TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings, issued after valid initiation of proceedings but without prior approval of the disciplinary authority, can be regularised by ex post facto approval granted during the pendency of the proceedings; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the disciplinary action and granting consequential service benefits on the ground of absence of approval and delay in conclusion of the proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether a charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings, issued after valid initiation of proceedings but without prior approval of the disciplinary authority, can be regularised by ex post facto approval granted during the pendency of the proceedings.
Analysis: Rule 14(2) and Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 require the disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings and to draw up or cause to be drawn up the articles of charge. The decision in B.V. Gopinath was understood to hold that, where a charge memo is not approved by the disciplinary authority at all, it is non est. However, the Court distinguished that situation from cases where disciplinary proceedings had already been validly initiated on the basis of detailed allegations and approval, and where the only defect was the absence of formal approval of the charge memo. The Court held that approval can validate the earlier act, and that ex post facto approval granted while the proceedings are still pending cures the technical defect without causing prejudice.
Conclusion: Ex post facto approval was held to be valid in the facts of the case, and the disciplinary proceedings were not vitiated.
Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the disciplinary action and granting consequential service benefits on the ground of absence of approval and delay in conclusion of the proceedings.
Analysis: The Court held that the Tribunal had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the effect of B.V. Gopinath and had failed to account for the fact that the disciplinary authority had already approved initiation of proceedings on the basis of specific allegations and later granted formal approval to the charge memo. On the question of delay, the Court held that the disciplinary authority must first consider the matter and pass an order dealing with all relevant aspects, including delay and its consequences, and that the Tribunal ought not to pre-judge the issue by quashing the proceedings at that stage.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders quashing the proceedings and directing consequential benefits were set aside, and the original applications stood dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned tribunal orders were annulled, and the disciplinary proceedings were permitted to continue in accordance with law without any opinion on the merits of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: Where disciplinary proceedings have been validly initiated and the only defect is absence of formal approval of the charge memorandum, ex post facto approval granted during the pendency of the proceedings can cure that defect; a charge-sheet is not liable to be quashed merely on that ground if no prejudice is shown.
TaxTMI 
