In Brief
An Income Tax officer challenged the ex-post facto approval of a charge memorandum issued in a disciplinary proceeding without Disciplinary Authority approval at the time of issuance. The Supreme Court held that a charge memorandum lacking the required approval under Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services Rules is fundamentally defective and non-existent in law. The approvals required at different procedural stages are distinct acts requiring independent consideration. Subsequent ex-post facto approval cannot revive a non-existent charge memorandum, regardless of whether the proceeding was pending or concluded. The Court allowed the appeal while reserving the department's right to issue a fresh charge memorandum in compliance with procedural requirements.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.