Chargesheet Without Prior Approval Of Disciplinary Authority Is Void Ab Initio; Can't Be Ratified Later: Delhi HC

Background Facts

A chargesheet was issued against the Joint Director in the Ministry of Defence for violating Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, over allegations of misconduct. The action was initiated on basis of complaints filed by a Peon in the same directorate. She alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour by the Director towards her daughter and daughter-in-law.

The charge was proved after inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority passed the first penalty order and imposed a sanction of withholding salary increases. The Director challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal set aside the penalty and remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, which led to a second penalty order. The Authority imposed a more severe punishment of reduction in rank from Joint Director to Deputy Director which was again challenged by the Director.

Later, the Director found from an RTI application that the original chargesheet lacked the mandatory prior approval of the competent Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Raksha Rajya Mantri. The Tribunal concluded that the chargesheet was legally invalid from the very beginning.

Aggrieved, the Union of India challenged decision of the Tribunal before the Delhi High Court through a writ petition.

It was submitted by the UOI that the Director received information in September 2019 regarding the lack of approval, but he failed to raise this plea before. It was further contended that to initiate disciplinary proceedings, a detailed note of the case was submitted for the Disciplinary Authority's approval which was duly granted. It was argued that the form and contents of the chargesheet had the approval, therefore, it was signed by a lower functionary with the annotation 'By order and in the name of the President'.

The UOI placed reliance on a Government of India MHA Memo dated 16.04.1969 to submit that in cases where the Disciplinary Authority is the Hon'ble President, once he approves the initiation of proceedings, there was no need to show the file again for issuing formal orders.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the Director that the chargesheet contained a fallacious annotation stating it was 'By order and in the name of the President'. It was contended that RTI revealed that the chargesheet lacked the mandatory approval of the Competent Authority in violation of Rules 14(3) and 14(5) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

It was further submitted by Director that it was a case of concealment by the UOI therefore, principles of estoppel and constructive res judicata would not apply. The judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and Ors. vs. Brundaban Sharma and Anr was relied upon to contend that the validity of an order that is void-ab-initio can be questioned in proceeding at any stage.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the court that the Authentication Rules of 2002 only specify who may sign orders on behalf of the President and do not override Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Relying on the judgment of B.V. Gopinath and Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India and Anr, it was emphasized by the court that only the disciplinary authority can approve and issue a chargesheet. Approval to start proceedings and approval to issue the chargesheet are separate steps, and both must be followed.

It was clarified that “cause to be drawn up” in Rule 14(3) meant that disciplinary authority may direct a subordinate to draft the charges, but the disciplinary authority must give the final approval. It was held by the court that the chargesheet was issued without the approval of the Raksha Rajya Mantri, who was the competent authority. Therefore, the chargesheet was non-existent in the eyes of law.

It was further held that a chargesheet which is non-existent in law, cannot be later ratified by a post facto approval. It was held that memorandums cannot override statutory rules, and any proceeding done on an invalid chargesheet collapses automatically.

The case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. State of T.N. and Anr was also relied upon to confirm that orders without jurisdiction are invalid and cannot be supported by procedural principles like estoppel or res judicata.

Since the chargesheet lacked proper authority, no error was found in the Tribunal's decision. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the Union of India was dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. vs. S K Jasra

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1359

Case No. : W.P.(C) 2742/2024

Counsel for the Petitioners : Vijay Joshi and Shubham Chaturvedi, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondent : Avneesh Garg, Pavitra Singh and Iptisha, Adv