IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, JJ.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI – Petitioner
Versus
UDAL SINGH – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 15643 of 2024, C.M. APPL. Nos. 65604-65605 of 2024
Decided On : 14-11-2024
(A) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Disciplinary proceedings - Chargesheet issued by incompetent authority quashed - The Tribunal found that the chargesheet was issued by the Deputy Director of Education, while the competent authority post-amendment was the Chief Secretary - The disciplinary proceedings were held to be vitiated ab initio. (Paras 3, 14, 26)
(B) Authority - The authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings must align with the classification of the officer - The respondent was upgraded to Group '˜B' but was subjected to proceedings as a Group '˜C' officer, leading to a lack of jurisdiction in the disciplinary actions taken. (Paras 8, 12, 22)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, a TGT, faced disciplinary proceedings initiated by the DDE, which were quashed by the Tribunal on grounds of incompetence, as the Chief Secretary was the designated authority post-upgrade to Group '˜B'.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision to quash the disciplinary proceedings was upheld, confirming that the chargesheet was invalid due to lack of authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the DDE were valid given the respondent's status as a Group '˜B' officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the chargesheet issued by the DDE was invalid as the authority to initiate such proceedings lay with the Chief Secretary after the amendment to the CCS (CCA) Rules.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The respondent, who was working as Trained Graduate Teacher [“TGT” hereinafter] in the Government Boys Senior Secondary School under the Directorate of Education [“DOE” hereinafter] GNCTD, superannuated on 31 December 2015.
2. During the currency of his services with the DOE, the respondent was issued a Memorandum dated 1 March 2012 [“the chargesheet” hereinafter] proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [‘the CCS (CCA) Rules” hereinafter]. The chargesheet was issued by the Deputy Director of Education (South) [“DDE” hereinafter]. Annexed to the chargesheet, were the Articles of Charge and the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct as Annexure-I and Annexure-II respectively.
3. It is not necessary to enter into the allegations in the chargesheet, as the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] from whose judgment the present writ petition emanates, has quashed the chargesheet itself as having been issued by the incompetent Authority and we having heard learned Counsel and perused the record, are in agreement with the Tribunal.
4. Suffice it, therefore, to state that an inquiry was held into the allegations contained in the chargesheet; the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 20 April 2015 holding the allegations against the respondent not to have been proved; the DDE, acting as the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note disagreeing with the findings of the IO and seeking a reply from the respondent; the respondent represented against the disagreement note on 7 September 2015 and the DDE by order dated 30 October 2015, held the charges against the respondent to have been proved and imposed on the respondent, punishment of reduction of pay by three stages till retirement.
5. The respondent filed a statutory appeal against the punishment order under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. On the said appeal not being decided, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of OA 3920/2014. The Tribunal, vide order dated 1 June 2015, directed the Secretary (Education), GNCTD as the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within two months. By order dated 28 July 2015, the Secretary reduced the punishment awarded to the respondent by the DDE to reduction in pay by one stage till retirement.
6. Assailing the above actions, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way of the OA 932/2017, which stands allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 1 December 2023 under challenge herein.
7. Part II of the Schedule to the CCS (CCA) Rules deals with CCS Group ‘B’ officers. Admittedly, though the respondent at the time he joined service was a CCS Group ‘C’ officer. All categories of Teachers in the GNCTD were upgraded from Group ‘C to Group ‘B’ and placed in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4600/- This fact has been acknowledged by the petitioner/GNCTD in the present writ petition in Para 2(i) and (ii) thus:
Therefore, the Deputy Director/Director become the Competent Authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against Group C employees. However, the Chief Secretary remained the competent authority to initiate the Disciplinary Action against the Group B posts.
(ii) That, later, the 6th Central Pay Commission was implemented on 1st September 2008. Thereafter, based on the recommendations of the 6th CPC, all categories of Teachers of Government of NCT of Delhi were upgraded to Class II in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by an incompetent authority are invalid; the Chief Secretary is the proper authority for Group 'B' officers under CCS (CCA) Rules.
The Disciplinary Authority is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings for penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11, even if not competent to impose the latter penalties.
A disciplinary authority may initiate proceedings for penalties if designated in the service rules, but the authority to impose major penalties lies with a separate designated officer.
Charge memo for major penalty must be approved by competent disciplinary authority; issuance by minor penalty authority without approval vitiates proceedings.
Final charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings against Group A officers requires specific approval by competent authority; inordinate unexplained delay vitiates inquiry; 100% pension/gratuity wi....
Disciplinary authority may delegate drawing up of charges to superior officer like Chairman of District Authority upon direction from Executive Chairman of State Authority, validating proceedings wit....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.