Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajiv Loachan vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences on 19 February, 2026
1
Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2532/2018
This the 19th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Rajiv Lochan, aged 57 years,
S/o Sh. S. N. Sharma,
Dy. Chief Security Officer (Removal from service)
All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS)
New Delhi.
R/o P-504, Shishpal Vihar, A WHO, Sector 49,
Gurgaon (Har). ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS),
Through its' Director, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi.-110029
2. The Administrative Officer (Estate),
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029 ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. V S R Krishna)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.11
SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30'
2
Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):-
By way of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned penalty order dated 14.9.2016 (A/1), Appellate order dated 25.4.2018 (Annex. A/2), charge sheet dated 15.5.2014, Inquiry Officer report and entire disciplinary proceedings, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal and arbitrary and against the rules and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to re-instate the applicant in service immediately with all the consequential benefits deeming no charge sheet was issued to the applicant along with the arrears of pay and allowances.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was initially appointed on 17.04.1989 as Security Officer under the respondents' organization and was subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Security Officer in AIIMS, New Delhi. A complaint pertaining to irregularities in award and execution of a security services contract culminated in issuance of a major penalty charge-sheet dated 15.05.2014 2026.03.11 (Annexure-A/4) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date:
14:10:09+05'30' 1965. The substance of the Article of Charge reads as under:-
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE:-
"That the said Shri Rajiv Lochan while working as Deputy Chief Security Officer at the Institute was responsible for fudging of the records in preparing a misleading comparative statement, by distorting/concealing vital facts about technical criteria regarding deployment of minimum number of personnel, financial turnover etc., in 3 Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 tender NO. XX-220/Pvt.Security/08-09/St. for deployment of security services at the Institute, which enabled an Ineligible firm, M/s Prehari Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd to get the tender. Apart from this, he was very much involved right from the beginning in the said process including the framing and publication of EOOI, which though approved by the Director for two bid system, was in total contradiction of provisions of GFR 2005 and directions of Central Vigilance Commission, and was in fact engineered to make M/s Prehari Protection Systems Pvt. Ltd., qualify the said tender. Even after the execution of the said contract, he was involved in massive irregular payment to the contractor without proper verification causing financial loss to the Institute and also leading to strike, resulting in unnecessary litigation and loss of reputation for Institute. Such act of Shri Rajiv Lochan was in blatant violation of rules/guidelines/directions of GFR 2005 and Central Vigilance Commission.
Shri Rajiv Lochan, Dy. Chief Security Officer is thus responsible for gross misconduct, failed to maintain devotion to duty, absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of an Institute employee; thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as applicable to the employees of the Institute."
3. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his report on 09.10.2025 (Annexure-A/15). Based on the Inquiry Officer's Report, the I.O. in his report held the charge as 'Proved'. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued penalty order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1), the punishment of removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government and the applicant was removed from service. The penalty order was issued by the Disciplinary Authority/Director, AIIMS. NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.11 SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30' Against the Disciplinary Authority's order, the applicant preferred a detailed appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. Institute Body of AIIMS and the same was rejected on 25.04.2018 (Annexure-A/2) thereby confirming the penalty already imposed upon the applicant by the 4 Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant among other grounds taken to challenge the Appellate Order dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure-A/2) as also the penalty order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) has taken the following grounds:-
(i) The principal contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is based upon the Regulations of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, particularly, Schedule II thereof, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 18.10.2019 and contended that the applicant holds a Group 'A' post and that, as per the said Regulations, the Competent Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities are specifically prescribed therein. The same reads as under:-
Sl. Description of Appointing Authority competent to impose penalty or Appellate Posts Authority penalties which it may impose with Authority No. reference to Rule-11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 Disciplinary Penalties under Authority Rule-11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 1 Group 'A' Posts Institute subject Institute All, subject to to Rule-7 of the condition that
(i) Director All India penalties (v) to (ix) NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Institute of shall not be imposed Date: 2026.03.11 SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30' Medical Sciences without prior Rules approval of the Central Government
(ii) Other Governing Body (a) Governing Body (a) All Penalties (a) Institute Posts (b) President (b) Penalties (i) to (iv)Governing Body
(ii) Learned counsel submits that for Group 'A' posts (other than Director), the Governing Body is the Appointing Authority; as such the competent authority (disciplinary authority) to impose major penalties 5 Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 upon the applicant is the Governing Body; and the Appellate Authority is also the Governing Body, as specified under the Schedule, as quoted above. He further submits that the applicant, being a holder of a Group 'A' post, as per the applicable service regulations, thus the Appointing Authority in respect of the said post is the Governing Body. Insofar as disciplinary matters are concerned, the Director is the competent Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalties falling under Sl. Nos. 1 to 4, and not the penalty of removal from service, which has been imposed upon the applicant in the present case. In respect of penalties beyond Sl. Nos. 1 to 4, the competent authority is the Governing Body.
The Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Director is also the Governing Body. Learned counsel for the applicant especially dwells upon the provision of schedule 2 (i) of the said notification, which reads as under:-
"(i) Authorization of the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences to issue the Charge-sheet and statement of allegation, penalties and suspension orders after obtaining the approval of the Governing Body, the President, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, as the case may be.
The notice, the charge-sheet and statement of allegations shall be signed by the Director for and on behalf of the Governing Body or the President, as the case may be, and the documents shall also expressly NEETU state this Digitally signed NEETU SHARMA by fact. Phrases like "By order of the Governing Body" or SHARMA "the President" or the "approval by the Governing Body" or the "The Date: 2026.03.11 14:10:09+05'30' President can be used on such documents."
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) He states that it is specifically mentioned in the said schedule that the notice/the charge sheet and the statement of allegations shall be signed and issued by the Director on behalf of Governing Body or 6 Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 the President, as the case may be. Any such memorandum, even if it has been approved by the Competent Authority will also ought to have been signed and issued by the Director of the Institute and not the Chief Vigilance Officer, as it was done in the present case.
(iv) Learned counsel for the applicant, to buttress his argument, has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(a) Order/judgment dated 07.07.2023 of Hon'ble High Court of judicature for Rajasthan, bench at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition No. 10126/2016 in the matter of Seema Jain Vs. The Rajasthan High Court. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"44. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority as per Rule 16(2) of the CCA Rules has to frame definite charges on the basis of allegation on which enquiry is proposed to be held and as such, the Disciplinary Authority alone can frame the charges and Rule 15(1) of the CCA Rules, defines the Disciplinary Authority.
This Court finds that in the present case at hand the Registrar (Vigilance) issued a memorandum to the petitioner and even if before issuing memorandum--charge- sheet, the same was put up before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his approval, the same will not cloth the Registrar (Vigilance) to usurp the power of the Disciplinary Authority to issue a charge-sheet for imposing major penalties under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules.
45. This Court finds substance in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that even as per notification dated 03.02.2011, the enquiry could be conducted by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court or through Vigilance Cell of the High Court, however, the charge-sheet NEETU Digitally signed by Date:was required to be issued by the Disciplinary Authority.
NEETU SHARMA
2026.03.11
SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30'
46. This Court finds no substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-High Court that the issuance of charge- sheet by the Registrar (Vigilance) was a rightful act and at the relevant time, since the Registrar (Vigilance) was having the power to conduct enquiry and as such, he could issue the charge-sheet as well.
47. This Court also does not find any substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner when the charge-sheet has been issued by the Registrar (Vigilance), as the enquiry subsequently was transferred to 7 Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 the Enquiry Judge i.e. Judge of the High Court and the Enquiry Officer has considered the entire evidence and thereafter, prepared an enquiry report.
48. This Court finds that the Officer, who had issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner, was not having any competence to issue the charge- sheet to an officer of rank of Additional District Judge. The power which was required to be exercised by the Disciplinary Authority, could not have been delegated and the notification dated 03.02.2011 will not confer any power to the Registrar (Vigilance) to initiate the disciplinary enquiry by issuing the charge-sheet."
(b) Order/judgment dated 18.04.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6525/2017 in the matter of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. S. P. Vashisht. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"16. Further, the observations in para 17, 18 & 19 following the ratio decendi of B.V. Gopinath (supra) in Civil Appeal No. 8427-8428 of 2018 [State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Govt. (Home) vs. Promod Kumar IPS & Another] are also pertinent to be noticed:-
"17. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when the charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant is that approval of the disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings was sufficient and there was no need for another approval for issuance of charge memo. The basis for such submission is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage. We are unable to agree with the submission in view of the judgment of this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra). In that case the charge memo issued to Mr. Gopinath under Rule 14 (3) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Finance Minister did not approve it.
NEETU Digitally signed by Date:The judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court. The NEETU SHARMA 2026.03.11 SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30' Union of India, the Appellant therein submitted before this Court that the approval for initiation of the departmental proceedings includes the approval of the charge memo. Such submission was not accepted by this Court on an interpretation of Rule 14 (3) which provides that the disciplinary authority shall "draw up or cause to be drawn up"
the charge memo. It was held that if any authority other than the disciplinary authority is permitted to draw the charge memo, the same would result in destroying the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
18. Rule 8 (4) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 also mandates that the disciplinary authority shall "draw up or 8 Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 cause to be drawn up" the charge memo. We see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in B.V.Gopinath (supra). We also see no substance in the submission made by the Senior Counsel for the State that the said judgment needs reconsideration. Assuming that Mr. Giri is right in his submission that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage, the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 which provides for the charge memo to be drawn by the disciplinary authority cannot be ignored. We reject the submission on behalf of the Appellant that Gopinath's case can be distinguished on facts. We are not in agreement with the contention of the Appellant that the business rules and standing orders of the State of Tamil Nadu are quite different from the office orders and circulars issued by Union of India which formed the basis of the judgment in Gopinath's case. A close reading of the said judgment would disclose that reliance on the office note was only in addition to the interpretation of the Rule.
19. It is also settled law that if the rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all- Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D. 426, 431. In view of the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 (4) and the charge memo being drawn up or cause to be drawn up by the disciplinary authority is not complied with, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court on this issue.
The only addition we would like to make is to give liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a charge memo afresh after taking approval from the disciplinary authority."
(c) The aforesaid order was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 25.02.2025 in SLP No. 23219/2023 in the matter of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. S. P. Vashisht, the relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent under the orders of the Director of the petitioner. The Central Administrative Tribunal held there was no direction issued by the President or any other authority empowered by him to the Director to institute disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal held that unless the authority which directed NEETU Digitally signed by Date:initiation of disciplinary authority is empowered by general or special NEETU SHARMA 2026.03.11 SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30' order of the President, the disciplinary enquiry cannot be initiated. The High Court had concurred with the view taken by the Tribunal. Admittedly, there is no order passed in terms of sub-rule (1) Rule 13 has been placed on record. There is no direction issued by the President to the Director to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. Therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as the High Court. However, the High Court while confirming the order of the Tribunal has granted liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the respondents by following the provisions of CCA (CCS) Rules, 1965 and the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. B. V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 251.
In view of the said liberty granted, no case is made out to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.9
Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant and by replying upon the regulations of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences states that the same regulation also states as follows:-
"(ii) Since the Governing Body meeting are fixed at intervals, the Chairman of the Governing Body is authorized to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees of Group A and faculty members and final decision on penalty shall be taken in the Governing Body meeting."
6. He further submits that the orders of the Competent Authority, namely the President of the Institute who is also the Hon'ble Minister for Health & Family Welfare and the Chairman of the Governing Body were duly obtained in the present case. In fact, the notice issued to the applicant itself records that it has been issued with the approval of the President of All India Institute of Medical Sciences for holding an inquiry against the applicant. It is, therefore, contended that it is immaterial whether the memorandum was signed and issued by the Chief Vigilance Officer or any other authority. The only aspect that requires consideration by this Tribunal is whether the approval of the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.11 SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30' Competent Authority had been obtained prior to the signing and issuance of the notice. The learned counsel has produced the relevant records for our perusal, and upon examination thereof, it is evident that approval had indeed been obtained from the Competent Authority, namely the Chairman of the Governing Body/President. 10
Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, inasmuch as approval of the Competent Authority has been duly obtained in the present case, no illegality has been committed merely because the notice was issued in the name of the Chief Vigilance Officer.
8. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings available on record.
9. We find that the facts of the case are self-evident. It is well settled that where the law requires an act to be performed in a particular manner, it must be performed in that manner alone or not at all, and no other mode of compliance is permissible. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the order/judgment dated 18.04.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6525/2017 in the matter of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. S. P. Vashisht. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"16. Further, the observations in para 17, 18 & 19 following the ratio decendi of B.V. Gopinath (supra) in Civil Appeal No. 8427-8428 of 2018 [State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Govt. (Home) vs. Promod Kumar IPS & Another] are also pertinent to be noticed:-
"17. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was NEETU taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary Date: 2026.03.11 14:10:09+05'30' authority at the time when the charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant is that approval of the disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings was sufficient and there was no need for another approval for issuance of charge memo. The basis for such submission is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage. We are unable to agree with the submission in view of the judgment of this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra). In that case the charge memo issued to Mr. Gopinath under Rule 14 (3) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Finance Minister did not approve it.11
Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018 The judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court. The Union of India, the Appellant therein submitted before this Court that the approval for initiation of the departmental proceedings includes the approval of the charge memo. Such submission was not accepted by this Court on an interpretation of Rule 14 (3) which provides that the disciplinary authority shall "draw up or cause to be drawn up"
the charge memo. It was held that if any authority other than the disciplinary authority is permitted to draw the charge memo, the same would result in destroying the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
18. Rule 8 (4) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 also mandates that the disciplinary authority shall "draw up or cause to be drawn up" the charge memo. We see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in B. V. Gopinath (supra). We also see no substance in the submission made by the Senior Counsel for the State that the said judgment needs reconsideration. Assuming that Mr. Giri is right in his submission that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage, the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 which provides for the charge memo to be drawn by the disciplinary authority cannot be ignored. We reject the submission on behalf of the Appellant that Gopinath's case can be distinguished on facts. We are not in agreement with the contention of the Appellant that the business rules and standing orders of the State of Tamil Nadu are quite different from the office orders and circulars issued by Union of India which formed the basis of the judgment in Gopinath's case. A close reading of the said judgment would disclose that reliance on the office note was only in addition to the interpretation of the Rule.
19. It is also settled law that if the rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all- Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D. 426, 431. In view of the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 (4) and the charge memo being drawn up or cause to be drawn up by the disciplinary authority is not complied with, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court on this issue. The only addition we would like to make is to give liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a charge memo afresh after taking approval from the disciplinary authority."
10. It is quite clear that when the law on the subject has also been NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.11 SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30' settled where the Hon'ble Apex Court affirming the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6525/2017 in the matter of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. S. P. Vashisht, we have no reason for deviating from the same and accordingly, the present Original Application is partially allowed with the following directions:-
12
Item No. 37/ C-2 O.A. No. 2532/2018
a) The charge-sheet dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure-A/4), Inquiry Report dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure-A/15), Penalty Order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure-A/1) and Appellate Order dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure-A/2) are quashed and set aside.
b) The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits, in accordance with rules.
c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
d) The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the applicant, if they so decide, however, in accordance with law and the relevant rules and instructions on the subject.
11. The file produced by the respondents through Mr. V. S. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents, is returned to him on behalf of the respondents in the same condition as received.
12. No order as to costs.
13. Pending MA (s), if any, stand closed.
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.03.11
SHARMA 14:10:09+05'30'
(B. Anand) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/