$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1106/2026 & CM APPL. 5443/2026 KULDEEP KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Yash Vardhan Singh and Ms.

Deepti Ahuja, Advocates.

versus DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED (DPCL) AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sushil Pandey, SPC with Mr.

Sharves Srivastv and Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocates for R-1.

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC (GNCTD) with Ms. Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Ms. Simran Kohli and Ms.

Shivali Rawat, Advocates for R2-11.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. This petition has been instituted jointly by seven Petitioners. Each Petitioner assails a separate memorandum/charge-sheet, issued at different points of time, ranging from November 2013 to March 2025. The relief sought is framed as a writ of mandamus for quashing the disciplinary proceedings, the impugned memoranda/charge-sheets, and Notification No. HR(BYPL)/2024-25/01 dated 1^st April, 2024. The principal ground urged is that the charge-sheets were issued without the approval of the President of India, or of an authority duly empowered by the President, as required under Rules 13 and 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, “CCS (CCA) Rules”

2. At the outset, the petition suffers from an evident misjoinder of different causes of action. Each memorandum concerns a different Petitioner, a different factual substratum, different allegations, different stages of disciplinary proceedings, and in some cases, even different employers within the distribution entities. The mere assertion of a common question of law does not, by itself, cure the structural defect of clubbing seven independent service disputes into one omnibus petition. Even so, since the Petitioners press a threshold jurisdictional objection, the Court proceeds to examine that legal plank, while keeping it clear that the individual merits, defences, and factual controversies in each memorandum are not being adjudicated in this proceeding.

3. The Petitioner’s principal submission is that the CCS (CCA) Rules apply to them, and under Rule 13 read with Rule 14, disciplinary proceedings can be instituted only by the President of India or by an authority empowered by the President by general or special order. On that premise, they contend that charge-sheets issued by officers of the Respondent companies, without demonstrable Presidential approval, are ab initio void and are liable to be treated as “non est”.

4. The Petitioners also place reliance on decisions which hold that where an action is without jurisdiction, doctrines such as estoppel, waiver, or res judicata cannot be invoked to validate it. The submission, in substance, is that if the initiation of disciplinary proceedings itself is void, all consequential steps must necessarily fail.

5. The Respondents oppose the petition on multiple grounds, including misjoinder, delay and laches, particularly for memoranda dating back to 2013-2019, and the impropriety of invoking writ jurisdiction to challenge charge-sheets, especially where some Petitioners have already assailed final disciplinary orders in independent proceedings. On the central legal issue, it is contended that the Petitioners’ construction of Rule 13 is misplaced. It is further submitted that the Notification dated 1^st April, 2024 merely delineates the internal disciplinary and appellate hierarchy and does not supplant or dilute the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Scope of interference at the stage of charge-sheet

6. It is well settled that ordinarily a writ court does not interdict a charge-sheet, since such a document does not determine rights and is merely a step in aid of the disciplinary process. The Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana² has cautioned that a charge-sheet does not ordinarily give rise to any cause of action, and that premature intervention would result