Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian LawsDisciplinary proceedings against a government servant - Decision for suspension/review of suspension lies with highest departmental authority - Finance Minister - seeking “approval for issuing charge memo/sanction of prosecution” - Department seeking order for Initiation of departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings or both simultaneously - 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 - Delinquent officer - HELD THAT:- 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. The primary submission of the respondent was that the charge sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is non est in the eye of law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the CAT and 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 of proposed “definite and distinct articles of charge sheet”. These proposed articles of charge would only be finalized upon approval by the disciplinary authority. The Court in the case P.V. SRINIVASA SASTRY VERSUS COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL [1992 (12) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT] : HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. Inconsistency with Article 311 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- At the same time it is pointed out by the court 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 appointing 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.”
|