Authority to Initiate Major Penalty Proceedings: Supreme Court Affirms Competence of Minor-Penalty Disciplinary Authority
Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa, 2025 INSC 898

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Union of India & Ors. v. R. Shankarappa (2025 INSC 898), has authoritatively clarified the scope of Rule 13(2) read with Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (“CCS CCA Rules”). The judgment resolves a recurring controversy: whether an authority that is empowered only to impose minor penalties may nevertheless issue a charge-sheet proposing major penalties without prior approval of an authority competent to impose major penalties.

The respondent, an erstwhile Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Department of Telecommunications (“DoT”), challenged two departmental charge-memos on the ground that they were issued by the Principal General Manager—an officer competent merely to impose minor penalties—without the sanction of the higher authority authorised to impose major penalties. The High Court of Karnataka accepted this contention, relying heavily on Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Questions Before the Court:

• Does Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules empower a minor-penalty authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings that could lead to major penalties?
• Is the approval of the authority competent to impose major penalties mandatory at the stage of issuing the charge-sheet?
• How does the ratio in B.V. Gopinath apply to departments other than the Income-Tax Department where no parallel “approval order” exists?

Summary of the Judgment

Allowing the Union’s appeal, the Supreme Court:

1. Set aside the Karnataka High Court’s order that had quashed the charge-memos.
2. Affirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of the respondent’s Original Application.
3. Held that under Rule 13(2) a disciplinary authority competent to award only minor penalties may validly issue a charge-sheet for major penalties; final penalty, however, must be imposed by the competent major-penalty authority.
4. Distinguished B.V. Gopinath on facts and law, emphasising the absence of any departmental instruction in the DoT requiring prior approval.

Analysis

a) Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351
  – Concerned an IRS officer; an internal CBDT Office Order mandated Finance Minister’s approval before issuing a charge-sheet.
  – Supreme Court invalidated the charge-sheet due to non-compliance with that specific order.
  – In Shankarappa, the Court noted that no equivalent DoT instruction exists; therefore, Gopinath does not automatically apply.
• Statutory Framework – CCS CCA Rules, 1965
  – Rule 11: Enumerates minor (i-iv) and major (v-ix) penalties.
  – Rule 13(1): President or delegated authority may institute proceedings.
  – Rule 13(2): A minor-penalty authority may institute disciplinary proceedings for major penalties even though it cannot impose them.
  – Rule 14: Procedure for imposing major penalties (issue of charge-sheet, inquiry, etc.).
• Appendix 3 (DoT Schedule)
  – Specifies that the Member, Telecommunications Commission can impose major penalties for Group ‘B’ telecom engineers, while General Managers can impose only minor penalties.

b) Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Interpretation of Rule 13(2)
   The Court treated the phrase may institute disciplinary proceedings as unambiguous authority for initiation (i.e., issuance of charge-sheet) by a minor-penalty authority. Initiation and imposition are distinct; the Rule explicitly envisages that the two functions can be divided.
2. Harmonious Reading with Rule 14
   Because Rule 14 governs procedure after initiation, the initiating authority’s power does not disrupt the mandatory requirement that only a major-penalty authority may pass the final order.
3. Non-Applicability of Gopinath
   – Gopinath turned on a department-specific administrative order (Office Order, 19 July 2005). The absence of a parallel DoT order means no procedural illegality arises.
   – The Court disapproved the High Court’s mechanical reliance on Gopinath without examining departmental context.
4. Policy Considerations
   The Court noted that requiring major-penalty authorities to approve every charge-sheet would slow disciplinary mechanisms and contradict the explicit latitude granted in Rule 13(2).

c) Potential Impact of the Decision

• Clarity Across Union Services: The judgment offers pan-service guidance that, unless a specific rule/office order prescribes otherwise, minor-penalty authorities can issue charge-sheets for major penalties.
• Reduction in Technical Challenges: Government servants can no longer rely solely on the initiator’s rank to invalidate charge-sheets, thereby limiting procedural litigation and expediting inquiries.
• Disciplinary Efficiency: Departments can decentralise initiation while reserving the ultimate decision for higher authorities, facilitating quicker commencement of inquiries.
• Scope of B.V. Gopinath Confined: The decision implicitly confines Gopinath to cases where a mandatory administrative instruction exists and is violated.
• Guidance for Drafting Departmental Instructions: Ministries contemplating additional safeguards (e.g., mandatory approvals) must issue express orders; otherwise the default Rule 13(2) regime prevails.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Charge-Sheet (Charge Memo): A formal document detailing allegations against a government servant; marks the commencement of disciplinary proceedings.
• Minor vs. Major Penalties: • Minor (Rule 11(i)–(iv)) – e.g., censure, withholding increments.
  • Major (Rule 11(v)–(ix)) – e.g., compulsory retirement, dismissal.
• Initiation vs. Imposition: • Initiation = issuing charge-sheet and launching inquiry.
  • Imposition = passing the final penalty order after inquiry.
• Rule 13(2): A special empowerment clause allowing minor-penalty authorities to initiate even major-penalty cases.
• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): A specialised forum for service-related disputes of central government employees.
• B.V. Gopinath Distinction: Turned on non-compliance with a Finance Ministry order; not a blanket principle applicable across all services.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. R. Shankarappa decisively affirms that, under the CCS CCA Rules, the power to institute disciplinary proceedings is broader than the power to impose penalties. Unless an express departmental instruction provides otherwise, a minor-penalty authority may validly issue a charge-sheet that contemplates major penalties. By distinguishing B.V. Gopinath and recognising the autonomy granted by Rule 13(2), the Court has curtailed procedural objections that could derail disciplinary processes on hyper-technical grounds. Going forward, government departments—and employees—have clearer guidance on who may trigger major-penalty inquiries, thereby ensuring speedier and legally sound disciplinary administration across civil services.