The Delhi High Court bench, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, emphasised the limitations on delegating the authority to initiate proceedings and issue a charge memo.
The Court noted that such delegation to an unauthorised entity would jeopardise the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Brief Facts:
A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the impugned order of order the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”). The CAT held the charge sheet issued by the Petitioner against the Respondent to be void ab initio along with the action taken by the petitioner against the respondent on the charge sheet, including the inquiry report as well as the punishment order
Brief Background:
Shri S.P. Vashisht (respondent) had been appointed as Hawaldar in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as “AIIMS”), and later promoted to the position of Sanitary Officer.
An FIR was filed, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”), New Delhi, after a surprise check at the main hospital store and C.N. Centre stores of AIIMS. The FIR alleged violations of Sections 120-B, 420 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PCA”). The allegations included giving undue financial benefits to M/s Rajeev Enterprises by disregarding AIIMS rate contracts with approved suppliers.
A two-member Committee was constituted, and its recommendations were submitted to the President of AIIMS. The Governing Body recommended that the case be referred back to the CBI for reconsideration and dropping the prosecution of Dr. D.K. Sharma due to a lack of evidence of any malicious intent. The observations of the Governing Body were communicated to the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as “CVC”). The CBI requested prosecution sanction for the remaining nine officials, excluding Dr. D.K. Sharma.
The Director (CHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, granted prosecution sanction and requested the Director of AIIMS to take necessary action for Group 'C' Officers. The case of Group 'A' Officers was to be placed before the Governing Body, the Disciplinary Authority for significant penalties. The CVC advised initiating departmental proceedings against the concerned officials.
The Respondent filed before the Tribunal, seeking to quash the penalty order and related documents. The Tribunal held that the charge sheet, along with subsequent actions based on it, including the Inquiry Officer's Report and the punishment order, were void from the beginning since the charge sheet did not reflect the approval of the President, AIIMS, as required by Rule 13 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1965”). Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was argued that according to the AIIMS Act, 1956, along with the Regulations and Rules framed under it, the Director of AIIMS has the authority to issue the charge sheet against the Respondent. Referring to Rule 13(2) Rules, 1965, it was stated that the Director, AIIMS, as the Disciplinary Authority, has the power to impose any of the penalties mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of Rules, 1965 and could initiate disciplinary proceedings against any government servant for the imposition of penalties specified under Rule (v) to (ix), even if the Disciplinary Authority is not authorised to impose the latter penalties under the said Rule.
Additionally, it was contended that since the charge sheet was issued by the competent authority, the Director of AIIMS, who had the power to initiate the departmental proceedings, it should not be invalidated. It was further contended that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by an officer subordinate to the Appointing Authority, as long as the dismissal or removal was not carried out by an authority subordinate to the Appointing Authority.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued the charge sheet, in this case, was issued by the Director of AIIMS and that the charge sheet lacks the approval of the competent authority, i.e., the President of AIIMS. It was asserted that if the charge sheet does not have the approval of the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose the major penalty, the charge sheet, as well as the disciplinary proceedings and any subsequent actions, are considered void from the beginning.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the Appointing Authority, Disciplinary Authority, penalties, and Appellate Authority for different positions in the Institute are specified in Schedule II, as per Regulation 33 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations. The Schedule indicates that the President of the Institute is the Appointing Authority for Group 'B' posts. The Director is the Disciplinary Authority for penalties under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1965, while the President is the Disciplinary Authority for all other penalties. The Appellate Authority for penalties under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 is the President, and for all other penalties, it is the Governing Body of the Institute.
The Court highlighted that Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, governs the holding of a departmental inquiry as per Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution. The provision emphasised the requirement of approval from the Disciplinary Authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings and formulating charges of misconduct before punishing the public servant.
The Court outlined that the distinction between the approval to initiate proceedings and the approval of the charge memorandum under Rule 14(3) is explained as established in the Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, [(2014) 1 SCC 351] that the initial approval for initiating disciplinary proceedings does not automatically imply approval for issuing the charge memo. The approval at both stages, initiation and charge memo, must be obtained from the Disciplinary Authority. Compliance with Rule 14(2) is essential, and the absence of approval at the time of issuing the charge memorandum renders it fundamentally defective and incapable of retrospective validation.
The Court opined that the power to initiate proceedings and issue the charge memo should not be delegated to an authority other than the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose the specific penalties under the Rules. The protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution would be compromised unless specifically permitted by the Rules. The approval of the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose the penalty is necessary for the charge memo.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of CAT and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences v S.P. Vashisht
Case No.: Writ Petition Civil 6525 of 2017
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh and Mr. Rahul Pandey
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Shanker Raju Advocate, Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj and Mr. Rajesh Sachdeva
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
