Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences – Appellant
Versus
S. P. Vashisht – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6525 of 2017
Decided On : 25-05-2023
Disciplinary Proceedings - Charge-sheet - CCS (CCA) Rules - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Shri S.P. Vashisht, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the petitioner, AIIMS, based on a charge-sheet issued by the Director, AIIMS. The Tribunal held that the charge-sheet was void ab initio as it did not have the approval of the competent authority, the President, AIIMS, as required by law. The Tribunal set aside the punishment order and charge-sheet, granting liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary inquiry following the procedure under CCS (CCA) Rules and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath.
Finding of the Court:
The charge-sheet issued by the Director, AIIMS without the approval of the President, AIIMS, was held to be void ab initio, along with all further actions taken based on the charge-sheet. The Tribunal set aside the punishment order and charge-sheet, granting liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary inquiry following the procedure under CCS (CCA) Rules and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath.
Issues: The main issue was whether the charge-sheet issued by the Director, AIIMS without the approval of the President, AIIMS, was valid under the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The charge-sheet issued by an authority not competent to impose the penalties specified in the rules, without the approval of the competent authority, is void ab initio. The approval for initiation of departmental proceedings does not include the approval of the charge memo in specific. The charge memo must be approved by the competent Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalties under the rules.
Final Decision: The Tribunal set aside the punishment order and charge-sheet, granting liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary inquiry following the procedure under CCS (CCA) Rules and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated February 03, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') whereby the charge-sheet issued by the petitioner against the respondent herein has been held to be void ab initio along with action taken by the petitioner against the respondent on the charge-sheet, including the inquiry report as well as the punishment order dated July 18, 2013 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. However, the petitioner has been given liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary inquiry against the respondent by following the procedure under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351.
2. (i) In brief, as per the case of the petitioner, Shri S.P. Vashisht (respondent) was appointed to the post of Hawaldar in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on September 27, 1983 and subsequently promoted to the post of Sanitary Officer. On the basis of a surprise check by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), ACB, New Delhi at the main hospital store and C.N. Centre stores of AIIMS, an FIR was registered on March 03, 1999 under Sections 120-B/420 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for causing undue pecuniary advantage to one Mr. Rajeev Rastogi of M/s Rajeev Enterprises, by ignoring AIIMS rate contact with its approved suppliers. Allegations also pertained to supply of surgical items by firms not having license from the Drugs Controller, NTC, Delhi and supply of various sub- standard items in the Hospital. DIG, CBI, ACB also forwarded a copy of the report of S.P. CBI, ACB recommending for major penalty proceedings against the erring officials of AIIMS on September 05, 2001.
(ii) On October 17, 2001, a proposal for consideration of request of CBI, ACB, New Delhi for (a) grant of sanction for prosecution, (b) initiation of regular disciplinary proceedings for major penalty and (c) follow up action/suspension subsequent to decision on (a) & (b) above, was placed before the Governing Body of AIIMS, which authorised the President, AIIMS to constitute a Committee to look into the matter and submit its recommendations to the Governing Body.
(iii) A two member Committee was accordingly constituted and recommendations of Committee were submitted to the President AIIMS for consideration. The report of the committee was further placed before the Governing body in its meeting held on April 03, 2002 which recommended that in absence of material substance pertaining to any malafide intention on the part of Dr. D.K. Sharma, the case be referred back to CBI for reconsideration and for dropping of his name for prosecution. The Governing Body did not discuss the case in respect of remaining officials. The observations of Governing Body were communicated to CBI and also referred to CVC.
(iv) On January 08, 2003, DIG, CBI requested for prosecution sanction in respect of remaining nine officials except Dr. D.K. Sharma. It was thereafter informed by CBI that since three officials, namely Shri C.S. Rawat, Shri Jagdish Raj and Shri Ramphat had retired in the meanwhile, the prosecution sanction was required for six officials.
(v) Bereft of other unnecessary details, on April 25, 2005, Director (CHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare conveyed prosecution sanction accorded by the President in respect of S.S. Rawat, Store Keeper. Further, in respect of Group `C' Officers, Director AIIMS was requested to take necessary action. Director (CHS), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare also conveyed that the case of Group `A' Officers be placed before the Governing Body, which is the Disciplinary Authority for major penalty in respect of Group `A' officers. Accordingly, the proposal in respect of Group `C' officials namely Attar Singh, UDC, M.L. Sharma, UDC and M.L. Arya, Store Keeper w
Charge memorandum issued without prior disciplinary authority approval is non est; post-facto ratification invalid where statute mandates prior approval before issuance.
Disciplinary charge-sheet must be issued by authorized officer as per regulations; prior approval insufficient if not signed by Director on behalf of competent authority for Group ‘A’ employees, rend....
Charge memo for major penalty must be approved by competent disciplinary authority; issuance by minor penalty authority without approval vitiates proceedings.
Charge sheet upheld where Disciplinary Authority approved via file notings with application of mind; natural justice requires supplying relied-upon documents; proceedings abeyed pending review post-d....
Non-est proceedings cannot be validated by ex-post facto approval.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
