TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the charge memorandum and the initiation of major penalty proceedings were validly approved by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The approval record showed that the competent authority had first sanctioned initiation of major penalty proceedings and later approved the draft charge memorandum, including ancillary steps such as appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The challenge based on alleged mechanical approval and lack of application of mind was rejected because the later approval in the petitioner's own case demonstrated conscious consideration of the material. The principle in B.V. Gopinath was held to be satisfied, as that decision requires independent approval both for initiation of proceedings and for approval of the charge memorandum. The reliance on the later decision in Sunny Abraham was found inapplicable on facts because this was not a case of a charge memorandum lacking approval being cured retrospectively.
Conclusion: The charge memorandum was held to be valid and the writ petition failed. The dismissal of the original application was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority must independently approve both the initiation of departmental proceedings and the charge memorandum itself; where both approvals are recorded with application of mind, the charge memorandum is not liable to be quashed on the ground of want of competent approval.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
