The allocation of disciplinary authority to the Minister of State does not constitute illegal sub-delegation and is permissible under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

JUDGMENT

% 04.03.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioner, who belongs to the Indian Civil Accounts Service, was issued a charge-sheet on 5 July 2018 by the Joint Controller General of Accounts (Vigilance), by order and in the name of the President of India, proposing to hold a disciplinary enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, ["the CCS (CCA) Rules" hereinafter] . The allegations in the charge-sheet pertained to the period during which the petitioner Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 1 of 31

was working as Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration) in the office of the Controller General of Accounts, ["CGA" hereinafter] . For the purposes of the present judgment, and in view of the limited ground canvassed by the petitioner, it is not necessary to refer to the charges against him. 2. Admittedly, the charge-sheet dated 5 July 2018 was, before it was issued to the petitioner, approved by the Minister of State (Finance), ["the MOS" hereinafter], on the basis of the following Office Order dated 3 April 2018, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Expenditure, ["DoE" hereinafter], Ministry of Finance:

“No. A-22012/1/2012-Admn. I (ii)

Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure New Delhi, 3 April 2018 OFFICE ORDER Subject: Allocation of work to Minister of State in Ministry of Finance [Shri Radhakrishnan P.]

Reference is invited to this Department’s Office Order of even number dated 11^th September 2017. In partial modification of the ibid order, the Union Finance Minister has allocated the following work (earlier handled directly by the Finance Minister) in addition to the work already allocated to Shri Radhakrishnan P., Minister of State pertaining to Department of Expenditure (DoE), Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) and Department of Investment & Public Asset Management (DIPAM) until further orders:

2. Common to all Departments (Expenditure, Economic Affairs and DIPAM):

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 2 of 31

a. Answering all Starred Questions (after Union Finance Minister has been briefed on the replies for Starred Questions).

b. Disposal of all VIP references.

c. All disciplinary cases – both initiation and final orders.

d. Cases related to appointment, promotion, resignation and voluntary retirement of officers below Deputy Secretary level in services under the Ministry of Finance.

e. Appeals/Petitions in disciplinary cases.

f. Cases of training/deputation abroad.

g. Cases relating to premature retirement under FR 56 and Rule 48 of Pension Rules.

h. Comments on draft Note for the Cabinet or its Committees.

3. All other matters not specifically delegated to the MoS will be submitted directly to Finance Minister.

(Annie George Mathew)

Joint Secretary to the Government of India

3. Without submitting himself to disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner assailed the chargesheet dated 5 July 2018, as well as the earlier Office Order dated 3 April 2018, issued by the DoE, to the extent it allocated, to the MOS, all powers to initiate disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders thereon. The petitioner contended that, as a Group A ICAS Officer, his disciplinary authority was the Union Minister of Finance, [Signature Not Veri5 f i“eMdOF” hereinafter], and that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018, to the extent it permitted the MOS to institute disciplinary Digitally Signed By:AWJIT.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 3 of 31 proceedings in respect of Group A officers such as the petitioner, was illegal. Consequently, it was submitted that, as the charge-sheet dated 5 July 2018, prior to being issued, had not been approved by the MOF, but only by the MOS, who was incompetent to do so, the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated ab initio, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in UOI v B.V. Gopinath , [ (2014) 1 SCC 351 ], which requir