https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439047 Under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority must independently approve both initiation of major penalty proceedings and the charge memorandum itself; where the record shows separate approvals with application of mind, the charge memorandum is not liable to be quashed for want of competent approval. The challenge based on mechanical sanction and absence of conscious consideration was rejected because the competent authority had first approved initiation and later approved the draft charge memorandum, along with related steps such as appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The reliance on later authority was found inapplicable on these facts, and the writ petition failed. en-us Mon, 29 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jun 2023 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439047 Under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority must independently approve both initiation of major penalty proceedings and the charge memorandum itself; where the record shows separate approvals with application of mind, the charge memorandum is not liable to be quashed for want of competent approval. The challenge based on mechanical sanction and absence of conscious consideration was rejected because the competent authority had first approved initiation and later approved the draft charge memorandum, along with related steps such as appointment of the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The reliance on later authority was found inapplicable on these facts, and the writ petition failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439047