Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Telecom Engineer Despite Pending Criminal Appeals

The case stemmed from disciplinary action taken against Shankarappa, who had served as Sub Divisional Engineer in the Karnataka Licensed Service Area (LSA) of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). He retired on May 31, 2018. The legal wrangle traces its roots to criminal cases registered against him in 2003 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). These cases involved grave charges of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first case, Special CC No. 42/2003, pertained to the alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe of ₹1 lakh from a contractor. The second, Special CC No. 92/2003, was related to possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Though Shankarappa was convicted in both cases, he challenged his convictions in the Karnataka High Court via Criminal Appeals No. 195/2014 and 277/2014. The High Court stayed both the conviction and sentence in 2014, and the appeals are still pending.

Parallel to the criminal trials, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the telecom department. Two separate charge-sheets were issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS CCA Rules) in 2006 and 2008, corresponding to the trap and disproportionate asset cases. However, Shankarappa, rather than submitting to the departmental process, filed six separate Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, challenging various stages of the inquiry, allegedly to delay or derail the proceedings.

The key legal contention arose from his claim that the charge-sheets were issued by an authority – the Principal General Manager, BGTD – who was only empowered to impose minor penalties. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath, Shankarappa argued that any charge-sheet under Rule 14 (for major penalties) must be authorized by an officer competent to impose such penalties. He thus prayed that the departmental proceedings be declared void-ab-initio.

The CAT dismissed his application, noting that the charge-sheets were validly issued by an authority empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that the final order of penalty was indeed passed by the appropriate higher authority competent to impose major penalties. The Tribunal emphasized that under Rule 13 of the CCS CCA Rules, even an authority who can only impose minor penalties may institute proceedings for major penalties. Therefore, the process followed by the telecom department did not violate any statutory provision.

Unconvinced, Shankarappa took the matter to the High Court of Karnataka through Writ Petition No. 14475 of 2022. The High Court, however, accepted his arguments, quashed the disciplinary proceedings, and held that the charge memos required prior approval from the disciplinary authority empowered to impose major penalties. It based this decision on the Supreme Court ruling in the Gopinath case, wherein such an approval was deemed mandatory in a similar context.

The Union of India then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s verdict.

Delivering the judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. R. Shankarappa [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7149 of 2023], a Bench comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjay Kumar ruled in favor of the Union of India. The Court carefully distinguished the present case from the Gopinath judgment. It held that in Gopinath, the requirement for approval by the Finance Minister was based on a specific office order applicable to IRS officers in the Income Tax Department. In contrast, no such requirement existed in the Department of Telecommunications.

The Court cited Rule 13(2) of the CCS CCA Rules, which explicitly states that an authority empowered to impose minor penalties may still initiate proceedings for major penalties, even if they cannot themselves impose such penalties. Furthermore, Appendix 3 of the CCS CCA Rules lays down the authorities competent to impose different levels of penalties. While the Member of the Telecommunications Commission is the appointing and disciplinary authority for major penalties in Group ‘B’ telecom services, the General Manager is authorized to impose minor penalties and initiate proceedings.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, authoring the judgment, observed:

“In the present case, initiation of disciplinary proceedings has been done by the General Manager, Telecommunication and, therefore, in the light of the statutory provisions of the law, this Court is of the considered opinion that issuance of charge-sheet by General Manager, Telecommunication could not have been faulted by the High Court solely by placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in B.V. Gopinath.”

The Supreme Court further clarified that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted lawfully, without any procedural irregularity. The final decision had been made by the appropriate authority empowered to impose major penalties. Thus, the CAT had rightly upheld the validity of the charge-sheets and rejected Shankarappa’s plea.

In its concluding order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated November 18, 2022. The charge memos dated May 27, 2006, and December 1, 2008, were declared to be validly issued, and the proceedings arising from them were held to be lawful.

This verdict reaffirms the legal position that departmental inquiries, even involving major penalties, can be initiated by authorities competent only for minor penalties under Rule 13, as long as the final imposition of penalty is by the appropriate authority. It underscores the importance of interpreting statutory rules in their plain language and not extending the applicability of judgments beyond their factual scope.

The judgment also marks a strong message from the apex court regarding the sanctity and autonomy of departmental inquiries conducted in accordance with established service rules. It sets a precedent against undue interference in such inquiries by way of technical or procedural challenges that are not substantiated by law.

With this decision, the Supreme Court has ensured that government departments retain the power to maintain internal discipline and accountability without being hindered by procedural misinterpretations or unwarranted judicial overreach.