Telangana High Court
Dr. C.S.P. Rao vs Government Of India on 17 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.29066 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the impugned Article of Charges vide Memo NO.NITW/BoG/Disc./ID- 471/2023/3387, dated 24.1.2023 NIT Warangal issued by the 2nd respondent for holding inquiry against the Petitioner &Consequent appointment of Inquiring Authority in Lr.No.IO/CSPR/02, dt. 1st October, 2024 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently setaside the 2nd respondent's Article of Charges vide Memo NO.NITW/BoG/Disc./ID- 471/2023/3387, dated 24.1.2023 NIT Warangal& Consequent appointment of Inquiring Authority in Lr.No.IO/CSPR/01, dt. 1st October, 2024 and pass..."
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1 The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in the Regional Engineering College at Warangal (re-
structured as National Institute of Technology (NIT) Warangal in 2002) on 19.03.1990, and was elevated as Associate Professor on 04.01.2003 and Professor on 26.10.2006. While working as such, in pursuance of the Notification issued by the NIT, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was appointed as Director on a contractual basis for a period of five years vide MHRD letter dated 12.03.2018. Accepting the said offer letter, the 2 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 petitioner requested to relieve him from NIT, Warangal, on 14.03.2018, and subsequently, he has given an undertaking/affidavit of joining as Director, NIT, A.P., on deputation basis, on 19.03.2018.
2.2. While the matter stood thus, the ACB officials registered two cases against the petitioner vide FIR.No.RC0362022A0011 and RC0362022A0012, both dated 16.02.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 7, 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the borrowing Institution i.e., NIT, A.P. vide order dated 30.03.2022. Thereafter, a One-Man Committee was constituted by the Visitor, which submitted its report on 02.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner's suspension was revoked on 22.09.2022, and on 23.09.2022, his services as Director of NIT, A.P., were terminated by the Visitor, directing the petitioner to report at this parent Institution.
2.3 Assailing the said order dated 23.09.2022, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31659 of 2022 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, wherein, the High Court has granted interim suspension of suspension order vide order dated 18.10.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 therein. Subsequently, on 23.11.2022, the High Court has issued a 3 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 clarification to the interim order dated 18.10.2022, in I.A.No.2 of 2022, to the extent that the respondents would be at liberty to initiate any disciplinary proceedings without giving effect to the impugned order therein. As such, in supersession of the order dated 23.09.2022, the Visitor issued a revised termination order dated 06.12.2022, as per Clause-13 of the Contract of Service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition vide W.P.No.39669 of 2022, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of both the writ petitions vide common order dated 08.12.2022, directing the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner from 23.09.2022 to 06.12.2022 as valid with all consequential benefits.
2.4 Thereafter, on 12.12.2022, the petitioner was relieved from the services at NIT, A.P., with instructions to report at his parent Institution i.e., NIT, Warangal, and in compliance of the same, on 14.12.2022, the petitioner reported to duty at NIT, Warangal. While so, the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 27.03.2023, in view of the incidents that occurred during the petitioner's tenure as Director at NIT, A.P. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9464 of 2023 before this Court and this Court granted interim direction as prayed for vide order dated 06.04.2023, suspending the operation of the suspension order dated 27.03.2023. 4
PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 Subsequently, on 24.11.2023, respondent No.2 herein issued the impugned charge memo vide No.NITW/BoG/Disc./ID-471/2023/3387, leveling nine articles of charge against the petitioner, and later, appointed respondent No.3 as the enquiry officer vide letter No.IO/CSPR/01 dated 01.10.2024, to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Challenging the charge memo dated 24.11.2023 and the order of appointment of enquiry officer dated 01.10.2024, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri P. Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M.P. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Professor in NIT, Warangal, (respondent No.2 Institution), the Director, who lacks jurisdiction as in- charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors, had placed the petitioner under suspension vide order No.NITW/Vig./ID.471/2023/5011 dated 27.03.2023 by exercising the powers conferred under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, r/w. Statute 26 of the First Statute of NITs, basing on the Board of Governors' resolution dated 24.02.2023, by referring to two criminal 5 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 cases registered against the petitioner by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Andhra Pradesh in the year 2018. It was further submitted that only after seven months of placing the petitioner under suspension, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo.No.NITW/BOG/DISC./ID/471/2023/3387 dated 24.11.2023, alleging that the Board of Governors resolved to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 20 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
4.2. It was further submitted that upon receiving the impugned Articles of Charge dated 24.11.2023, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 01.12.2023, requesting to supply the relevant information/documents and further sought for extension of time for submission of his defense statement. However, instead of providing the requisite documents, respondent No.2, in utter violation of principles of natural justice, issued a Memo dated 06.12.2023, directing the petitioner submit his explanation by 11.12.2023, without fail, specifically requiring an admission or denial of each charge. In response to the same, the petitioner once again submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.2 on 11.12.2023, reiterating his request to provide the necessary documents for submission of a comprehensive and truthful reply to each charge, and categorically denying all the allegations. However, without considering the said 6 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 representation, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings vide Lr.No.IO/CSPR/01 dated 01.10.2024, appointing respondent No.3 as the enquiry officer, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the entire process of initiation and continuation of departmental proceedings was undertaken by the Board of Governors of NIT, Warangal, and the current Director, who is also functioning as in-charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors, himself initiated action and served the Article of Charge against the petitioner by appointing a one-man Committee, thereby, resulting in the absence of an independent decision.
4.3. It was further submitted that allegations against the petitioner pertain to his services at NIT, A.P., while he worked as the Director of the said Institution. Therefore, it was contended that any proceedings arising out of the incidents that occurred during his services at the said period could only be initiated by the competent authority of that Institution, i.e., NIT, A.P., that too, with the prior approval of the Visitor. Further, the present Director of NIT, Warangal, has no jurisdiction or authority to constitute an enquiry committee in respect of the petitioner's services as Director of NIT, A.P., even though the petitioner is a permanent employee of NIT, Warangal. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 is acting as in-charge Chairperson of 7 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 the Board of Governors of NIT, Warangal, without any valid order, and also not as per the Statutes and NIT-SER Act.
4.4. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 issued the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo dated 24.11.2023, and appointed an enquiry officer vide order dated 01.10.2024, without the consent/approval of the Visitor, which, in itself, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice. Further, the criminal cases registered against the petitioner by the CBI, A.P., are sub judice before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, while the matter is pending before the said Court, there cannot be any similar set of allegations to be enquired into by respondent No.2, who has no authority of jurisdiction to do so. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo dated 24.11.2023 and the order of appointment of the enquiry officer dated 01.10.2024.
4.5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
8
PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 i. P.V. Srinivasa Sastry and Ors. v. Comptroller and Auditor General and Ors. 1 ii. G. Krishnam Raju v. Smt. K.A. Parvathi 2 iii. Prof. R.G. Chouskey v. Union of India and Ors. 3 iv. B.N. Dhotrad v. Board of Directors-cum-Appellate Authority, Karnataka Land Army Corporation Limited 4.
5.1. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that respondent No.2, being the competent appointing and disciplinary authority as per Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, has issued the impugned Articles of Charge dated 24.11.2023, proposing to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Since the petitioner had denied the said charges, respondent No.3 was appointed as the enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 01.10.2024, to enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner, as per the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Further, as per Rule 9 of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007, (for short, 'the NIT-SER Act'), the President of India shall be the Visitor of every NIT. As per Rule 17(1), the Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Visitor. As per 1 (1993) 1 SCC 419 2 1991 (2) ALT 127 (S.B.) 3 Order dated 17.08.2023 in W.P.No.8994 of 2017 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) 4 2006 LawSuit (Kar) 479 9 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 Rule 24, all appointments of staff of every NIT, except that of the Director, shall be made by the Board of Governors in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes.
5.2. It was further submitted that based on the recommendations of a Selection Committee and the approval of the Visitor, the petitioner was offered the post of Director, NIT, A.P., for a period of five years purely on tenure basis vide letter of appointment dated 12.03.2018, and the petitioner had accepted the said offer vide letter dated 14.03.2018, requesting to depute him to NIT, A.P., for his joining. The petitioner had also submitted an undertaking dated 19.03.2018. He was relieved from NIT, Warangal, vide order dated 21.03.2018, and assumed the charge of the post of Director at NIT, A.P., on 22.03.2018. It was further submitted that while the petitioner was working as the Director of NIT, A.P., there were allegations of financial corruption against him, and two criminal cases were registered against him by the officials of CBI-ACB Vishakapatnam, vide FIR Nos.RC0362022A0012 and RC0362022A0011, both dated 16.02.2022. Therefore, as per Rules 10(1) and 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the borrowing authority, i.e., NIT, A.P., vide order dated 29.03.2022, initially for a period of 90 days, and the said suspension was later extended from 27.06.2022 for 10 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 another 90 days. Subsequently, the petitioner's suspension was revoked on 22.09.2022, and consequent upon the approval of the Visitor, an order of termination was issued to the petitioner on 23.09.2022, directing him to join at his parent Institution, i.e., NIT, Warangal, and to initiate regular departmental action against the petitioner as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, as it was not practicable for NIT, A.P., to initiate any disciplinary proceedings against its own Director, who is the sitting head of the Institution, as the same causes irreparable damage to the prestige of the Institution and affects its academic activities.
5.3. It was further submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.31659 of 2022 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, challenging the termination order dated 23.09.2022, and the Court granted interim stay of the termination order on 18.10.2022. Thereafter, on 23.11.2022, the Court clarified that the respondents were at liberty to initiate any proceedings against the petitioner without giving effect to the said termination order. Accordingly, in supersession of the earlier termination order dated 23.09.2022, a termination simplicitor order dated 06.12.2022 was issued. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the termination order dated 06.12.2022, was issued with a mala fide intention to see that the petitioner is sent to his parent 11 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 Institution to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner is preposterous, false and baseless, as his contract was terminated in terms of Clause 13 of the contract of service.
5.4. It was further submitted that the petitioner was repatriated to NIT, Warangal, and is continuing in the cadre of Professor. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case, and considering the misconduct borne on record, it was resolved by the competent authority, i.e., the Board of Governors, in its special meeting held on 27.03.2023, to place the petitioner under suspension, and the Board has also resolved to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.03.2023. However, challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.9464 of 2023 before this Court, and this Court, vide order dated 06.04.2023, in I.A.No.1 of 2023 therein, granted interim suspension of the suspension order. A detailed counter affidavit and vacate stay petition has been filed in the aforementioned writ petition, and the same is still pending.
5.5. It was further submitted that the petitioner was issued with the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.11.2023, framing nine Articles of Charge with detailed statements of imputation of misconduct. In response, the petitioner sent a letter dated 01.12.2023, seeking 12 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 additional documents to submit his explanation, and he was later informed, vide letter dated 06.12.2023, that his admission or denial of charges should be based on the documents listed in Annexure-II to the Charge Memo, and that he will have an opportunity of seeking the supply of additional documents for his defense, at the appropriate point of time. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents did not heed to his request of furnishing additional documents is misleading and incorrect. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter dated 11.12.2023, categorically denying all the charges.
5.6. It was further submitted that a termination simplicitor order dated 06.12.2022 was issued in supersession of the earlier termination order dated 23.09.2022, as per the terms of the contract of service. However, neither the order of suspension dated 27.03.2023 nor the impugned Charge Memo dated 27.11.2023 are based on the termination order dated 23.09.2022, and that the petitioner had not been exonerated of the alleged misconduct by any of the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It was further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner as per Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, by the Board of Governors, NIT, Warangal, and respondent No.2 herein, who is the competent appointing-cum- disciplinary authority. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that 13 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 the present Director and in-charge Chairperson of Board of Governors has unilaterally initiated the enquiry and appointed a One-Man Committee are false and baseless.
5.7. It was further submitted that the Board of Governors, in its 59th meeting held on 24.02.2023, has unanimously resolved to initiate regular departmental action against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with the impugned Articles of Charge dated 24.11.2023. Further, in its 66th meeting on 18.06.2024, the Board of Governors has resolved to appoint respondent No.3 as the enquiry officer. As such, he was appointed as the enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 06.08.2024, and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 01.10.2024, duly calling him to attend the enquiry on 22.10.2024. It was further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that since he was relieved from NIT, A.P., and repatriated to NIT, Warangal, no further action is to be taken on his work at NIT, A.P., by the Director, Warangal, is also false and misleading, as the disciplinary authority of the lending authority only has the right to initiate disciplinary action against its employee as per Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Thus, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned Articles of Charge and the impugned letter, intimating the petitioner of the scheduled enquiry proceedings. It was further submitted that the 14 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 very purpose of the charge memo is to enquiry into the alleged misconduct. As such, the petitioner has no reason to challenge the same as none of his rights are infringed. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. In support, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India relief on the following decisions:
i. Union of India and another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 5 ii. Shiv Parshad Pandey v. C.B.I. 6 iii. B.L. Satyarthi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another 7 iv. K. Kanagasabapathy v. City Supply Officer, Civil Supplied Department and Ors. 8 v. N.D. Tyagi v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 9
6. This Court has taken note of the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.
7. A perusal of the record discloses that during his tenure as the Director of NIT, A.P., he was placed under suspension on 30.03.2022, in view of registration of two criminal cases registered by the CBI-ACB, Vishakapatnam, against the petitioner, vide FIR Nos.RC0362022A0012 and RC0362022A0011, both dated 16.02.2022, by invoking the powers 5 (2006) 12 SCC 28 6 AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1974 7 2015 (1) MP LJ 153 8 1977 LawSuit (Mad) 297 9 2022 LawSuit (Del) 1956 15 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 conferred under Section 9(2) of the NIT-SER Act. Subsequently, a one-
man committee was constituted by the Visitor to enquire into the allegations, which submitted its report on 02.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner's suspension was revoked, and on 23.09.2022, his services as Director of NIT, A.P., were terminated by the Visitor. Subsequently, in supersession of the order dated 23.09.2022, the Visitor issued a revised termination order dated 06.12.2022, as per Clause-13 of the Contract of Service, terminating the services of the petitioner. On 12.12.2022, the petitioner was relieved from the services at NIT, A.P., with instructions to report at his parent Institution i.e., NIT, Warangal, and in compliance of the same, on 14.12.2022, the petitioner reported to duty as NIT, Warangal. The petitioner was placed under suspension by NIT, Warangal, on 27.03.2023, for the very same incidents that occurred during his tenure as Director, NIT, A.P. This Court, vide order dated 06.04.2023 in W.P.No.9464 of 2023, granted interim suspension of the said suspension order.
8. Thereafter, on 24.11.2023, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Articles of Charge, and on 01.10.2024, issued the impugned proceedings of appointment of respondent No.3 as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner.
16
PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024
9. The main points that arise for consideration of this Court are as follows:
i. Whether the lending authority (NIT, Warangal) or the borrowing authority (NIT, A.P.) is competent to initiate disciplinary action against the employee for the incident occurred during his deputation at the borrowing place?
ii. Whether respondent No.2, in his capacity as Director and in-
charge Chairperson of Board of Governors of NIT, Warangal, has jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing the impugned proceedings?
10. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to Statutes 24(v) and 26 of the First Statute of Statutes of NITs, which clearly specify the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to the employees of the NITs. To address the first issue, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which deals with initiation of disciplinary action against a government servant on deputation or foreign Service. The said Rule is extracted hereunder.
"20. Provisions regarding officers lent to State Governments, etc. (1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to a State Government or an 17 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as " the borrowing authority"), the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him:
Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this rule referred to as "the lending authority") of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding, as the case may be.
(2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceeding conducted against the Government servant-
(i) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it may, after consultation with the lending authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary:
Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the borrowing authority and the lending authority, the services of the Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority;
(ii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the inquiry and thereupon the lending authority may, if it is the disciplinary authority, pass such order thereon as it may deem necessary, or, if it is not the disciplinary authority, submit the case to the disciplinary authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary :
Provided that before passing any such order the disciplinary authority shall comply with the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 15."
EXPLANATION - The disciplinary authority may make an order under this clause on the record of the inquiry transmitted to it by the borrowing authority or after holding such further inquiry as it may deem necessary, as far as may be, in accordance with rule 14.18
PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024
11. From the aforesaid Rule, it is quite clear that while the borrowing authority may initiate proceedings and impose minor penalties under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11, major penalties under clauses (v) to (ix) can only be imposed by the lending authority. It is also clear that once the deputation ends and the employee is repatriated to his the parent institution, the lending authority holds the absolute jurisdiction to initiate departmental action against the delinquent.
12. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in B.L. Satyarthi (supra), wherein, the Division Bench elaborately interpreted Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, which is per se analogous to the Rule 20 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"12. Rule 20 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh and reproduced hereinabove gives power to the borrowing department to take disciplinary action against a Government servant who is on deputation and the powers to the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority are conferred on the borrowing department. The Rule contemplates that the borrowing department shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing the government servant under suspension and for taking disciplinary action against him but the proviso contemplates that the action taken has to be forthwith communicated to the parent Department. When power is given to any authority to suspend a Government servant or initiate disciplinary action against him an assumption has to be drawn that the power can be exercised so long as the relationship of master and servant, employer and employee subsists or the contract of employment is in existence. Once the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee or the contract of service itself comes to an end, the question would be as to how 19 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 disciplinary action or power to suspend can be exercised by an authority with whom the contract of employment of the employee concerned is no more in existence. Rule 20 therefore, has to be interpreted by holding that the power conferred under Rule 20 to the borrowing department or authority to suspend a Government servant or to take a disciplinary action against him can be exercised only if the relationship of master and servant or the contract of employment between the borrowing department and the deputationist employee subsists. When an employee who is a government servant and holds a lien in a Government department is sent on deputation to Foreign Department or a Corporation, then during the period of deputation a temporary contract of service is brought into force between the borrowing department and the employee concerned and so long as its contract of employment subsists the borrowing department can invoke the provision of Rule 20 but once the employee is repatriated back to the foreign department then the contract of employment temporarily created during the period of deputation ceases and if that be the position, then the borrowing department does not have any authority to take action against the employee concerned. Apart from the above a perusal of Rule 20(2) and the proviso to Rule 20(2)(i) and (iii) also clarifies the position. After the departmental proceeding initiated by the Borrowing Department is completed and the finding of enquiry is recorded, in the light of the finding if the Borrowing Department wants to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 10, then after consultation with the lending department the punishment can be imposed. However, the proviso to Rule 20(2)(i) indicates that if there is any difference of opinion between the Borrowing Department and lending department that the service of the employee has to be replaced at the disposal of the lending department. This clearly shows that action under these Rules can be taken only when the employee is on deputation not otherwise as the stipulation in proviso to Rule 20(2)(i) speaks about replacement of the employee to the lending department. Similarly in Rule 20(2)(i) and proviso thereto also it is clearly provided that if the punishment to be imposed is a major punishment as provided in Rule 10(v) to
(ix), then the employee has to be replaced to the lending department and it is only the lending department which can take action. The stipulation in this part of the rule for replacement of the employee to the parent department clearly indicates the intention of the rule maker. In case Rule 20 was applicable to a employee who is already repatriated to the parent (lending) department then the provision for replacement of the employee to the lending department as contained in both the provisos to Rule 20(2)(i)(iii) would not provide for replace the service of the government employee to the lending department.
This in our considered view would be the interpretation which can be given to the powers that may be exercised by the borrowing department under Rule 20."
(Emphasis supplied) 20 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024
13. Thus, it is evident that once the services of the petitioner as Director, NIT, A.P., were terminated by the Visitor on 06.12.2022, and he has returned to his substantive post as Professor at NIT, Warangal, on 14.12.2022, the temporary contract of service between the petitioner and NIT, A.P., ceases to exist. As a result, NIT, Warangal, being the parent Institution, has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner.
14. Coming to the second point for consideration, i.e., the competence of respondent No.2, in his capacity of the Director and in-charge of the Board of Governors of NIT Warangal, for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged acts of misconduct committed during his tenure as Director of NIT, A.P., on deputation, it is relevant to refer to Section 24 of the National Institutes of Technology (Science, Education and Research) Act, 2007, which deals with the appointment of employees in the NITs. The relevant portion of the said Section is extracted hereunder:
"All appointments of the staff of every Institute, except that of the Director, shall be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Statutes, by:
• (a) the Board, if the appointment is made on the academic staff in the post of Lecturer or above or if the appointment is made on the non-academic staff in any cadre the maximum of the pay scale for which exceeds rupees ten thousand five hundred;21
PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 • (b) the Director, in any other case."
15. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner herein, after termination of his deputation as Director of NIT, A.P., has been repatriated to NIT, Warangal, and is working in the cadre of Professor. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the appointing authority is often the disciplinary authority, especially in the cases warranting imposition of major penalties. As such, since the Board of Governors is the appointing authority of the petitioner herein, respondent No.2 is the competent authority to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner.
16. It is relevant to refer to Statute 17(15) of the First Statute of NITs, which is extracted hereunder:
"(15) In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of the Chairperson by reason of his death, resignation or otherwise or in the event of the Chairperson being unable to discharge his functions owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the Director may discharge the functions assigned to the Chairperson under section 16 of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. It is thus clear from the above statute that in the event of non- availability of the Chairperson, the Director may act as the in-charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors to perform the duties of the Chairperson as per section 16 of the NIT-SER Act, 2007. Admittedly, at 22 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, the position of Chairperson of the Board of Governors was vacant. As such, the Director of NIT, Warangal, is statutorily vested with the authority to act as in-charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 acted as in- charge Chairperson of the Board of Governors without prior approval from the Visitor is untenable, mainly in the light of automatic vesting of powers under the Statute. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the judgments relied on by the petitioner are of no avail to him.
18. Furthermore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned Articles of Charge issued by respondent No.2. Here it is pertinent to note that in a catena of judgments, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court held a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet as the writ petition may be held to be premature at this stage. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra), categorically held as follows:
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC 639] , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , etc. 23 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024
14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.
16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Similarly, in Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 10(2012) 11 SCC 565 24 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1 SCC 327] , Ulagappa v. Commr. [(2001) 10 SCC 639 : AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2)] , Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC 1467] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] .)
11. In State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra [(2010) 13 SCC 311 :
(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 380] (SCC pp. 315-16, para 10) this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that to determine correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. (See also Union of India v. Upendra Singh [(1994) 3 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 768 : (1994) 27 ATC 200]).]
12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is at a premature stage, and therefore, is not maintainable. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
21. However, in view of the fact that the present disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are based on the similar set of allegations as were leveled in the criminal cases registered him, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Capt. 25 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024 M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines 11, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents not to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the impugned Articles of Charge vide Memo.No.NITW/BoG/Disc./ID-471/2023/3387 dated 28.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2, till the conclusion of criminal proceedings in FIR Nos.RC0362022A0012 and RC0362022A0011, both dated 16.02.2022, pending on the file of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vishakapatnam.
22. Subject to the above observations/direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
23. After the above order has been pronounced in the open Court, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents, submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, a departmental enquiry against the petitioner was duly conducted and concluded by the competent authority.
24. Having regard to the above made submission, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11 (1999) 3 SCC 679 26 PK, J W.P.No.29066 of 2024
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 17.04.2025.
GSP