2021 (12) TMI 1443 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Central Admin Tribunal ruling, invalidates charge memo without Disciplinary Authority approval.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's ruling, which invalidated the charge memorandum due ... Approval for initiation and approval for drawing up charge memorandum under Rule 14(2) and (3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - charge memorandum treated as non est in absence of Disciplinary Authority's approval - ex post facto approval and its (in)ability to validate a legally non existent charge memorandum - separate and independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority at two stagesApproval for initiation and approval for drawing up charge memorandum under Rule 14(2) and (3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - charge memorandum treated as non est in absence of Disciplinary Authority's approval - Whether a charge memorandum issued without the approval of the Disciplinary Authority under sub clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is legally valid or is non est. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that sub clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14 contemplate independent approvals by the Disciplinary Authority at two distinct stages - approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and approval for drawing up (or causing to be drawn up) the definite and distinct articles of charge. A charge memorandum issued without the Disciplinary Authority's approval under sub clause (3) is fundamentally defective and is to be treated as non est in law. The absence of the Disciplinary Authority's independent application of mind at the time of issue cannot be cured retrospectively by subsequent approval; what is non existent in law cannot be revived by ex post facto validation. The Court relied on the prior coordinate bench interpretation in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and consistency with analogous authorities, rejecting the department's argument that approval for initiation is coextensive with approval of the charge memorandum. [Paras 11, 12]A charge memorandum issued without the Disciplinary Authority's approval under Rule 14(3) is non est and cannot be retrospectively validated.Ex post facto approval and its (in)ability to validate a legally non existent charge memorandum - separate and independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority at two stages - Whether ex post facto approval given while proceedings remain pending can cure the defect of an earlier unapproved charge memorandum, or whether the position differs between concluded and pending proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the High Court's distinction between concluded and pending proceedings for purposes of validating an unapproved charge memorandum. Even where proceedings remain pending, retrospective approval cannot breathe life into a charge memorandum that was non existent due to lack of required approval when issued. The obligation to comply with sub clause (3) is not negated by earlier compliance with sub clause (2); initiation stage approval does not obviate the need for a separate approval at the stage of drawing up the charge memorandum. While recognising the gravity of allegations, the Court emphasised that the department retains the power to pursue the matter lawfully by following the Rules and issuing a fresh charge memorandum after obtaining the requisite approval. [Paras 12, 13, 14]Ex post facto approval does not validate a charge memorandum that was non existent at the time of issuance; the same legal consequence applies whether proceedings are concluded or pending, and the department must, if it wishes, issue a fresh charge memorandum after obtaining proper approval.Operational relief and direction for issuance of fresh charge memorandum - What operative direction should be given where the charge memorandum was unapproved and the department wishes to continue proceedings arising from historical allegations. - HELD THAT: - The Court restored the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal's order quashing the ex post facto Office Memorandum and held that the department is not foreclosed from pursuing disciplinary action. Considering delay since the alleged incident, the Court directed that if the Disciplinary Authority, on being produced with material, is satisfied that a fresh charge memorandum ought to be issued, it shall do so within two months; thereafter the proceedings shall take their own course. This preserves the department's right to proceed while ensuring expedition given the historical nature of the allegations. [Paras 15, 16]The High Court's order is set aside; the CAT's order is restored subject to a direction that, if the Disciplinary Authority decides to proceed, a fresh charge memorandum must be issued within two months and the proceedings shall then continue.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed. The High Court's judgment upholding ex post facto approval is set aside and the Principal Bench of the CAT's order quashing the Office Memorandum is restored with modification: the department may, if the Disciplinary Authority on review and on production of material is satisfied, issue a fresh charge memorandum within two months and thereafter continue the disciplinary proceedings. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the charge memorandum issued without prior approval of the Disciplinary Authority.2. Applicability of ex-post facto approval to the charge memorandum.3. Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Charge Memorandum Issued Without Prior Approval of the Disciplinary AuthorityThe appellant, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, faced a disciplinary proceeding initiated on 19th September 2002, with a charge memorandum issued on 18th November 2002. The charge memorandum was not specifically approved by the Finance Minister at the time of issuance. The appellant argued that without the approval of the competent authority, the charge memorandum was non est (not in existence) in the eye of the law, relying on the precedent set in B.V. Gopinath vs. Union of India [(2014) 1 SCC 351]. The Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath held that a charge memorandum lacking approval from the Disciplinary Authority is non est, and further proceedings based on such a memorandum cannot be sustained.Issue 2: Applicability of Ex-Post Facto Approval to the Charge MemorandumThe respondents contended that ex-post facto approval by the Disciplinary Authority could cure the defect of the initial lack of approval. They argued that there is no explicit requirement in the Rules for prior approval, and thus, ex-post facto approval should be permissible. The High Court accepted this argument, distinguishing the appellant’s case from B.V. Gopinath on the grounds that ex-post facto approval was not present in the latter case. The High Court referenced cases like Ashok Kumar Das and Bajaj Hindustan Limited to support the view that approval includes ratification, which can be granted ex-post facto.Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was central to the case. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14 require independent approval of the Disciplinary Authority at both the initiation of the enquiry and the drawing up of the charge memorandum. The Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath interpreted these clauses to mean that the charge memorandum must have the Disciplinary Authority's approval before issuance. The High Court’s reasoning that ex-post facto approval could validate the charge memorandum was found to be inconsistent with this interpretation. The Supreme Court emphasized that a charge memorandum issued without prior approval is fundamentally defective and cannot be retrospectively validated.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which quashed the charge memorandum due to the lack of prior approval by the Disciplinary Authority. The Tribunal had allowed for the possibility of issuing a fresh charge memorandum if the Disciplinary Authority deemed it necessary. The Supreme Court directed that if the department wishes to continue the proceedings, a new charge memorandum must be issued within two months, and the proceeding shall follow the due course.Final Order:The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was set aside. The judgment of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal delivered on 20th April 2015 in O.A. No. 1157 of 2014 was restored with the modification that a fresh charge memorandum, if required, must be issued within two months. There were no orders as to costs.