SUNNY ABRAHAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

SUNNY ABRAHAM versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that under Rule 14(2) and (3) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the Disciplinary Authority must independently approve both the initiation of proceedings and the drawing up/issuance of the charge memorandum; a charge memorandum issued without such approval is fundamentally defective (non est) and cannot be...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Sunny Abraham; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, CCS (cca) Rules, 1965 R.14(2), (3), Charge Memorandum Approval, Ex Post Facto Approval, Ratification, Non Est
Service Law Administrative Law Tax Law Disciplinary Proceedings CCS (cca) Rules, 1965 R.14(2),(3) Charge Memorandum Approval Ex Post Facto Approval Ratification +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunny Abraham

Appellant

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a charge memorandum issued under Rule 14(3) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 without specific approval of the Disciplinary Authority is non est in law
  2. 2 Whether ex-post facto approval of a charge memorandum can validate a charge memorandum that lacked approval at the time of issuance
  3. 3 Whether sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 14 contemplate independent approvals at initiation and at issuance of the charge memorandum

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that under Rule 14(2) and (3) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 the Disciplinary Authority must independently approve both the initiation of proceedings and the drawing up/issuance of the charge memorandum; a charge memorandum issued without such approval is fundamentally defective (non est) and cannot be validated by ex-post facto approval; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and the CAT judgment restored with directions allowing the department to issue a fresh charge memorandum within two months if the Disciplinary Authority, on the material produced, is satisfied such a memorandum ought to be issued.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Judgment of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 20-04-2015 in O.A. No.1157 of 2014 restored with modifications