Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Sunny Abraham vs Union Of India on 17 December, 2021
12. It has further been held in Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, 2021
SCC OnLine SC 1284 that the fact that „initiation‟ of proceedings received
approval of the Disciplinary Authority could not lighten the obligation on the
part of the employer in complying with the requirement of Rule 14(3) of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, since Rule 14(2) & (3) contemplate independent
approval of the Disciplinary Authority at both stages, for „initiation‟ of
inquiry and also for „drawing up‟ or „cause to be drawn up‟ the charge
memorandum. In the event, the requirement of Rule 14(2) is complied with,
not having the approval at the time of issue of charge memorandum under
Rule 14(3) would still render the charge memorandum fundamentally
defective, not capable of being validated retrospectively. The observations in
para 13 and 14 may be aptly quoted:-
Union Of India & Ors vs B.V.Gopinath on 5 September, 2013
We reject
the submission on behalf of the Appellant that Gopinath's case can be
distinguished on facts. We are not in agreement with the contention of the
Appellant that the business rules and standing orders of the State of
Tamil Nadu are quite different from the office orders and circulars issued
by Union of India which formed the basis of the judgment in Gopinath's
case. A close reading of the said judgment would disclose that reliance
on the office note was only in addition to the interpretation of the Rule.
Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in All-India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
All-India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
P.V. Srinivasa Sastry And Others vs Comptroller And Auditor General And ... on 11 December, 1992
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 6525/2017 Page 21 of 23
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:25.05.2023
15:09:17
Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:3620-DB
of proposed "definite and distinct articles of charge-sheet". These
proposed articles of charge would only be finalised upon approval by
the disciplinary authority. Undoubtedly, this Court in P.V. Srinivasa
Sastry v. CAG [(1993) 1 SCC 419 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 206 : (1993) 23
ATC 645] has held that Article 311(1) does not say that even the
departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing
authority. However, at the same time it is pointed out that: (SCC p. 422,
para 4)
"4. ... However, it is open to the 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."