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 without prejudice to employee.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings dated 10th July, 2024 (Annexure P-2) by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as per the statement of the articles of charges issued as per Article-I and Article-II.

2. The resultant proceedings, whereby the Inquiry Officer as such was appointed namely Mr. Avinash Chander, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, are also subject matter of consideration, along with the Presenting Officer, Sh. Khem Raj, Record Keeper, being appointed on 31st of July, 2024, Annexures P3 and P4, respectively.

3. The sum and substance of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-employee, who is a Senior Assistant working with the District Legal Services Authority, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “DLSA”), is that he was appointed by the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “SLSA”) on 25.10.2016 and was placed at the disposal of the Chairman (District Judge), DLSA, Mandi for reporting for duty. It is accordingly the case of the counsel for the petitioner that having been appointed by the SLSA, disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated by the District and Sessions Judge, Mandi, not being the State Legal Services Authority under Section 6 of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

4. The stand taken by respondent No.3/SLSA is that the District Judge is the Chairman of the District Authority in terms of Section 9(2)(a) of the Act and the action was initiated in the capacity of the Chairman, DLSA. The appointing authority is the Member Secretary, SLSA acting as a Head of the Department in consultation with the Chief Justice. The action as such has been held to be justified.

5. The reply filed by respondent No.2 states that vide letter dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure R-2), it was conveyed to the Chairman, DLSA that the Hon’ble Executive Chairman of the SLSA had directed that all communications received from the Secretary, DLSA, addressed against the present petitioner, regarding the act of insubordination, non-compliance with the orders, dereliction of duty etc. shall be sent to the Chairman, DLSA, for further necessary action at own level being the Chairman-cum-Controlling Officer of DLSA. The proceedings had been initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in view of the directions of the Hon’ble Executive Chairman, SLSA.

6. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner at the first blush appears to be very attractive, especially keeping in view the fact that at the initial stage, after the fact finding inquiry had been done on 12.12.2022, vide communication dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure R-3/A), the Member Secretary, SLSA, had communicated to the petitioner that he was not complying with the directions and would have to be dealt with in accordance with the rules and called for his explanation. The said communication had been forwarded at the district level to the DLSA on 16.03.2025 itself. The petitioner had filed his reply to the same on 18.03.2024 (Annexure R3/B), raising various objections but never raised the issue of jurisdiction. The reply thus had been firstly forwarded on 18.03.2024 by the Member Secretary, DLSA, at the District lev