Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sonali Gopalrao Badhe vs Revenue on 5 February, 2026
1
Item No. 39 (C-4)
O.A. No.1117/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.1117/2025
Order reserved on : 14.01.2026
Order pronounced on : 05.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Dr. Sonali Badhe,
D/o Shri Gopalrao Badhe,
Currently at Headquarters Office
Directorate of Enforcement Pravartan Bhawan,
APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi-110011.
...Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. The Directorate of Enforcement,
Through Director, Pravartan Bhawan,
APJ Abdul Kalam Marg,
New Delhi-110003.
2. The Union of India,
Through the Revenue Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, First Floor,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069.
4. B. Naveen Kumar,
Officiating Additional Director Prosecution
Pravartan Bhavan, APJ Abdul Kalam Marg,
New Delhi-110003.
...Respondents
(By Advocates : Mr. P K Sharma, Mr. Zoheb Hossain
and Mr. Vivek Gurnani)
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.05
14:41:07
NI +05'30'
2
Item No. 39 (C-4)
O.A. No.1117/2025
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :-
In the present Original Application (O.A.), the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) Quash and set aside the Chargesheet bearing File No. F.No. C-14011/2/2024-AD.EF dated 26.12.2024 issued to the applicant which was received by her on 9.1.2025 being malafide and non-compliance of Rule 14 and hence the chargesheet is vitiated.
b) Direct that the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the post of Additional Director of Enforcement (Prosecution) in relation to the Applicant in a which has been kept in "sealed cover" be opened and the same may be informed to the applicant.
c) Quash and set aside the Order bearing File No. A-35011/25/2021-Ad.ED dated 3/4.3.2025 under the signatures of the Under Secretary (Ad.ED) by which it has been informed that the Approval has been granted for the promotion of Shri Naveen Kumar B, Deputy Legal Advisor to the post of Additional Director of Enforcement (Prosecution) against Vacancy Year 2023 on "officiating basis" till the opening of the recommendations of the Selection Committee kept in "sealed cover"
d) Declare that the grading and remarks recorded in the memorandum would be expunged and not be treated as 'adverse' or below benchmark for consideration of the case of the applicant for further promotion and to grant all consequential benefits in light of the expunged remarks.
e) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem appropriate."
2. On 14.07.2025, the present matter was heard on the preliminary objections raised by the respondents on 02.07.2025, and judgment was reserved on the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 3 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 issue of maintainability of the OA. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.07.2025, the OA was held to be maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred Writ Petition (C) No. 11187/2025 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in the said Writ Petition, observed as under:
"5. As the impugned order has been passed only on the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner herein, and without considering the O.A. filed on merits, any observations made by the learned Tribunal shall not bind it at the time of hearing the O.A. itself on merits. The petitioner shall be entitled to raise these issues again when the learned Tribunal considers the O.A. on merits.
6. With the above clarification, the present petition is disposed of. The pending application is also disposed of as being infructuous."
3. The applicant, who appeared in person submitted that in view of the decision rendered in OA No. 2385/2024 & batch, relief 'd' has become infructuous. The main relief in the present OA is that the charge sheet dated 26.12.2024 be quashed. 3.1. The applicant submitted that she is aggrieved by the issuance of the charge sheet dated 26.12.2024, initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by the respondents, the action of keeping the recommendation of the Selection Committee for the post of Additional Director of ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 4 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 Enforcement (Prosecution) in a "sealed cover," and the subsequent promotion of Shri Naveen Kumar B to the said post on an officiating basis vide order dated 3/4.3.2025, pending opening of the sealed cover. The charge sheet cannot be sustained because the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant is the Hon'ble President of India, whose powers have been delegated to the Hon'ble Finance Minister under the Transaction of Business Rules. For all practical purposes, therefore, the Finance Minister is the Disciplinary Authority. There has been non-compliance of Rule 14(2), as no opinion has been formed by the Disciplinary Authority regarding the existence of grounds for inquiry into any alleged misconduct. Further, there has been non-compliance of Rule 14(3), as the charge sheet has not been approved or signed by the Disciplinary Authority.
3.2 The applicant further submitted that the respondents themselves admit in Paras 48-49 of the Reply Affidavit that the charge sheet was issued by the Department of Revenue without the approval or authentication of the Disciplinary Authority. There has also been non-compliance of Rule 14(4)(a), as the Disciplinary Authority failed to provide the applicant ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 5 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 with documents relied upon in support of the charges. Despite repeated requests, such documents were either denied or provided in illegible form. It is well- settled that a charge sheet not issued by the Disciplinary Authority under his signature is non-est in law, as held in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) 1 SCC 351, State of Tamil Nadu v. Pramod Kumar (2018) 17 SCC 677, and Sunny Ibrahim v. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 12.
3.3. The applicant also submitted that the respondents have also denied information sought by her under the Right to Information Act, invoking Section 8(1)(h), which is wholly inapplicable. The DOPT OM dated 8.11.2021 clarifies that the charge sheet must be approved and signed by the Disciplinary Authority, which has not been complied with in this case, rendering the charge sheet vitiated. 3.4 The applicant contended that the charges themselves are without merit. Article 1.1 is based on adverse remarks in the Applicant's APARs, which are already under challenge before this Tribunal. These charges are retaliatory in nature, aimed at punishing the Applicant for filing earlier Original Applications. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 6 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 Article 1.2 concerns representations made by the Applicant regarding APAR gradings for 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. Mere filing of such representations cannot constitute misconduct, as the representations were legally permissible and in compliance with the directions of this Tribunal. Allegations related to Ms. Babita Chahal are baseless, and the inquiry was selective, only recording statements favorable to the subordinate while ignoring relevant witnesses. Article 1.3, relating to a criminal complaint filed by the Applicant, is also without merit. The Applicant filed the complaint in her personal capacity to safeguard her official accounts against tampering and misuse, and such filing cannot form the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings. Article II, concerning alleged complaints by colleagues, is also without basis, as the Applicant was never informed of these alleged complaints, and even if considered, they do not constitute misconduct. Allegations in Article III that the Applicant sent "avoidable" or "repetitive emails" directly to the Finance Ministry or the Office of the Cabinet Secretary are incorrect. All communications were in compliance with DOPT OMs dated 31.8.2015 and 6.6.2013 and Technical Circular ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 7 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 dated 5.8.2021. The Applicant acted in good faith to seek redressal when departmental grievances were ignored. Specific instances regarding emails dated 9.8.2024, 29.4.2024, 7.6.2024, and 2.8.2024 by colleagues Monika Sharma, Megha Sharma, Yashvi Sharma, and Karuna Sharma have been fully addressed by the Applicant, and the charges are misconceived and do not constitute misconduct. 3.5 The action of keeping the recommendation of the Selection Committee in a "sealed cover" and promoting Shri Naveen Kumar B on an officiating basis is illegal, as it relies on a meritless and unlawful charge sheet. The Applicant is entitled to have the sealed cover opened and to be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Director of Enforcement (Prosecution). In view of the foregoing, the Applicant respectfully submitted that the charge sheet dated 26.12.2024 may be quashed, that the Respondents may be directed to open the sealed cover and consider the Applicant for promotion to the post of Additional Director of Enforcement (Prosecution), and that any other order deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 8 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025
4. Opposing the relief(s), learned counsel for the respondents contended that the applicant has alleged non-compliance of Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this allegation. 4.1 On the contrary, the original file, produced pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, demonstrates that the respondents complied with all mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules while issuing the charge memorandum. The record further reveals that, prior to issuance of the charge sheet, the draft Articles of Charge along with the statement of imputations were placed before the Hon'ble Finance Minister, who, after considering the charges and the relevant material, accorded approval for issuance of the charge memorandum. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the file notings further disclose that the recommendation of the Enforcement Directorate for the initiation of departmental action, containing the proposed Articles of Charge, was processed through various levels of the administrative hierarchy for consideration and approval. The notings reflect ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 9 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 due consideration of the material relied upon in support of the Articles of Charge, as well as a request for authenticated copies of the relied-upon documents to be placed before the Disciplinary Authority. 4.3 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that it is evident from the original file, which was also produced before this Tribunal, that the Disciplinary Authority granted approval to one of the proposals put up by the Department, as specifically recorded in the handwriting of the Hon'ble Finance Minister while approving Note 23, paragraph (ii). The selective acceptance of one proposal and rejection of the other clearly indicates due application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority.
4.4 Learned counsel added that in the context of administrative approvals granted by Ministers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ropan Sahoo & Anr. v. Ananda Kumar Sharma & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 184 has held that the contents of the note-sheet, read together with the signature of the Minister, are sufficient to demonstrate application of mind. 4.5 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PCIT- 6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 10 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 651/2015, while examining the validity of administrative approval, observed that recording satisfaction in the approving authority's own handwriting was sufficient compliance with the requirement of law.
4.6 Learned counsel further argued that as regards compliance with Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the said provision mandates that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up definite and distinct Articles of Charge, along with a statement of imputations containing relevant facts, a list of documents, and a list of witnesses. A perusal of the charge memorandum dated 26.12.2024 shows that the said requirements have been duly fulfilled. The charge sheet dated 26.12.2024 has been issued by order and in the name of the President of India and is signed by Shri Rajeev Lochan, Under Secretary to the Government of India. Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India provides that orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated in the manner specified in the rules, and the validity of such orders shall not be called in question on the ground that they ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 11 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 were not personally executed by the President. In terms of the order issued by the President of India dated 16.02.2012, published in the Gazette of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs Notification S.O. 211(E), the Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002 have been notified. Under these Rules, an Under Secretary to the Government of India is duly authorised to authenticate such instruments. Accordingly, in view of Article 77(2) of the Constitution, the validity of the charge memorandum cannot be called into question on the ground of improper authentication.
5. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth, the applicant argued that the decision to initiate the inquiry and issue the charge sheet is contrary to the well-settled principles of law and natural justice, as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B. V. Gopinath (AIR 2014 SC 88). The applicant, in her submissions, contended that paragraph 12 of the written submissions filed by the respondents states that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was approved by the Hon'ble Finance Minister on 24.12.2024 under her own hand, whereas paragraph 19 states that the charge ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 12 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 memorandum dated 26.12.2024 was issued in the name of the President of India and authenticated by Shri Rajeev Lochan, Under Secretary to the Government of India. On this basis, the applicant submitted that the competent authority, Shri Ajay Seth, first obtained approval from the Hon'ble Finance Minister, being the Disciplinary Authority, and thereafter, relying upon the order dated 16.02.2012 issued under Article 77(2) of the Constitution of India, caused the charge sheet to be issued in the name of the President of India through authorised officers. 5.1 The applicant further submitted that this course of action amounts to bypassing Article 77(3) of the Constitution, which vests disciplinary powers in the Hon'ble Finance Minister, and that neither the Hon'ble President of India nor officers acting under Article 77(2) could have exercised such power in the absence of proper authorisation. On the basis of these submissions and the reply filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, the applicant asserted that the charge sheet issued to her is without valid sanction or approval of the Disciplinary Authority and alleged procedural impropriety in the issuance thereof. She submitted that these aspects deserve serious ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 13 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 consideration while adjudicating the issues relating to sanction, service, and supply of relied-upon documents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
7. ANALYSIS :
7.1 It is noteworthy that the judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2385/2024 and batch, dated 31.10.2025, was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 17172/2025 and connected matters. The Hon'ble High Court has stayed the operation of the said judgment dated 31.10.2025. Therefore, uninfluenced by the observations recorded by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2385/2024 and batch, and keeping in view the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 15988/2025 to decide the present O.A. expeditiously, we deem it appropriate to consider and adjudicate the present O.A. independently on its own merits.
7.2 We called for the original file dealing with the decision-making process before the initiation of the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 14 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 departmental inquiry, which was produced by the learned counsel for the respondents at the time of the arguments. A perusal of the said file revealed that two concurrences were submitted before the disciplinary authority, who is stated to be the Hon'ble Finance Minister. It is noted that out of the two submissions made, a concurrence was given by the Hon'ble Finance Minister to proceed with the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the initiation of major proceedings was not approved by the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Hon'ble Finance Minister is not correct on 24.12.2024.
7.3 Upon considering the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the present case pertains to a sensitive department. The applicant, as well as the respondents and their employees, deal with sensitive matters and are currently at loggerheads regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the present case, we are required to consider whether there has been any error, either in the application of the principles of natural justice or in the observance of the provisions governing departmental proceedings. ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 15 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 7.4 It is a matter of record that disciplinary proceedings, as contemplated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, comprise the following stages:
(i) Approval for the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) Application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
(iii) Placement of the draft charge sheet before the Disciplinary Authority for approval or concurrence, which, in the present case, is the Hon'ble Finance Minister.
(iv) Finalisation of the charge sheet after obtaining the approval and concurrence of the Disciplinary Authority.
(v) Appointment of the Inquiry Officer.
7.5 The applicant, who appeared in person, raised several grounds of procedural irregularity and alleged non-application of mind by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, particularly in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. B. V. Gopinath (supra). 7.6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the initiation of ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 16 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 disciplinary proceedings was duly approved by the Hon'ble Finance Minister on 24.12.2024, and that all mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, including the drafting of definite Articles of Charge, listing of documents and witnesses, and obtaining approval from the Disciplinary Authority, were fully complied with. It was submitted that the charge memorandum dated 26.12.2024 was issued in the name of the President of India and authenticated by Shri Rajeev Lochan, Under Secretary to the Government of India, in accordance with Article 77(2) of the Constitution and the Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002. The file notings reflect due application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority, including selective acceptance of proposals, and the procedure followed aligns with settled judicial principles, including those in Ropan Sahoo v. Ananda Kumar Sharma (supra) and PCIT-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), validating both approval and authentication of the charge sheet. 7.7 Further, learned counsel for the respondents laid considerable emphasis in support of the charge memorandum (comprising three Articles of Charge) and on the statement of imputations. However, at this ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 17 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 stage, the Tribunal is not concerned with examining the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by either side, as the stage for assessing the veracity of the rival claims has not yet arisen, which would tantamount to expressing an opinion on the merits of alleged charges.
7.8 The applicant's submissions, in essence, seeks the quashing of the charge memorandum on the following counts:
(i) That the charge memorandum dated 26.12.2024 is vitiated due to non-compliance with Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority did not form the requisite opinion regarding the existence of grounds for holding an inquiry prior to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) That there has been non-compliance with Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as the charge memorandum was neither approved nor issued under the signature of the competent Disciplinary Authority, rendering the charge sheet non est in law.
(iii) That the charge memorandum has been issued mechanically and without due application of mind by ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 18 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 the Disciplinary Authority, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (supra).
(iv) That the charge memorandum suffers from procedural impropriety, as the applicant was not supplied with legible and complete copies of the relied-upon documents, despite repeated requests, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
(v) That the Articles of Charge are ex facie arbitrary, malafide, and retaliatory in nature, having been initiated on the basis of matters already under challenge before this Tribunal or arising from the applicant's lawful exercise of her right to make representations and seek redressal of grievances.
(vi) That the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the consequential sealing of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, as well as the officiating promotion granted to another officer, are unsustainable in law as they are founded upon an illegal and invalid charge memorandum.
7.9 In Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024, titled State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 19 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh (2025 INSC 555), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"46. Imagine a scenario where the employer seeking to get rid of an inconvenient employee succeeds in its endeavour and dismisses him following an enquiry, flawed in itself, by relying on the report of enquiry without furnishing copy of the same to him. In such an eventuality, the dismissed employee while approaching a tribunal/court for redress has to do so without having access to the materials considered in the report. This is best exemplified by the present case where the report of enquiry has neither been furnished to the respondent nor placed on record before all the adjudicatory fora. In the absence of such access, can the delinquent employee be expected to demonstrate prejudice suffered by him? We are not sure how the burden can be discharged by the employee in such a case. This lack of access to the report would severely hamper the ability of the employee to demonstrate 'prejudice' and to build a strong case for succeeding in his challenge to the order of punishment. Besides, the lengthy legal process could be agonizing, and especially without any earning, may not only lead to financial strain and diminished resolve but could eventually end up with the employee abandoning the challenge. Drawing from experience, we understand how employers take advantage and employ methods to drag on proceedings for years and thereby ensure that through the process of 'wear and tear', the employee (if he has been either dismissed or removed from service) loses steam and, inevitably, lacking interest in the challenge effectively gets thrown out of the legal arena by forces beyond his control.
47. These are vital considerations which, in our considered opinion, need to engage the mind of every court while deciding to apply the test of 'prejudice'. In a battle between the mighty lion and the weak lamb when the former is in an overpowering position, should the courts lean in its favour and put the weak to the sword for not having demonstrated 'prejudice' when a brazen violation of the law declared by the Constitution Bench is brought to its notice?"
7.10 It is well settled that the expression "unbecoming of a government servant" is not vague, as held in ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 20 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 Mahendra Kumar v. Union of India (1984). However, the substance of the alleged complaints, as referred to in the charge memorandum, ought to have been thoroughly examined, as contended by the applicant. In the absence of any such examination or investigation, it cannot be conclusively stated at this stage that the applicant has made false, unfounded, or imaginary complaints. Since no inquiry has been conducted into the nature of the alleged complaints or their sufficiency, it is not possible to arrive at a definitive conclusion in that regard. Moreover, it is relevant to note that the alleged complaints are stated to be against certain officials who are themselves cited as witnesses in the charge memorandum. While considering a challenge to a charge memorandum, the scope of judicial intervention is limited. At this stage, the Tribunal cannot examine the merits of the alleged complaints or the counter-allegations while adjudicating upon the validity of the charge sheet. The stage of evaluating whether there is evidence or the absence of evidence has not yet arisen. At the same time, the applicant is not without remedy. The Tribunal is concerned with ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice, which mandate that ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 21 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 copies of documents, if any, relied upon against the charged officer must be supplied to her. This requirement cannot be treated as an empty formality. 7.11 We also draw reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6776 of 2022, titled The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem v. S. Arichandran & Ors., decided on 23.09.2022 wherein it was observed as under:
"At this stage, a recent decision of this Court in the case of Rajit Singh (supra), in which this Court had considered its earlier decision in the case of A. Masilamani (supra) is required to be referred to. In paragraph 15, it is observed and held as under:-
"15. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled proposition of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case."
7.12 In Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 22 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 16 as under:--
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide ECIL v. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727], Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls [(2002) 10 SCC 293], U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey [(2005) 8 SCC 264] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu [(2008) 12 SCC 30])." 6.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as the order of dismissal has been set aside on the ground that the same was in breach of principles of Natural Justice, the High Court ought to have remitted the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and to give opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer's Report."
7.13 In W.P.(C) No. 6000 of 2018, Union of India & Anr. v. Shri R. K. Nim, vide decision dated 06.11.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:--
"22. This Court, has, therefore, clearly held, echoing Gopinath, that grant of approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings is one thing and grant of approval for issuance of a chargesheet or grant of approval to the chargesheet itself is entirely another. Para 5(ii) of the note dated 2 January 2012 cannot therefore in our opinion constitute grant of approval for the chargesheet which ultimately came to be issued to the respondent. At the highest, it is only approval for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent which has been sought; nothing more.
23. Mr. Kirtiman Singh has also placed reliance on para 5(iii) of the note dated 2 January 2012 which seeks approval of the Hon'ble Minister "for taking action ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 23 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 ancillary to issue of chargesheet viz. appointment/change of IO/PO, minor corrections in the chargesheet, if any, before starting inquiry. Clearly, the approval of the Hon'ble Minister was sought, by this entry, only for taking of ancillary action for issuance of chargesheet. It cannot be treated as indicating that the draft chargesheet had itself been forwarded to the Hon'ble Minister.
24. In fact, Suresh Sharma, which is one of the judgments on which Mr. Kirtiman Singh places reliance, involved an exactly converse situation. In that case, the chargesheet had actually been approved by the Hon'ble Prime Minister. The contention by the petitioner Suresh Sharma before the Division Bench was that, though the chargesheet had been approved, the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings had not been independently approved by the Hon'ble Prime Minister. This Court held, quite unexceptionably, that once the chargesheets themselves had been approved, the fact that there may not have been, on the file, any independent approval for the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings, could not make any difference in law.
25. In view thereof, the decision in Suresh Sharma, if anything, would militate against the contention which Mr. Kirtiman Singh seeks to advance, as it again underscores the importance of the requirement of obtaining the approval of the disciplinary authority for the specific charge sheet which is proposed to be issued to the officer. The charge sheet must be put up to the disciplinary authority and she, or he, must approve it.
26. The learned Tribunal has held that this has not happened in the present case. We, having seen the file, do not see any reason to holdotherwise.
27. Having seen the file and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B V Gopinath and by this Court in Suresh Sharma, we do not find a case for interference with the judgment of the learned Tribunal within the limited parameters of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. "
7.14 There is no dispute that an employer may not be liable for unlawful acts committed by its employees where the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent such acts, which may otherwise warrant disciplinary action for misconduct. However, in the ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 24 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 present case, our concern is limited to examining whether the allegations forming the basis of the impugned memorandum of charges are justified at this stage. Effectively addressing employee complaints constitutes one such reasonable step. Employers are often required to deal with complaints relating to alleged prohibited conduct arising between members of staff. Potential conflicts can be mitigated by identifying issues at an early stage and attempting to resolve them through non-confrontational means, such as engaging in dialogue with the persons concerned. Encouraging effective communication across hierarchical levels is essential to understand the underlying causes of such conflicts. Employers are also expected to have effective procedures in place for redressal of grievances where informal mechanisms fail. At the same time, actions taken by superiors in the discharge of their official duties should not, by themselves, amount to victimisation. Victimisation occurs when a person is treated less favourably as a result of being involved in allegations of discrimination or harassment. Forms of victimisation may include, but are not limited to:
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 25 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025
(i) being labelled a troublemaker
(ii) being left out
(iii) not being allowed to do something Victimisation refers to the infliction of a detriment on an individual because they have performed, or intend to perform, a "protected act,"
such as making a complaint of discrimination or harassment to the appropriate authorities. It arises when an individual exercises a legal right under employment or service laws, and the employer or superior takes a negative action against them in retaliation. Such acts of victimisation are unlawful. It is also well settled that a higher standard of proof applies to the employee in establishing the causal link between their protected action and the adverse action taken by the employer.
7.15 In the article titled "A Pro-Employee Supreme Court?: The Retaliation Decisions" by Michael J.
Zimmer (South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 60, pp. 949- 950, 2009), it has been observed as follows:
"If an employer faces no liability for retaliation, that creates a strong incentive for the employer to either promulgate a policy or follow a practice of discharging every employee who complains. That approach essentially shelters the employer from liability for all ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 26 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 underlying discrimination claims, short of a claim that the employer discharged the employee because of discrimination.The employer could further insulate itself even from claims of discriminatory discharge by claiming that retaliation was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the discharge. This is in line with, but is an even more extreme form of, the prophylactic rule that some lower courts have implemented that only allows claims of discrimination to proceed to trial that involve such "ultimate employment" decisions as discharge."
"( See : Crawford v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, No. 06-1595, January 26, 2009 ,The Court reasoned that the attraction of an Ellerth-Faragher affirmative defense--that an employer is vicariously liable for workplace discrimination under certain circumstances, unless the employer can show that it has "exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any" discriminatory conduct and that the employee "unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer"--provides a strong incentive to employers to ferret out and put a stop to any discriminatory activity in their operations. Such incentive the Court believes will not be diminished by its ruling) Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton.(emphasised)"
7.16 In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed situations where only relatively indirect evidence is available to show that an employment action was discriminatory in nature, and laid down the test regarding the burden of proof. The McDonnell Douglas framework establishes that, in an employment discrimination case:
(i) The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 27 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025
(ii) The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates.
(iii) The plaintiff must then be afforded a fair opportunity to present facts to show an inference of discrimination. The plaintiff may do so either by showing that the defendant's explanation is insufficient and only a pretext for discrimination or by otherwise proving that the defendant's actions used one of the listed unlawful discriminatory parameters. 7.17 In the article titled "The Three R's of Anti- Harassment" by Heidi M. Hanley, The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, the author discusses the concepts of "Recourse," "Relief," and "Ramifications." The article further highlights that it is well settled that harassment, whether sexual or non- sexual, constitutes a form of discrimination under federal employment law when it occurs in, or bears a nexus to, the workplace. Harassment is defined as unwelcome conduct based on a protected status or activity, and it becomes unlawful where:
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 28 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025
1. Enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment; or
2. The conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.
It is noted, however, that there is no equivalent statutory code or legal framework addressing this issue in India.
7.18 In the Indian context, Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provides the procedure to be followed for the imposition of major penalties.
7.19 Once a charge sheet has been issued, Rule 14(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 contemplates that the Disciplinary Authority shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the government servant:
1. A copy of the articles of charge;
2. A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; and
3. A list of documents and witnesses proposed to be relied upon in support of each article of charge.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 29 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 7.20. The government servant is required to submit, within the time specified, a written statement of defence and indicate whether they wish to be heard in person. Further, under Rule 14(5)(a), on receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge that are not admitted, or, if considered necessary, appoint an Inquiry Officer under sub-rule (2) for that purpose. The question as to whether Rule 14(5)(a) permits the Disciplinary Authority to drop charges after examining the written statement of defence under Rule 14(4) has been clarified in consultation with the Ministry of Law, as follows:
(a) The Disciplinary Authority has the inherent power to review, modify, or drop some or all of the charges after considering the written statement of defence submitted by the accused government servant under Rule 14(4).
(b) The Disciplinary Authority is not obliged to appoint an Inquiry Officer to inquire into charges which, based on the written statement of defence, it is satisfied no further action is necessary.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 30 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 7.21 We do not find any error insofar as the grant of approval for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Hon'ble Minister is concerned. However, applying the above observations and ratio, while addressing challenges to the memorandum of charges based on the decision-making process at the stage of initiating the departmental inquiry, without touching upon the merits of the charge memo itself, we are concerned with the following points for consideration:
Whether the grant of approval for the issuance of the charge sheet, or approval of the charge sheet itself, by the Hon'ble Minister was proper. Whether the Hon'ble Minister was duly briefed and had knowledge of pending litigation before the Apex Court, the High Court, and this Tribunal between the applicant and the Department.
Whether the alleged complaints by the applicant and any counter-allegations were brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Minister, and whether the allegations of discrimination raised by the applicant were addressed or considered while approving the charge sheet.
ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 31 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 Whether any alleged complaints or counter-
complaints have been proven to be false. Whether the documents relied upon in support of the charge memo were duly supplied to the applicant.
Whether the appointment of the Inquiry Officer received the approval of the Disciplinary Authority (as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents while referring to the case after reserving judgment).
7.22 We also take note of the preliminary objections raised by the respondents in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court. In this context, the filing of the Original Application was premature, as the applicant had chosen not to respond to the impugned charge sheet. As noted above, in view of the settled rule position, both parties are not without remedy, since the matter remains sub -judice before this Tribunal and no written defense has yet been filed by the applicant. It is therefore imperative that the applicant submit her written defense to the alleged charge memo to the Disciplinary Authority ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 32 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 within a reasonable period of time, taking all such pleas on merits urged by her before us. 7.23 Further, insofar as the OA is concerned, the objections that it is not maintainable with regard to the multiple reliefs sought. We may say that the consideration of promotion cannot be viewed as dependent solely on the pendency of the challenge to the charge memo, which we have primarily addressed.
Other relevant factors, such as eligibility under the Recruitment Rules, service record, vigilance clearance, the stage of departmental proceedings, the adoption of the sealed cover procedure, and consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee, are also to be taken into account. At this stage, the applicant's claim to promotion is merely consequential or incidental; since we are not quashing the charge memo, the other reliefs sought are premature.
7.24 We further note that the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has been impleaded as a respondent, despite no relief being sought against it. At this juncture, their inclusion is neither necessary nor appropriate. It is also pertinent to observe that we are primarily concerned with the administrative ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 33 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 decision-making process. The principles of natural justice require that technical pleas should not obstruct the Tribunal from issuing appropriate directions within its scope of judicial intervention. 7.25 To sum up, The adjudication of legal issues pertaining to sensitive departments like the present one involves a more metaphorical task for the judges.
"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant.....,"
--William Shakespeare, As You Like It
8. CONCLUSION :
8.1. We therefore dispose of the present original application with the following directions:
8.2. The applicant shall file her written defense, along with an application seeking specific documents from the respondents within thirty days of the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
8.3. Upon submission of the written defense, the Disciplinary Authority shall, after providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing, pass a ANKIT ANKIT SAKLANI SAKLA 2026.02.05 14:41:07 NI +05'30' 34 Item No. 39 (C-4) O.A. No.1117/2025 speaking order(s) on the points enumerated in para 7.21, in accordance with Rule 14(5)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, deciding whether to review, modify, or drop some or all of the charges.
8.4. Until the passing of such speaking order(s), the charge memorandum and any action thereunder shall be kept in abeyance.
8.5. The Original Application is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
8.6. Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
'as'
ANKIT ANKIT
SAKLANI
SAKLA 2026.02.05
14:41:07
NI +05'30'