; firstly at the stage of approval for initiating major penalty proceedings, i.e., approval for issuing charge sheet; and secondly at the stage of approval of the charge sheet. In the present case, the charge sheet was issued without approval of the Disciplinary Authority, as is clear from the pleadings made by the respondents herein, in the counter affidavit before the Tribunal. The charge sheet / memorandum was issued on August 28, 2014, whereas the counter affidavit states that the approval for initiation of major penalty proceedings was granted by the Disciplinary Authority on December 1, 2005. 8. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s approved the charge memo to be issued under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965. 12. Before adverting to the said issue, it is important to state that, when the first charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, there was a decision of the Competent Authority of the year 2005 approving the initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. 13. The note sheets of 2014 also show that approval was granted by the Finance Minister, on the following three aspects, by referring to the approval in 2005 for initiating major penalty proceedings: "(i) the issue of a fresh charge-sheet to Shri S. Ramu in accordance with the approval for initiation of major penalty proceedings granted by Hon'ble FM on 1.12.2005 [page 21/N of the linked file No.DGIT(V)SZ/CBI/06/03]. (ii) Draft memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (at pages 412-551/c). (iii) Appointment of Inquiry Officer/Presenting Officer if required in the course of Departmental proceedings to be initiated against Shri S. Ramu." 14. The aforesaid would reveal that the Competent Authority has directed the issuance of charge sheet in terms of the approval given for initiating major penalty proceedings on Decembe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 8, 2005, issued to B.V. Gopinath on the ground that, there was nothing on record to show that the Finance Minister had approved the charge-sheet. The order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court. This Court vide order dated July 28, 2009 dismissed the writ petition. In the appeal, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 41, 44, 45 and 52 of its judgment held as under: "41. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 14(3) clearly lays down that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a government servant under Rule 14 or Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge-sheet. Rule 14(4) again mandates that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the government servant, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and the supporting documents including a list of witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be proved. We are unable to interpret this provision as suggested by the Additional Solicitor General, that once the disciplinary authority approves the initiation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uance of charge-sheet and when the charge-sheeted officer has submitted the statement of defence. It provides that in case the charge-sheeted officer simply denies the charges, CVO will appoint an inquiry officer/presiding officer. In case of denial accompanied by representation, the Chairman is to consider the written statement of defence. In case the Chairman comes to a tentative conclusion that written statement of defence has pointed out certain issues which may require modification/amendment of charges then the file has to be put up to the Finance Minister. So the intention is clearly manifest that all decisions with regard to the approval of charge memo, dropping of the charge memo, modification/amendment of charges have to be taken by the Finance Minister. xxx xxx xxx 52. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General is not factually correct. The primary submission of the respondent was that the charge-sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is without authority of law and, therefore, non est in the eye of the law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by CAT as also by the High Court. The action has been taken agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings were initiated against him by issuing a charge sheet dated July 26, 1991. The Inquiry Officer held the charge as proved against the respondent. The respondent was dismissed from service on June 17, 1993. The order of dismissal was challenged by filing a Writ Petition being CR No.11177 (W) of 1993, which was allowed by the High Court vide its order dated February 22, 2001, on the ground that the order of dismissal has been passed in contravention of the statutory rules. The appeal filed by Coal India Limited was also rejected. In view of the order of the Division Bench, the employee was reinstated. 20. Thereafter, fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated which resulted in the dismissal of the respondent from service vide order dated February 24, 2004. The order was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No.22658 (W) of 2005. The said writ petition was allowed on August 16, 2007 on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority did not ensure compliance of the order of the High Court dated August 8, 2001 which stood confirmed by the Division Bench and also on the ground that the fresh inquiry was not initiated by the Competent Authority, as it was initiated by the Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e placed under suspension. Please discuss if you wish." 23. The decisions of the Finance Minister on December 1, 2005 and also on August 17, 2014 approving the issuance of memorandum under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965 were with a clear application of mind. So, in that sense Mr. Ravi Prakash is right to state that the approvals were in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court. 24. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, and stated that, it is a settled position of law that the quashing of a charge-sheet is warranted only in very rare and exceptional cases where, it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, whereas in the present case the memorandum dated August 28, 2014 was issued by the Competent Authority and there is no illegality in that respect. 25. Mr. Singh had also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunny Abraham v. Union of India and Anr., CA No.7764/2021, more specifically paragraphs 7 and 12 thereof, which read as under: "7. The Delhi High Court in the appellant's case primarily examined the issue as to whether having reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be drawn up the charge memorandum. In the event the requirement of sub-clause (2) is complied with, not having the approval at the time of issue of charge memorandum under sub-clause (3) would render the charge memorandum fundamentally defective, not capable of being validated retrospectively. What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively. Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum. In our opinion, the approval for initiating disciplinary proceeding and approval to a charge memorandum are two divisible acts, each one requiring independent application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority. If there is any default in the process of application of mind independently at the time of issue of charge memorandum by the Disciplinary Authority, the same would not get cured by the fact that such approval was there at the initial stage. This was the argument on behalf of the authorities in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra), as would be evident from paragraph 8 of the report which we reproduce below:- "8. Ms. Jaising has elaborately explained the entire procedure that is followed in each and every case before the matter is put up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
