Charge memorandum issued without prior disciplinary authority approval is non est; post-facto ratification invalid where statute mandates prior approval before issuance.

ORDER 

Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J.M.

The applicant challenging the charge memorandum dated 06.05.2025 issued by the respondent no. 3 has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:

(a) Quash and set aside the Memorandum of Charges dated 06.05.2025 issued against the applicant as illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of natural justice;

(b) Declare the inquiry proceedings and committee constitution as void due to conflict of interest, procedural impropriety, and suppression of evidence;

(c) Pass an order restraining the respondents from continuing with or relying upon any proceedings arising from the impugned chare sheet;

(d) Initiate inquiry against the Executive Director and other officials for the proceedings for use of manipulated documents, abuse of administrative power and harassment to the petitioner on false grounds;

(e) Grant any other relief(s) deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.

2. The facts of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is that the Executive Director tabled an agenda v i d e G B 1 2 / 130 (III) in the 12^th Governing Body of the Institute held on 14.11.2024 for placing the applicant under suspension as per the provisions made under Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is submitted that the Governing Body took cognizance and decided not to place him under suspension but directed the institute to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and accordingly memorandum of charges dated 06.05.2025 was issued containing two article of charges. It is submitted that issuance of Memorandum of Charges is in clear violation of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 since the resolution passed by the Governing Body merely authorized the initiation of disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14 (2) however it did not extend to the issuance of the Memorandum of Charges under Rule 14 (3). It is submitted that memorandum of charges has been issued without any deliberation or application of mind by the disciplinary authority and without prior approval of the draft memorandum by the disciplinary authority as is m a n d a t e i n 4 G opinath v Union of India. It is submitted that the memorandum of charges has been issued without affording the applicant a prior show cause notice or an opportunity to be heard which is a fundamental requirement under the principle of natural justice. It is submitted that the issuance of memorandum of charges is vitiated due to (1) absence of governing body approval, (2) lack of delegated authority, (3) violation of judicial precedent and (4) contravention of AIIMS Regulation 2019 and therefore rendering the entire proceedings ultra vires, without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Hence the OA.

3. The respondents have filed counter inter alia averring that an incident reported to the competent authority of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar that during the routine visit of Medical Superintendent of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar to the Department of Radio Diagnosis on 19.10.2023 at 11.00 am it has been reported that an unauthorized outside doctor from Delhi was performing an interventional procedure in DSA lab along with the applicant. It i s s u b m i t t e d 5 that accordingly an inquiry committee was constituted by the competent authority to investigate the incident occurred on 19.10.2023 in DSA lab. It is submitted that the inquiry committee after inquiry submitted its interim report on 20.10.2023 and final report on 07.05.2024 which wa