Dr. Shishir Kumar Gangwar vs Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4077 Patna

Patna High Court

Dr. Shishir Kumar Gangwar vs Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central ... on 13 October, 2025

Author: Harish Kumar

Bench: Harish Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11558 of 2025
     ======================================================
     Dr. Shishir Kumar Gangwar, Son of Sri Mahesh Chandra Gangwar, Resident
     of Kusum Bhavan, B1/34, Sector-G, Jankipuran, Lucknow (UP), 226021.

                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus

1.   Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University, Pusa, Samastipur-
     848125, through its Registrar.
2.   The Registrar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University Pusa,
     Samastipur-848125, Bihar.
3.   The Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University,
     Pusa, Samastipur-848125, Bihar.
4.   Dr. P.S. Pandey, name of father not known to the petitioner, presently
     functioning as Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture
     University, Pusa, Samastipur 848125, Bihar.
5.   The Chief Vigilance Officer, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture
     University, Pusa, Samastipur 848125, Bihar.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate
                                   Mrs. Prisu Snehil, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
                                   Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, Advocate
                                   Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                          CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 13-10-2025

                       Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shivendra

      Kishore, along with Mr. Saroj Kumar, learned Advocate for the

      petitioner and Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate, duly

      assisted by Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, learned Advocate for

      the Dr. Rajednra Prasad Central Agriculture University.

                       2. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

      Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge
 Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025
                                           2/25




         in the present writ petition is made to a Memorandum, bearing

         no.19, dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1), issued under the

         signature of Chief Vigilance Officer, for and on behalf of the

         disciplinary authority Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture

         University, Pusa (hereinafter referred to as 'the RPCAU') as

         also the departmental proceeding whereby and whereunder a

         charge-sheet for major penalty under Rule 14 of the Central

         Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

         [hereinafter referred to as 'the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965'] was

         proposed to be held against the petitioner on the imputation of

         misconduct and misbehaviour set out in the statement of charge.

         Challenge is also made to the Memorandum no. 33 dated

         09.07.2025

, issued under the signature of Chief Vigilance

Officer, for and on behalf of the disciplinary authority whereby

a supplementary charge-sheet for major penalties under Rule 14

of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was proposed to be held against the

petitioner on the imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour

mentioned in the article of charges. Since the aforenoted

memorandum has been brought to the knowledge of the

petitioner after filing of the present writ application, the same is

challenged by filing an interlocutory application, bearing I.A.

No. 1 of 2025.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

3. To appreciate the legal issues raised before this

Court, the brief facts, which are relevant for adjudication of the

same, are summarized hereinbelow:

(i) The petitioner, who was initially appointed to

the post of Associate Professor on contract in the Animal Project

Research Institute, Pusa. In the meanwhile, Advertisement No.

2/2017 dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure-P/2) was issued for

appointment to the post of Programme Coordinator (Senior

Scientist and Head) of Krishi Vigyan Kendra under RPCAU,

Pusa.

(ii) The petitioner being found eligible submitted

application for the post aforenoted along with other applicants.

The application forms of the candidates were duly scrutinized

and a call letter in favour of the candidates, including the

petitioner, was issued to participate in the selection process. A

selection committee was constituted and after interview the

committee recommended the name of the petitioner for

appointment to the post of Programme Coordinator (Senior

Scientist and Head). The recommendation was duly approved by

the Vice-chancellor and the Board of Management whereupon

offer of appointment contained in letter dated 18.06.2019

(Annexure-P/4) was issued.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

(iii) On completion of probation period of two

years, the services of the petitioner was confirmed vide letter

dated 28.08.2021 (Annexure-P/5) w.e.f. 18.06.2019. On

06.06.2024, a show-cause notice, duly issued by the Chief

Vigilance Officer, RPCAU, Pusa was served upon the petitioner

as to why his services be not terminated, since the services

rendered as SRF and Visiting faculty undertaken by the

petitioner do not qualify for counting in experience, as those

were project based contractual appointment. Since the petitioner

did not possess the experience in the stipulated pay structure or

for the stipulated period, thus was not eligible for appointment.

(iv) The petitioner made a response to the show-

cause on 18.07.2024 refuting the allegation. On being found it

unsatisfactory, the Chief Vigilance Officer issued impugned

Memorandum dated 02.04.2025 for major punishment, which is

put to challenge in the present writ petition.

4. After filing of the writ petition, the petitioner

also came to know that a second memorandum containing

supplementary charge-sheet for major penalty also came to be

issued under Memo No. 33 dated 09.07.2025 with a subsequent

imputation that the petitioner was not eligible for the post at the

time of submitting application on account of non-fulfillment of Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

the essential age limit criteria. The maximum age limit for the

post was 45 years, however, the petitioner at the time of

submission of application was 46 years, 7 months and 27 days

old. Furthermore, the petitioner was not entitled to any

relaxation in age limit, as he was not a regular employee of

RPCAU, Pusa at the time of submitting his application.

5. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate

for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders as well as

initiation of departmental proceeding has urged that the alleged

delinquence of the petitioner, if any, was known to the

respondents in the year 2017, but the impugned memo of charge

came to be issued in the year 2025, after a delay of eight years

and, as such, belated initiation of departmental proceeding,

besides it caused prejudice, the same is bound to affect his

defence and thereby causing irreparable prejudice. It is

submitted that this is not the case of the respondents or even the

imputation against the petitioner that the documents/certificate

submitted by the petitioner, are not genuine, forged and

fabricated or manufactured one, rather the documents and the

certificates were duly scrutinized by the screening committee in

the office of RPCAU, Pusa, leading to issuance of the call letter.

The petitioner faced the interview and on being recommended Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

by the duly constituted selection committee, he was offered

appointment after getting approval of the Vice-chancellor and

the Board of Management of the University.

6. Learned Senior Advocate further urged that the

Board of Management of the University in its meeting held on

06.12.2023 had resolved to proceed for detailed enquiry under

the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for major penalty. After

deliberation at length in each case, the Board of Management

has approved that the Vice-chancellor is authorized for

approving Enquiry Officers and Presenting Officers, issuance of

charge sheets, taking day-to-day decisions relating with the

enquiry proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and submit

enquiry report to the Board of Management for taking decision

in the cases wherein the Board of Management is the

disciplinary authority.

7.Referring to the minutes of the meeting, the copy

of which is placed as Annexure-R/5 to the counter affidavit, it is

submitted that once the Board of Management has delegated the

power to the Vice-chancellor, the memorandum of charge can

only be issued by the Vice-chancellor of the University itself

and non-else. Issuance of the Memorandum containing charge-

sheet for major penalty under the signature of Chief Vigilance Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

Officer for and on behalf of the disciplinary authority is wholly

without jurisdiction. Moreover, at delegated power must be

conferred by the committee alone. He thus submitted that where

a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing

must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of

performance are necessarily forbidden. Reliance has been

placed on decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of A. K. Roy & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,

reported in, AIR 1986 SC 2160, Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. and

another vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, reported

in, (1994) 5 SCC 346 and Director General, ESI & Anr. Vs. T.

Abdul Razak, reported in, (1996) 4 SCC 708.

8. Taking this Court through the provisions of the

CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 especially Rule 14(3), learned Senior

Advocate further contended that the charge-sheet must be

approved by the disciplinary authority and in absence thereof

issuance of charge-sheet by a person, having no competence is

invalid. It is only the competent authority, who can issue charge-

sheet. Since the charge-sheet was not issued by the Board of

Management or Vice-chancellor, but by the Chief Vigilance

Officer, hence the same is also bad in the eyes of law. To bolster

his submission, reliance has been placed on decisions in the case Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

of Steel Authority of India Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, reported in, (1980) 3 SCC 734, Registrar, Cooperative

Societies, Madras & Anr. Vs. F. X. Fernando, reported in,

(1994) 2 SCC 746 and lastly Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V.

Gopinath, reported in, (2014) 1 SCC 351.

9. To buttress his submission, in relation to the

issue of inordinate delay in issuing charge memo, he placed

reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh & Another,

reported in, AIR 1990 SC 1308, P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank

of India & Ors., reported in, (2006) 8 SCC 776, P. V.

Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, reported in, (2005)

6 SCC 636 and further in the case of State of Punjab & Others

Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, reported in, (1995) 2 SCC 570.

10. Referring to the aforenoted decisions, learned

Senior Advocate thus concluded his submission that the

impugned orders are unsustainable in law as well as on facts,

inter alia, on the ground of delay and the same being issued by

an authority, who is not competent to do so and the memo of

charge contains no list of witnesses and documents and even if

the allegation taken to be true, no case of misconduct is made

out in absence of the allegation of suppression having been Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

made by the petitioner and his testimonials/certificates are found

to be forged and fabricated.

11. Mr. P. K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate

dispelling the aforenoted contention has submitted that as per

Section 9(1) of the DRPCAU Act, 2016, the President of India

is the Visitor of the University having all the power to

inspection or enquiry. The Visitor may direct the Vice-

chancellor regarding inspection or enquiry. In the present case,

on a public complaint made before His Excellency, the President

of India regarding the financial irregularities and administrative

corruption in the RPCAU, Pusa, a letter was sent by the Deputy

Secretary, President's Secretariat to the Department of

Agricultural Research and Education (in short 'DARE')

regarding the approval of the proposal for action to be taken on

the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry committee. Before

initiation of the proceeding in pursuant to the letter issued by the

Under Secretary, Government of India to the Vice-chancellor, an

enquiry committee was constituted and a report was submitted,

in which it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for the

post against which he was selected. Finding of the committee

was placed before the Board of Management on 06.12.2023. As

per Agenda Item No. 21.8 the proposed action against the Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

petitioner under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was approved.

Furthermore, the Board of Management authorized the Vice-

chancellor to do needful, including the appointment of Inquiry

Officers and Presenting Officers, issue charge sheet and make

day-to-day decisions related to the inquiry proceedings. The

Vice-chancellor had written a letter to the Secretary DARE,

Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhawan

and he has been informed that Hon'ble Visitor had approved to

proceed and to take appropriate action against the University

employees.

12. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner was

served with the show-cause notice. However, he failed to justify

his selection/appointment, which resulted into issuance of a

charge-sheet on 02.04.2025. The petitioner had already

submitted his written statement. The Enquiry Officer as well as

Presenting Officer have already been appointed. Subsequently, a

supplementary charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner

when it was found that the petitioner was also not well within

the prescribed age limit at the time of appointment. It has also

been informed that disciplinary action was also initiated against

the member of the screening committee and selection

committee, who were involved in the selection process of the Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

petitioner. Besides the action taken against the aforenoted

person, a separate disciplinary action has also been taken against

the then Vice-chancellor by the Indian Council of Agriculture

and Research, New Delhi for the selection of the petitioner

despite not fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

13. Mr. Shahi, learned Advocate representing the

RPCAU, Pusa has drawn the attention of this Court to the

memorandum containing charge-sheet and supplementary

charge-sheet submitted that the same has been issued for and on

behalf of the disciplinary authority. Thus, there is no dispute that

the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet have got

approval of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has failed

to make out a case as to what prejudice has been caused to him.

Nonetheless when complaint has been made against the

petitioner, an enquiry was duly conducted by the order of His

Excellency and on being found the very appointment of the

petitioner was made dehors the Rules and in collusion with the

members of the screening committee and selection committee,

the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated under CCS (CCA)

Rules, 1965. The memo of charge(s), which are questioned

herein is only communicated through the Chief Vigilance

Officer for and on behalf of the disciplinary authority and, as Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

such, in no circumstances it can be said to be issued by an

incompetent person or without jurisdiction. The submission

made by the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner

is wholly misconceived. There is no allegation of malafide,

moreover, the defence of the petitioner shall be looked into by

the disciplinary authority and thus it should not be nipped in the

bud.

14. This Court has given anxious consideration to

the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocates for

the petitioner and the University, as also meticulously perused

the materials available on record.

15. Before coming to the facts of this case to

answer the issues raised before this Court, inter alia, as to

whether the initiation of the departmental proceeding against the

petitioner as also the charge-memo is bad on account of

inordinate delay. The relevant rulings cited by the learned

Senior Advocate for the petitioner are worth benefitting to be

noticed. In the case of Bani Singh (supra), a delay of twelve

years in initiating disciplinary proceedings without satisfactory

explanation was held unfair and the enquiry was not permitted

to proceed at such a later stage. The apex Court held that

normally, pending or contemplated disciplinary proceedings Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

have no impact on an employee's right to be considered for

promotion. Only when charges are framed after a prima facie

case is made out, the sealed cover procedure applies. Where

proceedings have not reached that stage, consideration for

promotion cannot be withheld merely due to pendency of such

proceedings. In the said case, even a preliminary enquiry on

complaints regarding the officer's integrity had not been

completed, so the Screening Committee was wrong to defer his

selection for the selection grade. Inordinate and unexplained

delay of twelve years in initiating disciplinary proceeding

renders enquiry unfair, as the pending unframed charges cannot

withhold promotion consideration.

16. In the case of P. D. Agrawal (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that delay in initiating

departmental enquiry does not vitiate proceedings unless the

delinquent demonstrates prejudice caused thereby. In P. V.

Mahadevan case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticing

the fact that irregularity committed in the year 1990 led to

disciplinary action in the year 2000, though the explanation that

the matter came to light in the year 1994-95 and the audit report

was already rejected, but no convincing explanation was given

for the inordinate delay. The Court held that a protracted Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

disciplinary enquiry causing mental agony and suffering to the

employee, the same should be avoided, not only in the interest

of the employee but also in public interest and to inspire

confidence among Government servants. Further in the case of

Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

unequivocally held that the delay if long and explained, the

Court may quash the charges. However, what constitutes 'too

long' depends on the facts of each case. If delay is likely to

prejudice, the petitioner defence, the enquiry must be stopped.

Whenever such a plea is raised, the Court must balance the

factors for and against on the totality of circumstances.

17. Coming to the facts of this case, though the

advertisement was issued in the year 2017, but the appointment

took place in the year 2019 and thereupon it was confirmed in

2021 after completion of the probation period. The irregularity,

if any found in appointment of the petitioner, noticed by the

authority concerned on a public complaint, which was made for

the first time in the year, 2023 and thereupon an enquiry was

conducted and on receipt of the enquiry report the petitioner was

served with the show-cause notice in the year 2024 and on being

found his response unsatisfactory, the memorandum containing

charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet were issued, Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

hence in the opinion of this Court there is no delay in issuing of

memo of charge and initiation of departmental proceeding. The

petitioner also failed to persuade the Court that any prejudice

has been caused on account of any alleged delay. The plea of the

petitioner that the memo of charge is bad in law on account of

inordinate delay in its issuance has no substance and

accordingly stands rejected.

18. Now coming to the next legal issue that the

authority with delegated power cannot sub-delegate the

delegated power unless legislature provides so, is well settled

principle. In the case of A. K. Roy (supra), the Court held that

the maxim of delegatus non potest delegare merely indicates

that sub-delegation of powers is not normally allowable though

the legislature can always provide for sub-delegation. Where a

power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing

must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of

performance are necessarily forbidden. In the said case, the

power to initiate prosecution for offence under Section 20(1) of

the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was delegated by

the State Government, through Rule 3, to the Food (Health)

Authority, which was further delegated to Food Inspector. The

Court held that the Food Authority had no power to delegate as Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

rules framed under the statute cannot go against the provisions

of statute.

19. Similarly, in the case of Sahni Silk Mills Pvt

Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble supreme Court held as follows:

"The Courts are normally rigorous in requiring that statutory power be exercised only by the persons or bodies authorised by the statute. Delegated power must be exercised by the conferred authority alone. However, in the present administrative set-up, extreme judicial aversion to delegation cannot be carried too far. A public authority may employ agents to exercise its powers, which is why many statutes authorise delegation either expressly or impliedly. With the enormous rise in statutory activities, the maxim delegatus non potestdelegare is not being strictly applied, especially in cases of administrative discretionary power. It is almost settled that the legislature may permit any statutory authority to delegate its power to another authority, provided the statute lays down the policy framework within which the delegatee must act. The real controversy arises in cases of sub-delegation, since when Parliament has specifically appointed an authority to discharge a function, it cannot be readily presumed that the delegate has the freedom to empower another person or body to act in its place."

Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

20. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal

proposition, now coming to the issue as to whether the

memorandum containing the charge-sheet/supplementary

charge-sheet issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer, for and on

behalf of the disciplinary authority is valid or suffers from the

vice of sub-delegation of power dehors the Rule and the

decision taken by the Board of Management, who is the

disciplinary authority in the case in hand; but before answering

this issue, it would be pertinent to take note of other decisions.

21. In the case of Steel Authority of India (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that under the Company's

Discipline and Appeal Rules, only the Personnel Manager as the

disciplinary authority to frame charges and constitute an inquiry

committee. Since there was no approved rule authorising any

other head of department for this purpose, charge-sheets issued

and inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Medical Officer

was held to be unauthorised. Consequently, the dismissal order

passed by the Personnel Manager on the basis of such inquiry

reports by such unauthorized inquiry committee was held

invalid.

22. In the case of F.X. Fernando (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the fact that on the Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

direction of the State Government, the Registrar (Head of

Department) issued a charge-sheet on 20.03.1989 to a State

service officer upon conferring the power under notification

dated 17-3-1988 held the charge-sheet was valid. The Court

further observed that the Registrar though not empowered to

impose penalty, could validly issue charge-sheet and appoint an

Enquiry Officer when such power was conferred by State

Government under the notification.

23. The similar issue was also considered in the

case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme

Court on being found that the charge-sheet not having been

issued by the disciplinary authority held to be invalid. Under

Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the disciplinary authority

must draw up or cause to be drawn up the definite and distinct

articles of charge. The phrase "cause to be drawn up" only

permits a subordinate authority to prepare a draft, but the

charges must be approved and finalised by the disciplinary

authority. Thus, a charge-sheet without such approval is without

authority of law.

24. In the aforesaid settled legal background, this

Court notices the facts of this case. It is not in dispute that the

disciplinary proceeding has been initiated under the CCS (CCA) Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

Rules, 1965. Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 reads as

follows:

"(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up-

(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge;

(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain-

(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government servant;

(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained."

25. Bare reading of the aforesaid rule, it is manifest

that it is a disciplinary authority, who shall or shall cause to be

prepared the article of charge and statement of imputation of

misconduct or misbehaviour and that memo of charge shall

contain a list of documents/witnesses by whom, the articles of

charge are proposed to be sustained.

26. Admittedly in the case in hand, the Board of Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

Management being the disciplinary authority in its meeting as

per Agent Item No. 21.8 authorized the Vice-chancellor to

approve appointment of Inquiry Officers and Presenting

Officers, issue charge sheet and make day-to-day decisions

related to the inquiry proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules,

1965. If under the Rule, the disciplinary authority is empowered

and authorized to issue the article of charge and statement of

imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour, then the same is

required to be done by the disciplinary authority alone and none

else. Even if it is accepted that after deliberation, the Board of

Management has authorized the Vice-chancellor for approving

the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer for issuance of

charge-sheet and take day-to-day decision relating with the

enquiry proceeding and submitted the enquiry report to the

Board of Management for taking decision, the Memo of charge

issued under the signature of Chief Vigilance Officer, for and on

behalf of the disciplinary authority is not unsustainable in law,

without its approval having been done by the Board of

Management.

27. It would be worth benefiting to refer the

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

B.V. Gopinath (supra) wherein the Court while emphasizing the Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, which ensures that

no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an

all-India service can be dismissed or removed by an authority

subordinate to that by which he was appointed observed that to

effectuate and ensure compliance with the mandatory

requirements of Article 311(2), the Government of India has

promulgated the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary

proceedings against the delinquent found to be initiated in terms

of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965. It is further observed that Rule

14(3) clearly lays down that where it is proposed to hold an

inquiry against a government servant under Rule 14 or Rule 15,

the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up

the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into

definite and distinct articles of charges.

28. The Court further ruled that the term "cause to

be drawn up" does not mean that the definite and distinct

articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by

the disciplinary authority. The term "cause to be drawn up"

merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary authority to a

subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up

substance of proposed "definite and distinct articles of charge-

sheet". These proposed articles of charge would only be Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

finalised upon approval by the disciplinary authority. Rule 14(4)

again mandates that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or

cause to be delivered to the government servant, a copy of the

articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of

misconduct or misbehaviour and the supporting documents

including a list of witnesses by which each article of charge is

proposed to be proved. It is, therefore, not possible to interpret

this provision as providing that once the disciplinary authority

approves the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the

charge-sheet can be drawn up by an authority other than the

disciplinary authority. This would destroy the underlying

protection guaranteed under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of

India. Such procedure would also do violence to the protective

provisions contained under Article 311(2) which ensures that no

public servant is dismissed, removed or suspended without

following a fair procedure in which he/she has been given a

reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the

charge-sheet. Such a charge-sheet can only be issued upon

approval by the appointing authority i.e. Finance Minister.

29. In the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also underscored the principle of

rule against delegation by explaining the maxim of delegatus Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

non potest delegare and referred the decision of Sahni Silk

Mills (P) Ltd. (supra). The relevant paragraph, quoted as

follows:

"6. By now it is almost settled that the legislature can permit any statutory authority to delegate its power to any other authority, of course, after the policy has been indicated in the statute itself within the framework of which such delegatee (sic) is to exercise the power. The real problem or the controversy arises when there is a subdelegation. It is said that when Parliament has specifically appointed authority to discharge a function, it cannot be readily presumed that it had intended that its delegate should be free to empower another person or body to act in its place."

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court finally in the

aforenoted case held that the charge-sheet/charge memo having

not been approved by the disciplinary authority is non est in the

eye of the law.

31. The two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Promod Kumar,

IPS and Another, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677 clarified the

necessity of approval of initiation of disciplinary proceeding

distinguished from approval of charge-sheet. The Hon'ble Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

Supreme Court noticing the decision rendered in the case of

B.V. Gopinath (supra) held that if any authority other than the

disciplinary authority is permitted to draw the charge memo, the

same would result in destroying the underlying protection

guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Court unequivocally held that the rule requires something

to be done in particular manner it should be done in the same

manner and not at all.

32. Taking note of mandatory requirement of Rule

8(4) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,

1969, the Court observed that since the charge memo being

drawn up or caused to be drawn up by the disciplinary authority

is not complied with find no illegality in the order passed by the

High Court on this issue, whereby it quashes the disciplinary

proceeding, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further

extended liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a charge

memo afresh after taking approval from the disciplinary

authority.

33. In view of the settled legal positing and the

discussions made hereinabove, the issue answered accordingly;

The Board of Management, being disciplinary authority, having

power of delegation under the statute may delegate its power to Patna High Court CWJC No.11558 of 2025 dt.13-10-2025

the Vice-chancellor only to the extent of drawing the charge

memo, but subject to approval by the disciplinary authority,

before its issuance. Any memo of charge by the Chief Vigilance

Officer without explicitly getting its approval by the Board of

Management (Disciplinary Authority) cannot be held to be

valid.

34. This Court finds substance in the writ petition,

hence the charge memo, as contained in Memorandum, bearing

no.19, dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1), as also the

supplementary charge-sheet as contained in Memo No. 33 dated

09.07.2025 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the

disciplinary authority to proceed further in the matter in

accordance with law keeping in mind the specific prescription

of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the mandate of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra).

35. The writ petition stands allowed.

(Harish Kumar, J) uday/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                16.09.2025
Uploading Date          14.10.2025
Transmission Date       NA