Summary and Analysis of Union Of India & Ors. Vs. R. Shankarappa, (Civil Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Shankarappa
(Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Rules

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965:
  Rule 13(2): Authority competent to impose minor penalties may initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties.
  Rule 14: Procedure for imposing major penalties.
  Appendix 3: Specifies competent authorities for penalties (e.g., Member, Telecom Commission for major penalties; General Manager for minor penalties).

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e): Offenses related to bribery and disproportionate assets.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Union of India & telecom department authorities.
  Respondent: R. Shankarappa (Sub Divisional Engineer, Dept. of Telecommunications).

• Dispute:
  Respondent faced two criminal cases (bribery & disproportionate assets) and parallel disciplinary proceedings.
  Charge sheets issued (2006 & 2008) by General Manager (competent for minor penalties) for major penalties (dismissal, etc.).

• Legal Journey:
  CAT (2022): Upheld charge sheets’ validity.
  High Court (2022): Quashed proceedings, citing B.V. Gopinath (2014) (charge sheets require approval of major-penalty authority).
  Supreme Court Appeal: Challenged High Court’s order.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issue

"Can an authority competent to impose only minor penalties initiate disciplinary proceedings for major penalties?"

Court’s Analysis

1. Rule 13(2) CCS CCA Rules:
   Explicitly permits authorities competent for minor penalties (e.g., General Manager) to initiate proceedings for major penalties.
   "A disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties may institute disciplinary proceedings for major penalties."

2. Distinguishing B.V. Gopinath (2014):
   Gopinath involved a specific office order requiring Finance Minister’s approval – not applicable here.
   Telecom Department has no such internal requirement; rules are governed by CCS CCA.

3. Hierarchy of Authorities (Appendix 3):
   General Manager: Competent for minor penalties (censures, fines).
   Member, Telecom Commission: Competent for major penalties (dismissal, etc.).
   Final penalty must be imposed by major-penalty authority, but initiation can be by junior authority.

Decision

• Appeal Allowed:
  High Court’s order set aside; CAT’s order restored.

• Key Holding:
  "Charge sheets issued by General Manager are VALID. Disciplinary proceedings to continue."

Legal Principles Reinforced

• Statutory Rules Override Precedents:
  "General rules (like CCS CCA) prevail over case-specific judgments (like Gopinath)."

• Efficiency in Administration:
  "Junior authorities can initiate proceedings; seniors impose penalties – ensures timely action."

Outcome

• Disciplinary proceedings revived against Shankarappa.

• Department free to conclude inquiry and impose penalty (if warranted) through competent authority (Member, Telecom Commission).