UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusB.V. GOPINATH

                    [2013] 14 S.C.R. 185

                  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            A
                               v.
                       B.V. GOPINATH
            (Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2013 etc.)
                   SEPTEMBER 05, 2013
                                                                   B
   [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y.EQBAL, JJ.]

    Service Law:

      Disciplinary proceedings - Under s. 14 of CCS (CCA)          c
Rules - Issuance of Charge sheet/charge memo, without
approval of disciplinary authority - Validity of - Held: Even
though the disciplinary authority has given approval for
initiation of major penalty_ proceedings, in absence of approval
by the disciplinary authority, the charge sheet/charge memo        o
would be non-est in the eye of law - Initiation of disciplinary
proceedings u/r. 14(2) is distinct and separate from issuing a
charge memo u/r. 14(3) - Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rules
14(2) and 14(3).
                                                                   E
     The question for consideration in the present case
was whether the charge-sheet issued against the
respondents (who were issued charge-sheet u/s. 14 CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965) was without jurisdiction, in view of the
fact that the disciplinary authority i.e. Finance Minister has     F
not given approval for issuing the Charge Memo, even
though he had given approval for initiation of major
penalty proceedings against the respondents.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court                              G

     HELD: 1. A plain reading of Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3)
of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &
appeal) Rules, 1965 makes it amply clear and the only
                              185                                  H
    186     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A interpretation possible is that the stage of initiating the
  disciplinary proceedings u/r. 14(2) is distinct and separate
  from issuing a charge memo u/r. 14(3) and it is not a
  continuing act because it is not necessary that every
  disciplinary proceeding initiated would definitely result in
B issuing a charge memo because after initiating
  disciplinary proceedings it may be found from the
  material on record that, the memo of charge need not be
  served because the charges may not be made out or a
  lesser charge could be made out. Mind has to be applied
c to the evidence and material on record pursua·nt to
  initiation of disciplinary proceedings to again come to a
  fresh decision as to whether now, a charge memo
  deserves to be issued. Thus, the material before the
  Disciplinary authority is different at both the stages of
  Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services
0
  (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. [Para 29)
  [202-E-H; 203-A]

         2. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent
    were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
E   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
F   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. If the
G   provision is interpreted that once the disciplinary
    authority approves the initiation of the disciplinary
    proceedings, the charge sheet can be drawn up by an
    authority other than the disciplinary authority, this would
    destroy the underlying protection guaranteed under
H   Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. Such procedure
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH             187


would also do violence to the protective provisions             A
contained under Article 311 (2) which ensures that no
public servant is dismissed, removed or suspended
without following a fair procedure in which he/she has
been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the
allegations contained in the charge sheet. Such a charge        B
sheet can only be issued upon approval by the
appointing authority i.e. Finance Minister. [Para 40] [205-
D-H; 206-A]

     3. Issuance of the Office Order No.205 dated 19th          C
July, 2005 makes it evident that the respondents were
aware of the legal position. The Office Order clearly sets
out the levels of the decision making authorities
depending on the gravity of the consequences that
would have to be faced by a delinquent public servant
in case the decision is taken to proceed against the            D
public servant. As per Clause 1 of the office order
recognizing the gravity of the consequences ensures that
the decision in relation to suspension/review of
suspension shall be taken by the highest authority in the
department i.e. the Finance Minister. Clause (8) of the         E
order also makes it clear that when the Finance Minister
is approached for approval of charge memo, approval for
taking ancillary action such as appointing an inquiry
officer/presiding officer should also be taken. Clause (9)
in fact reinforces the provisions in clause (8) to the effect   F
that it is the Finance Minster, who is required to approve
the charge memo. Clause (9) relates to a stage after the
issuance 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·        G
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      H
    188    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013] 14 S.C.R.

A pointed out certain issues which may require
  modification/amendment of charges then the file has to
  be put up to the Finance Minster. So the intention is
  clearly manifest that all decisions with regard to the
  approval of charge memo, dropping of the charge memo,
B modification/amendment of charges have to be taken by
  the Finance Minister. The Central Administrative Tribunal
  as well as the High Court has correctly interpreted the
  provisions of the Office Order No. 205 of 2005. [Paras 41,
  42 and 45] [206-B-C, E-F; 207-G-H; 208-A-C; 210-F]
c      4. Factually also, a perusal of the record would show
  that the file was put up to the Finance Minister by the
  Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) seeking the
  approval of the Finance Minister for sanctioning
  prosecution against one officer and for initiation of major
D penalty proceeding under Rule 3(1)(i) and (3) (1) (iii) of the
  Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules against the
  officers mentioned in the note. Ultimately, it appears that
  the charge memo was not put up for approval by the
  Finance Minister. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
E approval granted by the Finance Minister for initiation of
  departmental proceedings would also amount to
  approval of the charge memo. [Para 45] [210-F-H; 211-A]

       5. The action has been taken against the respondent
F 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
G 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
H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. 8.V. GOPINATH             189


of charge sheet". These proposed articles of charge            A
would only be finalized upon approval by the disciplinary
authority. The charge sheet/charge memo having not
been approved by the disciplinary authority was non est
in the eye of law. (Paras 46 and 49] (211-E-G; 212-E]
                                                               ·s
   P. V. Srinivasa Sastry & Ors. vs. Comptroller and Auditor
General & Ors. 1993 (1) SCC 419- relied on.

     Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. E. S. I. Corporation
1994 (5) SCC 346: 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 626; Director
General, ES/ & Anr. Vs. T.Abdul Razak. (1996) 4 SCC 708: C
 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 80; Government of Andhra Pradesh
Vs. M.A. Majeed & Anr (2006) 1 ALO 823: (2006) 1 ALT 661;
Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P} Ltd. & Ors.
(2003) 2 SCC 111: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517; Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others Vs. Indian Oil D
Corporation Ltd. 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 18: 1990 (3) Suppl.
 SCR 365; State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Batu lngale & Ors.
1995 Supp (4) sec 469: 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 284;
Forest Range Officer & Ors. Vs. P. Mohammad Ali & Ors.
1993 Supp (3) SCC 627: 993 (3) SCR 497; State of E
Madhya Pradesh Vs. M. V. Narasimhan (1975) 2 SCC 377:
1976 (1) SCR 6 ; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Dutt
Sharma & Ahr. AIR 1987 SC 943: 1987 (2) SCR 444;
Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh
Kumar Singh & Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 327: 1995 (5) Suppl. F
 SCR 543; Ulagappa & Ors. Vs. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors.
AIR 2000 SC 3603 2001 (10) SCC. 639; Special Director &
Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr AIR 2004 SC 1467:
2004 (1) SCR 399; Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty
Satyanarayan AIR 2007 SC 906; 2006 (9 ) Suppl. SCR 257; G
The Secretary, Min. of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash
Chandra Mirdha 2012 (11) SCC 555: 2012 (6) SCR 182;
Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vs. Thavasiappan 1996
(2) SCC 145: 1996 (1) SCR 977; Steel Authority of India,
 Successor of Bokaro Steel Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour
                                                               H
    190      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   Court at Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad & Anr. 1980 (3) SCC
    734 - referred to.

         Seaford Court Estates Ltd Vs. Asher [1949] 2 KB 481 -
    referred to.
B       "Judicial Review of Administrative Action" De Smith,
    Woolf and Jowell (Fifth Edition); "Administrative Law" H. WR.
    Wade & C.F. Forsyth (Ninth Edition), Chapter 10 - referred
    to.

c                        Case Law Reference:
          [1949] 2 KB 481              referred to     Para 12
          1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 365 referred to          Para 12
          1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 284 referred to          Para 12
D
          1993 (3) SCR 497             referred to     Para 12
          1976 (1) SCR 6               referred to     Para 12
          1987 (2) SCR 444             referred to     Para 14
E
          1995 (5) Suppl. SCR 543 referred to          Para 14
          2001 (10)   sec 639          referred to     Para 14
          2004 (1) SCR 399             referred to     Para 14
F         2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 257      referred to     Para 14
          2012 (6 ) SCR 182            referred to     Para 14
          1996 (1) SCR 977             referred to     Para 15

G
          1980 (3) sec 734             referred to     Para 23
          1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 80       referred to     Para 32
          (2006) 1 ALT 661             referred to     Para 36
          2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 referred to          Para 36
H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                 191


    1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 626          referred to      Para 44       A
    1993 (1) sec 419                 relied on        Para 46
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7761 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 28.07.2009.of the             B
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No. 10452 of
2009
                             WITH
C.A Nos.7762,7763,7764,7765, 7766 & 7767 of 2013.                   c
    Indira Jaising ASG, V. Shekhar, P. S. Patwalia P.P.
Khurana, Brijender Chahar, I. M. Quddusi, Rashmi Malhotra,
Madhurima Tatia, Rahul Kaushik, Arijit Parasad, D.L.
Chidanand, Rohit Sharma, Anil Gaur, B. V. Balaram Das, S.
                                                                    D
K. Gupta, Balbir Singh Gupta, Naresh Kumar, Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, Suresh C. Gupta, B.K. Mishra, Praneet Ranjan,
Daisay Hannah, Shekhar Kumar for the appearing parties.
    The Judgment of the court was delivered by
    SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted in all
                                                                    E
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   F
disciplinary authority, i.e., the Finance Minister, had not given
approval for Issuing the charge memo, even though Ile had
given approval for initiation of major penalty proceedings
against the respondents.
     3. Since the issue raised in the present appeals is purely     G
legal, it would not be necessary to make a detailed reference
to the facts of individual cases. For convenience and for the
purpose of reference only, we advert to the facts as pleaded
in Civil Appeal No. 7761 of 2013 @ SLP (Civil) No. 6348 of
2011 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. B. V. Gopinath).                    H
    192     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A        4. Mr. B.V. Gopinath joined the Indian Revemue Service in
    the year 1987 as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. It
    appears that he earned promotion as Deputy Commissioner
    of Income Tax in 1998, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in
    1999 and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in 2000.
B      On 7th/8th September, 2005, whilst working on the
  aforesaid post, Mr. Gopinath (respondent No.1) was served
  with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services
  (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter
  referred to as "CCS (CCA) Rules"). The said charge sheet was
C issued on the allegation that in 2003 the respondent was
  alleged to have approached one Chartered Accountant in
  Chennai for securing his transfer to Mumbai by offering bribe
  to the P.A. to the then Minister of State (Revenue). Thus, the
  charge levelled against the respondent was that he failed to
D maintain integrity; and exhibited a conduct which is unbecomiflg
  of a government servant. The respondent submitted his reply
  to the allegations wherein he denied the charges levelled
  against him. He requested for supply of certain documents. In
  due course, the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were
E appointed.
       5. During the pendency of the inquiry proceedings, the
  respondents filed O.A. No.800 of 2008. In these proceedings,
  the respondents claimed that the charge shee!t dated 7th/8th
  September, 2005 is without jurisdiction, therefore, liable to be
F quashed, as the charge memo had not been approved by the
  Finance Minister. We may also notice here that prior to filing
  of the aforesaid O.A., the respondent had already approached
  CAT twice: firstly, seeking direction(s) to the Union of India to
  supply all the documents relied upon in connection with the
G charge-sheet issued against him. Secondly, seeking a
  direction to the appellant for timely completion of the
  departmental proceedings against him. The directions given by
  CAT in the aforesaid proceedings, however, have no bearing
  on the controversy invol\(ed herein.
H
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  193
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
     6. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the legality   A
or otherwise of the order passed by CAT on 5th February,
2009 in O.A. No. 800 of 2008. By the aforesaid order, CAT
quashed the charge sheet dated 7th/8th September, 2005
issued against the respondent on the ground that there was
nothing on record to show that the Finance Minister approved        B
the charge sheet. The aforesaid order of CAT was challenged,
by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10452 of 2009, before the
Delhi High Court. By order dated 28th July 2009, which has
been impugned before this court, the Delhi High Court
dismissed the said writ petition.                                   c
 Appellants' Submissions:

     7. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India appearing for the appellants, submitted that the High
Court as well as the CAT have committed a grave jurisdictional      D
error in quashing the charge sheet, which was issued by the
competent authority, in accordance with the procedure
prescribed.

      8. She has elaborately explained the entire procedure that    E
is followed in each and every case before the matter is put up
before the Finance Minister for seeking approval for initiation
of the disciplinary proceedings. According to the learned
Additional Solicitor General, the procedure followed ensures
that entire material is placed before the Finance Minister before
                                                                    F
a decision is taken to initiate the departmental proceedings.
She submits that approval for initiation of the departmental
proceedings would also amount to approval of the charge
memo. According to the learned Additional Solicitor General,
the CAT as well as the. High Court had committed a grave error
in quashing the departmental proceedings against the                G
respondents, as the procedure for taking approval of the
disciplinary authority to initiate penalty proceeding is
comprehensive and involved decision making at every level of
the hierarchy.
                                                                    H
    194      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A        9. She pointed out that upon receipt of a complaint the
   same is examined by the Chief Vigilance Officer in the office
   of the Director General, Income Tax (Vigilance). A decision is
   taken upon examination of the complaint as to whether there
   is a vigilance angle involved. In case, it is found that a complaint
13 involves a vigilance angle, a preliminary investigation is
   conducted. During the preliminary investigation, the version of
   the officer concerned is also taken. Thereafter, the decision is
   taken by the Chief Vigilance Officer (hereinafter referred to as
   "CVO") with the approval of Central Board of Direct Taxes as
c  to whether disciplinary proceedings are to be initiated. In case,
   the CVO decides to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the matter
   is then referred to the Chief Vigilance Commission for first
   stage advice. The Chief Vigilance Commission examines the
   first stage advice. In case the Chief Vigilance Commission
D concurs with the decision taken by the Chief Vigilance Officer,
   a detailed note is prepared for initiation of disciplinary
   proceedings which is put up to the Finance Minister. She
   emphasised that alongwith note for initiation of disciplinary
   proceedings, all relevant supporting material is also placed
E before the Finance Minister. It is upon consideration of the entire
   material alongwith the explanatory note that the Finance Minister
   takes a decision to initiate departmental proceedings. In view
   of the aforesaid elaborate procedure, the CAT as well as the
   High Court had erroneously concluded that such procedure
   would not amount to approval of the charge memo.
F
        10. Ms. Jaising further submitted that Office Order No. 205
  of 2005 has been misread by the Courts below. She points out
  that to appreciate the true purport of the said office order, a
  careful consideration needs to be given to the safeguards
G available to a delinquent officer under the Constitution of India
  and the CCS (CCA) Rules. Learned ASG then submitted that
  Article 311 provides for two safeguards for the delinquent
  officer: (i) the officer cannot be dismissed or removed by the
  authority subordinate to the appointing authority of the officer
H concerned [Article 311 (1 )]; and (ii) the dismissal or removal can
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  195
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
only be effected after an enquiry in which the official has been    A
informed of the charges against him and is given a reasonable
opportunity to be heard in respect of those charges [Article
311 (2)]. She submits that in the present case, none of the two
safeguards have been violated. She has elaborated that the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent      B
in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, which prescribed the
procedure for imposing major penalty. Relying on Rule 14(3),
she again drew our attention to the expression that the
disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to. be drawn up
the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into      c
definite and distinct articles of charge. She submitted that the
entire procedure under Rule 14(3) has been followed. Under
Rule 14(4) again disciplinary authority is required to either
deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a
copy of the articles of charge. This was also admittedly followed
                                                                    0
in the present proceeding. She reiterated that a plain reading
of Rule 14(3) would show that it permits the disciplinary
authority to cause the charge memo to be drawn up by a
subordinate authority.

     11. The ASG then submitted that the office order No.205        E
of 2005 was passed in view of the stress on time and resources
being felt in the Department of Finance due to insufficient
delegation of powers in respect of disciplinary action cases.
Accordingly, after considering the recomm~ndations of a
Committee formed for this purpose, the office order was             F
passed prescribing the competent decision making authority
for various steps in disciplinary action cases in CBEC and
CBDT. The office order prescribed the competent authority for
granting approval at different stages. It does not prescribe the
stages which require approval. She further submitted that the       G
High Court has misinterpreted clause (8) of the aforesaid order.
She poirits out that the expression "approval for issuing charge
memo" cannot be read as distinct from "approval for initiating
major penalty proceedings". According to the learned ASG, the
office order dated 19th July, 2005 does not impose any              H
    196       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2013] 14 S.C.R.


A requirement that the charge memo must be approved by the
  disciplinary authority. Clause (8) of the office order, according
  to Ms. Indira Jaising, only provides that the Finance Minister is
  the competent authority for granting approval "for issuing
  charge memo'', and not for "approving the charge memo". She
B submits that the procedure for drawing up the charge memo
  commences when approval is sought for initiation of the·
  disciplinary proceedings. The actual drawing up of the charge
  memo is a part of and incidental to the approval to initiate
  disciplinary proceedings and is a ministerial act. The approval
C to initiate disciplinary proce~dings is the approval to set the law
  in motion and carries with it, by necessary implication, all things
  to effectuate the same. Therefore, the grant of approval for
  initiation of disciplinary proceedings amounts to grant of
  approval for issuance of charge memo.

D       12. The learned ASG further submitted that the office order
  does not create any enforceable rights in favour of the
  respondent, since the said order is intended for internal
  functioning of the department concerned. The order, she
  submits, must be given a purposive interpretation to discern its
E true import. It was submitted by the learned ASG, it would be
  sufficient compliance with the said order if it is shown that there
  was approval by the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary
  proceedings and approval is granted to the material on the
  basis of which the charge memo has been drawn. In this context,
F reliance was placed upon Seaford Court Estates Ltd Vs.
  Asher, 1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others
  Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2 State of Karnataka Vs. Appa
  Batu lngale & Ors., 3 Forest Range Officer & Ors. Vs. P.
  Mohammad Ali & Ors., 4 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M. V.
G Narasimhan. 5
    1.   [1949] 2 KB 481.
    2.   1991 Supp. (2) sec 18.
    3.   1995 Supp (4) sec 469.
    4.   1993 Supp (3) sec 627.
H 5.     (1975) 2 sec 377.
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  197
            [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

      13. Learned ASG further submitted that the High Court has        A
wrongly drawn a distinction between approval for initiation of
the disciplinary proceedings and approval for issuance of
charge memo by treating them as two distinct steps. She
reiterated that approval for initiation of departmental proceeding
would include approval of the charge memo by disciplinary              B
authority.

      14. The next submission of the learned ASG is that the
charge sheet is normally not to be quashed unless prejudice
is shown to be caused to the delinquent officer. And since the         C
respondent has not alleged any prejudice caused to him by
virtue of the charge sheet not having been approved by the
disciplinary authority, the charge sheet ought not to have been
interfered with. Reliance was placed on State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Brahm Dutt Sharma & Anr. 6, Executive Engineer, Bihar
State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. 7 ,                  D
U/agappa & Ors. Vs. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors. 8 Special
Director & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr. 9 and Union
of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan 10 and The
Secretary, Min. of Defence and Ors. Vs. Prabhash Chandra
Mirdha 11                                                              E

     15. In support of her submission that it is not necessary
that charge sheet should be framed by the authority competent
to impose penalty or that enquiry should be conducted by such
authority alone, reliance was placed on_lnspector General of           F
Police & Anr. Vs. Thavasiappan 12 .

    16. Further, it was submitted that it is in the interest of good
administration to interpret said the office order in the manner

7.   (1996) 1 sec 327.                                                 G
8.   AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2).
9.   AIR 2004 SC 1467.
10. AIR 2007 SC 906.
11. 2012 (11) sec 565.
12. 1996 (2) sec 145.                                                  H
    '198         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A as contended by the learned ASG since there are more than
  500 enquiries that have been initiated in the aforesaid manner.

         17. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellants, out of
    abundant caution, have now amended the procedure and seek
    the approval of the Finance Minister for charge memo.
8
    Respondents' Submissions:

        18._Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel, submitted
  that provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 are applicable to the
c respondent, an officer of Indian Revenue Service. And that
  since the charge sheet that was issued to him contemplated a
  major penalty, Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules is attracted.
  Reliance was placed upon Registrar of Cooperative Society
   Vs. F.X. Fernando, (supra) to contend that the CCS (CCA)
D Rules require a strict compliance. It was further submitted that
  it is an admitted fact that the Disciplinary Authority has not
  approved the charge sheet.

       19. After citing Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the
  learned senior counsel has elaborated the various stages when
E decisions required to be taken to comply with the said provision:

            a.    Whether or not there is justification for initiation of
                  an enquiry against a Government Servant? This
                  would also include undertaking the decision that
F                 whether Disciplinary Authority would itself hold the
                  enquiry or appoint some other authority to do the
                  same.

            b.    The second stage is drawing up of chargesheet;
                  and that has to be done by the Disciplinary Authority.
G
            c.    Then the Disciplinary Authority has to apply its mind
                  on the charges framed under Rule 14(3) and has
                  to grant its approval.

H          20. It was further submitted that there may be. some
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  199
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
situations where even despite the fact that approval has been        A
accorded to initiate the enquiry, charge sheet may not be issued
or approved. To illustrate, it was pointed out that there may be
circumstances where the Disciplinary Authority, after approving
the initiation of proceedings but before giving approval to the
charge sheet, comes to a conclusion that a lesser charge or          B
no charge is made out against the concerned officer. In such
circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority proceeds accordingly
and may drop the proceedings. Thus, it is for this reason that
Rule 14 provides that the DisCiplinary Authority has to apply its
mind separately at two different stages: (i) initiation of           c
proceedings and (ii) approval of charge sheet.

     21. In this context, similar submissions were also reiterated
by Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel for respondent in SLP
(Civil) No. 25839 of 2011. Referring to Rule 14 (3), learned
counsel submitted that charge-memo ought to have been                D
sanctioned by the Disciplinary Authority, especially since there
was no sub-delegation of such power in favour of any other
officer.

     22. The next submission of Mr. Patwalia is that the Office      E
Order No. 205/2005, Clause/ Item No. 8, mandates that the
approval of the charge sheet has to be granted by the Finance
Minister. This interpretation is fortified by clause 9 of the 2005
office order. Clause 9 requires that if there has to be any
dropping/modification/amendment of the charges, after                F
receiving the Written Submission of Defence, then the file has
to be put up to the Finance Minister. Learned Senior Counsel
states that if dropping/modification/amendment of charges is
required to be undertaken by the Finance Minister then it would
necessarily mean that the initial approval of the charge sheet       G
has to be sanctioned by the said minister only. It was further
submitted that acceptance of the stand of the appellant that
approval granted to initiation of proceedings includes approval
to the charge-memo would lead to the position where the

                                                                     H
    200      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 14 S.C.R.


A   charge memo would get approval even before it has come into
    existence.

         23. Mr. Patwalia further submitted that the issue in the
    present case has already been decided by this Court in Steel
    Authority of India, Successor of Bokaro Steel Ltd. Vs.
8
    Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Bokaro Steel City, Dhanbad
    & Anr. 13 It was also submitted that since the law laid down in
    the aforesaid case is in the favour of the present Respondents,
    the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.

C       24. Mr. Patwalia has also submitted that the appellants,
  in the application for condonation of delay in filing of the present
  appeals, contended that the ASG recommended that this is not
  a fit case for filing the SLP. Thus, the Civil Appeals are liable
  to be dismissed on this ground as well. The learned senior --
D counsel also submitted that the Appellants have already
  accepted the judgment of CAT and the High Court since the
  Finance Minister is now approving the charge-sheets. Further,
  it was submitted that after receiving information upon a RTI
  query, it was disclosed that the Finance Minister approved the
E fresh charge sheet in the case of the Respondent in SLP No.
  6348/2001. Thus, filing of the present appeals is nothing but
  an 'academic exercise.'

       :25. Mr. Patwalia countered the submission of the learned
  ASG that it will not be in the interest of good administration to
F drop the inquiries which are already going on if the charge-
  sheet:s issued in such inquiries are required to be approved
  by thE~ Finance Minister. In this context, it was submitted that
  such a contention has already been rejected by this court in
  Coal India. & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra. 14 Our attention was
G also drawn to the following excerpt from the said case:

          "the floodgate argument also does not appeal to us. The
          same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only
    13. 19ao (3) sec 734.
H   14. 2007 (9) sec s2s.
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. 8.V. GOPINATH                 201
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
    because, there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a      A
    valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken
    away. This court is bound to determine the respective rights
    of the parties."

    Thus, it was submitted that the Civil Appeals are required      8
to be dismissed.

     26. Similar submissions were also reiterated by Mr.
Brijender Chahar, learned senior advocate. Besides, learned
senior counsel submitted that the fact that respondent in SLP
(Civil) No. 26939 of 2011 belongs to Indian Revenue Service         C
would concomitantly mean that the President of India is the
appointing authority and thereby, Disciplinary Authority in his
case. However, the said power of the President has been
delegated under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution and by the
order of the President dated 14th January, 1961 under the           D
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, to the
Finance Minister. Thus, the Finance Minister acts as the
Disciplinary authority for the purposes of Article 311 of the
Constitution and Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, the
Finance Minister, himself, has to apply his mind and give           E
approval inter a/ia to the charge sheet. It was further submitted
that matters pertaining to any such disciplinary action cannot
be further delegated or sub-delegated to any other authority as
the President has delegated this authority only to the Finance
Minister.                                                           F

    27. Relying on Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, learned
senior counsel submitted that the rule contemplates a detailed
procedure, consisting of four stages, which has to be completed
before any punishment can be imposed on a public servant.
These steps are :                                                   G

      (i)    Initiation of Disciplinary proceedings for major
             penalties;

      (ii)   drawing up of charges of misconduct;
                                                                    H
    202           SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A         (iii)    appointment of Inquiry Officer & Presenting Officer
                   and to supervise fair conducting of inquiry by the
                   Inquiry Officer;

          (iv)     imposition of penalty, if any.
B       All the above procedures have been elaborated in
    provisions of Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification,
    Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, which require an independent
    & uinbiased application of mind and approval, directly by the
    Finance Minister and not by any other subordinate Authority.
c
        28. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the drawing
    up charges of misconduct and issuance/service of charge
    memo is a crucial function for conducting an inquiry, which
    require the independent & unbiased application of mind and
0   approval, directly and solely by the Finance Minister and not
    by any other subordinate Authority.

          29. According to the learned senior counsel, the most
    important issue to be decided by this Court is that whether the
    stage of initiating Disciplinary Proceedings is the same as
E   issuing a charge sheet/charge memo? A plain reading of Rule
    14(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services
    (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules, 1965 makes it amply
    clear and the only interpretation possible is that the stage of
    initiating the disciplinary proceedings U/Rule 14(2) is distinct
F   and separate from issuing a charge memo U/Rule 14(3) and it
    is not a continuing act because it is not necessary that every
    disciplinary proceeding initiated would definitely result in issuing
    a charge memo because after initiating disciplinary
_   proceedings it may be found from the material on record that,
G   the memo of charge need not be served because the charges
    may not be made out or a lesser charge could be made out.
    Mind has to be applied to the evidence and material on record
    pursuant to initiation of disciplinary proceedings to again come
    to a fresh decision as to whether now, a charge memo
H   deserves to be issued. Thus, the material before the
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  203
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
Disciplinary authority is different at both the stages of Rule       A
14(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.

     30. Learned senior counsel submitted that the appellant
has not denied and in fact accepted that the Charge Memo
                                                                     8
dated 1st April, 2008 was not approved by the Finance Minister
and as such, there was no application of mind by the Finance
Minister. Therefore, CAT has rightly quashed the said charge
memo.

     31. It was further submitted that under the relevant rules,     C
only ancillary actions relating to the issue of charge sheet may
be undertaken by a subordinate authority, but the framing of
charge sheet requires independent/unbiased application of
mind and therefore, Finance Minister has to give approval to
the charge memo.                                                     D

     32. Learned senior counsel reiterated that once the
disciplinary powers have been delegated by the President of
India under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution to the Finance
Minister, then such delegated authority cannot be re-delegated/      E
sub-delegated by the Disciplinary Authority, unless statute/
constitution provides for the same. In this context, reliance was
placed on Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. E. S. /.
Corporation 15 and Director General, ES/ & Anr. Vs. T.Abdul
Razak. 16
                                                                     F
     33. Learned senior Counsel further submitted that the
provisions of Rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules are separate
provisions. In case, the approval of the Finance Minister is taken
only for provision of Rule 14 (2) and no approval is taken for
acting under Rule 14(3), then the provision of Rule 14(3) would      G
be rendered redundant and obsolete. Such a position, he
submits, would mean as if no charges were ever framed by the
Disciplinary Authority.
15. 1994 (5) sec 346.
16. (1996) 4 sec 708.                                                H
    204      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2013] 14 S.C.R.


A        34. It was further submitted that the charges were framed
    only on the basis of the recommendations of CBI, which is not
    the recommending authority as per the CCS (CCA) Rules.

        35. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, learned counsel, submitted that
  the contention of the learned ASG that no prejudice would be
8
  caused to the Respondent is premised on an incorrect notion.
  Learned counsel further submitted that since the intention of the
  Government is manifest in the office order No. 205 of 2005,
  thei said order has to be complied with strictly, irrespective of
  thei fact whether prejudice is shown to be caused to the
C Government Servant or not.

        36. It was also submitted that the charge memo drawn by
  an officer other than the specified authority was wholly without
  jurisdiction and hence, vitiated the whole disciplinary enquiry.
D Reliance was placed on Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs.
  M.A. Majeed & Anr. 17 It was also submitted that where a
  statutory authority is required do something in a particular
  manner, the same must be done in that manner only. The State
  and other authorities, while acting under the statute, are the
E creatures of the statue and they must act with in the four corners
  of the! statute. Learned counsel relied on Bhavnagar University
   Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. 18

         37. Lastly, it was submitted that a charge sheet can be
    subjected to judicial review on the ground that it has been
F   issued by an incompetent authority. Ld. Counsel relied on
    Samaraditya Pal, Law Relating to Public Service: A treatise
    on the law applicable to Government and Public Undertaking,
    third Edition (2011) Pgs. 761, 767.

G         38. We have considered the elaborate submissions made
    by the learned counsel for the parties.


    17. (2006) 1 ALO 823: (2006) 1 ALT 661.
H   18. c2003J 2 sec 111.
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  205
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
    39. Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India ensures that    A
no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or
an all India service can be dismissed or removed by an
authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. The
overwhelming importance and value of Article 311 (1) for the civil
administration as well as the public servant has been                B
considered stated and re-stated, by this Court in numerous
judgments, since the Constitution came into effect on 19th
January, 1950. Article 311 (2) ensures that no civil servant is
dismissed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry held in
accordance with the rules of natural justice. To effectuate the      c
guarantee contained in Article 311(1) and to ensure
compliance with the mandatory requirements of Article 311 (2),
the Government of India has promulgated CCS (CCA) Rules,
1965.

     40. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein      D
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              E
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        F
unable to interpret this provision as suggested by the Additional
Solicitor General, that once the disciplinary authority approves
the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the charge sheet
can be drawn up by an authority other than the disciplinary
authority. This would destroy the underlying protection              G
guaranteed under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India.
Such procedure would also do violence to the protective
provisions contained under Article 311(2) which ensures that
no public servant is dismissed, removed or suspended without
following a fair procedure in which he/she has been given a          H
    206      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the
    charge sheet. Such a charge sheet can only be issued upon
    approval by the appointing authority i.e. Finance Minister.

         41. In fact, issuance of the office order No.205 dated 19th
B   July, 2005 makes it evident that the respondents were aware
    of the legal position. The office order clearly sets out the levels
    of the decision making authorities depending on the gravity of
    the consequences that would have to be faced by a delinquent
    public servant in case the decision is taken to proceed against
C   the public servant. Clause (1) deals with closure of complaints
    which are anonymous/pseudonymous; if the decision is taken
    to close the complaint it can be taken by the CVO. But in case
    of verifiable facts, the complaints have to be referred to the next
    level of hierarchy CVB (Central Vigilance Bureau). For placing
    an officer under suspension, the decision has to be taken by
D   the Finance Minister himself. Even review of suspension at
    quarterly/half yearly interval rests with the Finance Minister. This
    is so, as suspension during contemplation/pendency of enquiry,
    though may not be penal in nature per se, still has very serious
    adverse consequences on the professional as well as the
E   personal life of the officer suspended. The office order
    recognizing the gravity of the consequences ensures that the
    decision in relation to suspension/review of suspension shall
    be taken by the highest authority in the department i.e. the
     Finance Minister. In matters related to reference to CVC for first
F   stage advice, the competent authority is the Secretary
    (Re!venue). Similarly, for reconsideration of CVC's first stage
    advice, again the competent authority is· the Secretary
    (Revenue), but in case of disagreement with CVC's first stage
    advice on approval for referring the case to Department of
G    Personal and Training, the competent authority is the Finance
    Minister.

       42. Clause (8) of the Circular makes it abundantly clear
  that it relates to approval for issuing charge memo/sanction of
H prosecution. A plain reading of the aforesaid clause shows that
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                     207
           [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
it relates to a decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority       A
as to whether the departmental proceedings are to be initiated
or prosecution is to be sanctioned or both are to commence
simultaneously. The competent authority for approval of the
charge memo is clearly the Finance Minister. There is no
second authority specified in the order. We do not agree with            B
Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor General that the
use of the word "approval of' is not an expression distinct from
"approval for" initiating major penalty proceedings. Under
Clause (9), the department firstly puts up the file before the
Finance Minister seeking "approval for issuing charge memo/              c
sanction of prosecution." The department is seeking an order
as to whether the officer is to be proceeded against
departmentally or criminal proceedings are to be initiated or
both proceedings are to be commenced simultaneously. When
the decision is taken by the Finance Minister that the
                                                                         0
departmental proceedings are to be held (initiation), only then
the question of approval of charge memo arises. The
department would thereafter complete the necessary formalities
and then place the file before the Finance Minster, for "approval
of" charge memo. This provision is in harmony with the
mandate contained under Articles 311 (1) and (2) that no civil           E
servant shall be dismissed or removed by an authority
subordinating to that by which he was appointed. The second
limb of the same direction is that punishment on a public
servant of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank can only be
 imposed when the charges have been proved against him in                F
a departmental enquiry held in accordance with the rules of
natural justice. Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides for
 holding a departmental enquiry in accordance with the
provisions contained in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
Clause (8) also makes it clear that when the Finance Minister            G
 is approached for approval of charge memo, approval for
taking ancillary action such as appointing an inquiry officer/
 presiding officer should also be taken. Cl.ciu~e (9) in fact
 reinforces the provisions in clause (8) to the effect that it is tile
 Finance Minster, who is required to approve the charge memo.            H
    208      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A Clause (9) relates to a stage after the issuance 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
B 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
c Finance Minster. So the intention is clearly manifest that all
  de!cisions 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.

        43. Accepting the submission of Ms. Indira Jaising would
D run counter to the well kn.own maxim delegatus non protest
  de/,9gare (or delegari). The principle is summed up in "Judicial
  Review of Administrative Action" De Smith, Woolf and Jowell
  (Fifth Edition) as follows:-

E         "The rule against delegation

          A discretionary power must, in general, be exercised only
          by the authority to which it has been committed. It is a well-
          known principle of law that when a power has been
          confided to a person in circumstances indicating that trust
F         is being placed in his individual judgment and discretion,
          he must exercise that power personally unless he has
          been expressly empowered to delegate it to another."

       The same principle has been described in "Administrative
G Law" H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth (Ninth Edition), Chapter 10,
  as follows:-

          "Inalienable discretionary power

          An element which is essential to the lawful exercise of
H         power is that it should be exercised by the authority upon
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                    209
          [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

    whom it is conferred, and by no one else. The principle is         A
    strictly applied, even where it causes administrative
    inconvenience, except in cases where it may reasonably
    be inferred that the power was intended to be delegable.
    Normally the courts are rigorous in requiring the power to
    be exercised by the precise person or body stated in the           B
    statute, and in condemning as ultra vires action taken by
    agents, sub-committees or delegates, however expressly
    authorized by the authority endowed with the power."

    44. This principle has been given recognition in Sahni Silk        C
Mills (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held as under:
     "6. By now it is almost settled that the legislature can permit
    any statutory authority to delegate its power to any other
    authority, of course, after the policy has been indicated in
    the statute itself within the framework of which such              D
    delegatee (sic) is to exercise the power. The real problem
    or the controversy arises when there is a sub-delegation.
    It is said that when Parliament has specifically appointed
    authority to discharge a function, it cannot be readily
    presumed that it had intended that its delegate should be          E
    free to empower another person or body to act in its place."

     45. Much was sought to be made by Ms. Indira Jaising on
clause (10) of the order which provides that once the Finance
Minister has approved the initiation of departmental
                                                                       F
proceedings, the ancillary action can be initiated by the CVO.
According to the learned Addi. Solicitor General, the decision
taken by the Finance Minister would also include the decision
for approval of charge memo. She pointed out the procedure
followed for initiation of penalty proceedings/disciplinary
proceedings. She submitted that the decision to initiate               G
disciplinary proceedings is based on a Satisfaction Memo
prepared by the CVO. This satisfaction memo is submitted to
the Member (P&V), Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi
who after being satisfied that the memo is in order, forwards it
to the Chairman, CBDT who in turn, upon his own satisfaction           H
    .210     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   forwards it to Secretary (Revenue) and finally to the Finance
    Minister. Based on the satisfaction memo, the Finance Minister,
    who is the disciplinary authority in this case, takes the decision
    tci initiate disciplinary proceedings. While taking the said
    decision, the Finance Minister has before him, the details of
B the alleged misconduct with the relevant materials regarding the
    imputation of allegations based on which the charge memo was
    issued. Therefore, approval by the Finance Minister for initiation
    of the departmental proceedings would also cover the approval
    of the charge memo. We are unable to accept the submission
c of the learned Addi. Solicitor General. Initially, when the file
    comes to the Finance Minister, it is only to take a decision in
    principle as to whether departmental proceedings ought to be
    initiated against the officer. Clause (11) deals with reference
    to eve for second stage advice. In case of proposal for major
    penalties, the decision is to be taken by the Finance Minister.
0
    Similarly, under Clause (12) reconsideration of CVC's second
    stagt:i advice is to be taken by the Finance Minister. All further
    proceedings including approval for referring the case to DOP
    & T, issuance of show cause notice in case of disagreement
    with the enquiry officer report; tentative decision after CVC's
E · second stage advice on imposition of penalty; final decision of
    penalty; and revision/review/memorial have to be taken by the
     Finani::e Minister. In our opinion, the Central Administrative
    Tribunal as well as the High Court has correctly interpreted the
    provisions of the Office Order No. 205 of 2005. Factually also,
F a perusal of the record would show that the file was put up to
    the Finance Minister by the Director General of Income Tax
    (Vigilance) seeking the approval of the Finance Minister for
    sanctioning prosecution against one officer and for initiation of
    major penalty proceeding under Rule 3(1)(i) and (3) (1) (iii) of
G the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules against the officers
    mentioned in the note which included the appellant herein.
    Ultimately, it appears that the charge memo was not put up for
    approval by the Finance Minister. Therefore, it would not be
    possible to accept the submission of Ms. Indira Jaising that the
H
      UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. B.V. GOPINATH                  211
           [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
approval granted by the Finance Minister for initiation of            A
departmental proceedings would also amount to approval of
the charge memo.

       46: Ms. Indira Jaising also submitted that the purpose
behind Article 311, Rule 14 and also the Office Order of 2005
                                                                      8
 is 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. According to the learned Addi.
Solicitor General, the respondent is not claiming that rules of
 natural justice have been violated as the charge memo was not
 approved by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, according to      C
the Addi. Solicitor General, the CAT as well as the High Court
erred in quashing the charge sheet as no prejudice has been
 caused to the respondent. In our opinion, the submission of the
 learned Addi. Solicitor General is not factually correct. The
primary submission of the respondent was that the charge              D
sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is
without authority of law and, therefore, non est in the eye of law.
This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the CAT as
 also by the High Court. The action has been taken against the
 respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules which enjoins,        E
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            F
disciplinary authority. The term "caus.e 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               G
finalized upon approval by the disciplinary authority.
Undoubtedly, this Court in the case of P. V.Srinivasa Sastry &
Ors. Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General & Ors. 19 has held
that Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental
19. 1993 (1) sec 419.
                                                                      H
    212      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 14 S.C.R.


A   proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority.
    However, at the same time it is pointed out 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
8   c1ppointing 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."

         47. Further, it appears that during the pendency of these
C   proceedings, the appellants have, after 2009, amended the
    procedure which provides that the charge memo shall be issued
    only after the approval is granted by the Finance Minister.

          48. Therefore, it appears that the appeals in these matters
o were filed and pursued for an authoritative resolution of the legal
    issues raised herein.

         49. Although number of collateral issues had been raised
    by the learned counsel for the appellants as well the
    respondents, we deem it appropriate not to opine on the same
E   in view of the conclusion that the charge sheet/charge memo
    having not been approved by the disciplinary authority was non
    est in the eye of law.
         50. For the reasons stated above, we see no merit in the
F   appeals filed by the Union of India. We may also notice here
    that CAT had granted liberty to the appellants to lake
    appropriate action in accordance with law. We see no reasons
    to disturb the liberty so granted. The appeals are, therefore,
    dismissed.
G
    Kalpana K. Tripathy                               Appeals dismissed.