Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Dr Kanishka Das vs Aiims on 18 December, 2025
1
OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00053 of 2025
Reserved on 17.12.2025 Pronounced on : 18.12.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Dr. Kanishka Das, aged about 58 years, S/o Dr. Bhabani
Sankar Das, At- Chitrakala, Jhanjirimangala, Cuttack-753009.
..... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Health &
Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011.
2. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Represented through
its Director, Sijua, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar-751019.
3. Deputy Director-Administration, All India Institute of
Medical Sciences, Sijua, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar-751019.
.....Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. Subir Palit, S.S. Dash, Counsels
For the Respondents : Ms. S.B. Das, Counsel
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30'
2
OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The fact of the matter is that while the applicant was working as Professor and HoD Unit-1, Department of Paediatric Surgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, respondent No.2 under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 issued Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2021 (A/7) series which is a show cause notice to the applicant to submit his reply to this show cause within 10 days from the date of receipt of this OM. Being aggrieved with the above show cause notice applicant moved this Bench by filing O.A. No.129/2021. This Bench vide order dated 12.03.2021 disposed of the above O.A. by passing the following order;
" We have considered the rival submissions of respective parties. The fact that Dr. Jindal, one of the members in the preliminary committee, was junior to the Applicant is of no much importance at this stage because D.r Jindal is not working in the place where the applicant is posted. Therefore, his inclusion in the committee cannot vitiate the fact findings preliminary report of the committee. It is further submitted that Dr. B.B.Tripathy is biased against the applicant and therefore, he should not have been included as member in the committee in question. The allegation is not based on record. Mere conjecture and surmises is of no importance. We do not know whether the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 3 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 applicant would be able to proof the same before the competent authority. Mere recommendation or observation of the preliminary fact finding committee cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that the entire proceeding will be vitiated and there is no sufficient ground for interference by the Tribunal at this stage because no prima facie ground is found that justice will not be done to the applicant and that he will not be given fair opportunity of hearing by the authority concerned. Rather we find sufficient force on the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondents that on consideration of the reply, it may so happen that the authority may choose not to further proceed in the matter. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, it is expected that the Respondents after considering the relevancy and necessity of the documents sought for by the Applicant in Annexure- A/12, may supply the documents to the Applicant as per Rules/law."
2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that being aggrieved with the above order of this Bench, applicant moved before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa by filing W.P.(C ) No.14616 of 2021. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 04.10.2024 passed the following order:
"10. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the show-cause notice dated 04.02.2021 so also any illegality in the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack under Annexure-10 and therefore, it would not be appropriate and incumbent to disturb the statutory Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 4 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 procedure and to superficially interfere at the fag end of the disciplinary proceeding.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the petitioner has been provided full opportunity i9n the entire disciplinary proceeding or on the merits of the disciplinary proceeding and the findings of such proceeding shall obviously be based on the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties.
With the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim orders passed earlier stand vacated."
3. It is stated by the applicant that, after the dismissal of the above W.P(C ) by the Hon'ble High Court, Respondent No.2 issued Memorandum dated 17.12.2021 (A/12) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, in respect of article of charges which is reproduced below:
Annexure-1 "Statement of article of charges framed against Dr. Kanishka Das, Professor, Department of Paodlatric Surgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.
Article of Charge That the said Dr. Kanishka Das, while functioning as HoD of the Department of Paediatric Surgery, AllMS, Bhubaneswar during the period from 26th March, 2018 to 15th May, 2020 and as a Professor in the same Department thereafter has failed in allocating responsibilities and clinical works within the department among its faculty members in Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 5 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 the best interest of the Institute. Since the day of his joining as the Prof & HoD, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Dr. Kanishka Das has falled to engage Dr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, the second senior most faculty member allocating responsibility and clinical work with the Department, Dr. Das questioned the competence and the commitment of Dr. Mohanty towards the clinical outcome, patient care and administrative duties. Dr. Das had severe doubts about the competencies of other faculty members of the Department. Due to this irrational belief, he felt that he is the only competent person. As the HoD, it was his and only his responsibility to uphold patient care and teaching in the Department. The Competent Authority had counselled him that there might be many ways of managing a patient and that what Dr. Das thinks is the only right way, may not be the only right way. Despite counselling by the Competent Authority, he had continued in the same way and refused to mend his conduct. Citing high moral and ethical grounds, Dr. Das has breached the fundamental working ethos and had been making rounds and counselling patients and their attendants even of the other units. He had been deciding all admission, all OT list and scrubbing for all cases. This prevented other faculty from getting independent surgical work and left the trainee high and dry as the third assistant in surgical procedures. Dr. Kanishka Das has even made adverse comments and written alternate treatment plans in the patients case-records all these things he had done in the absence of treating unit faculty and he had imposed clinical decisions regarding surgery and management on other faculty. He also faulted them on every step at times In an unparliamentary manner in front of other colleagues and juniors. This caused much consternation amongst the junior faculty of the department. Such repeated episode has led to the severe undermining of their Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 6 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 self-esteem and their standing in the eyes of other staff in the wards and also colleagues of other departments. This persistent adverse behaviour of Dr. Das whether in the wards, OTs or during rounds and standard teaching programmes of the department had led to faculty members trying to shun these activities to avoid any confrontation with him. This had severely affected the cohesive working environment of academic and training programme within the department and other common forums of the Institute like mortality and morbidity meetings, tumour boards and seminars. Dr. Das had repeatedly misbehaved with faculty members of many departments and had humiliated them in front of other juniors and the staff. This had led many of them not wanting to communicate with him and creates difficulty in inter- departmental working. He also got indulged in various acts of unbecoming conduct which were not expected from the Head of a Department causing serious effect on smooth functioning of the Department.
Thus, Dr. Kanishka Das, Professor, Department of Paediatric Surgery, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is responsible for gross misconduct. He has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Institute, thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the employees of the Institute."
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that, the memo of charges as at Annexure-A/12 is violative of the AIIMS Regulations 2019 and contrary to the paramount duty imposed on the doctors to discharge their utmost duty of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 7 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 treating patients by the Fundamental Right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution as per law laiddown by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors v. B.V. Gopinath as reported in (2014) 1 SCC 35 and the mandate of the AIIMS Regulations 2019. The impugned memo of charges has been issued by the Director without the approval of the governing body though the Director is not the Disciplinary Authority to issue such memo of charge as per the relevant AIIMS Regulations, 2019. Thus, the impugned order as at Annexure A/12 is in violation of the Clause (i) & (ii) of Schedule- II of Regulation 33 of the AIIMS Regulations and thus being illegal and liable to be set-aside. The extract of the Clause(i) & (ii) of Schedule- II of Regulation 33 of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019 is reproduced below:
(i) Authorisation 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 state this fact. Phrases like "By order of the Governing Body" or "the President" or the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 8 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 "approval by the Governing Body" or the "President" can be used on such documents.
(ii) Since the Governing Body meeting are fixed at intervals, the Chairman of the Governing Body is authorised to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees of Group A and faculty members and the final decision on penalty shall be taken in the Governing Body meeting.
5. It is stated by the applicant that, the impugned order, as at (A/12), containing the memorandum of charges having issued against the applicant without the prior approval of the Governing Body which is the mandate of law as per the prescribed AIIMS Regulations, 2019, particularly Regulation 33 of Schedule-II, is illegal. It is prima facie beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent authority i.e, the Director to issue such a memorandum of charges without the prior approval of the Governing Body. Thus, the impugned order as at (A/12) is illegal and without jurisdiction rendering the impugned order null and void and thus liable to be set-aside. It is a settled principle of law that an order which is void ab initio is liable to be set-aside in its entirety as the defect therein goes to the root of the matter. In the present case, the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 9 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 articles of charges having no prior approval of the Governing body as per the mandate of the AIIMS Regulations 2019, except the one charge which is contrary to paramount duty imposed by the Fundamental Right envisaged under Article 21 as per the law laid down in Union of India and Ors v. B.V. Gopinath (supra), results in an order which is void ab initio and thus liable to be set aside. In this context, it is apposite to state here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Brundaban Sharma as reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 has categorically laid down the law that an order without jurisdiction is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside. The relevant portion is extracted herein below:
"18 Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Board of Revenue exercised the power under Section 38-B after an unreasonable lapse of time. though from the date of the grant of patta by the Tahasildar is of 27 years It is true that from the date of the alleged grant of patta 27 years did pass But its authenticity and correctness was shrouded with suspicious features. The records of the Tahasildar were destroyed. Who is to get the benefit? Whe was responsible for it? The reasons are not far to seek. They are self-evident So we hold that the exercise of revisional power under Section 38-B by the Board of Revenue was legal and valid and it brooked no delay, after it had come to the Board's knowledge. That apart as held by the Board of Revenue. the order passed by the Tahasildar without confirmation by the Board is Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 10 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 non est. A non est order is a void order and it confers no title and its validity can be questioned or invalidity be set up in any proceeding or at any stage."
6. It is contended by the applicant that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and anr. as reported in (2015)16 SCC 415 has held that the employer should endeavor to ensure that the departmental proceedings should reach a logical conclusion in the shortest time frame possible. Despite, there being an order of the Hon'ble High Court to continue with the proceedings the respondent authority choose to deliberately cause undue delay in the proceedings lingering it for three years undoubtedly causing extreme hardship inconvenience to the applicant.
7. It is stated by the applicant that, the Fact-Finding Committee (FFC) in the present case constituting 04 members was chaired by 1. Chairman, Prof. Sandeep Agarwal, Department of Pediatric Surgery AIIMS, New Delhi. 2. Members, (a) Prof. Mahadebnanda Kar, HoD, Department of Surgical Oncology AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, (b) Prof Bibekananda Jindal, HoD Department of Pediatric Surgery JIPMER, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 11 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 Puducherry. 3. Member and Convener Prof Sachidananda Mohanty, MS, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has recommended an inquiry against Dr. Kanishka Das on the basis of a fact-finding committee which was constituted for that purpose. In this context, the conclusion of allegation against the present applicant, derived by the Fact Finding Committee is flawed as the element of conflict of interest and bias prima-facie exists. Thus, the memo of charges having issued on the basis of such flawed FFC report is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20A read with section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Medical Council of India, with the previous approval of the Central Government, makes the regulations relating to the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics for registered medical practitioners. Particularly under sub-clause 2.1 and 2.4 of Clause-2 under Chapter-2 of regulations clearly impose a professional obligation on every doctor to discharge his duty of saving lives without any hindrance. Thus, the applicant is also Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 12 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 protected under the Indian Medical Council Act which has framed regulations imposing obligation on doctors to save lives:
"2.1 Obligations to the Sick.
"2.1.1 Though a physician is not bound to treat each and every person asking his services, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but should be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he discharges in the course of his professional duties. In his treatment, he should never forget that the health and the lives of those entrusted to his care depend on his skill and attention. A physician should endeavour to add to the comfort of the sick by making his visits at the hour indicated to the patients. A physician advising a patient to seek service of another physician is acceptable, however, in case of emergency a physician must treat the patient. No physician shall arbitrarily refuse treatment to a patient. However for good reason, when a patient is suffering from an ailment which is not within the range of experience of the treating physician, the physician may refuse treatment and refer the patient to another physician."
2.4 The Patient must not be neglected-
"A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He should, however, respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency. Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving adequate notice to the patient and his family. Provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall not wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care."Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 13 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025
8. It is stated by the applicant that, every institution has to be functioned by an administration imposing certain binding rules and regulations for maintaining a balanced work environment. However, these rules and regulations cannot supersede the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 which imposes a paramount duty on a doctor to discharge his utmost duty of saving lives without any kind of hindrance. In the present case, the present applicant and his action are protected by the very same duty imposed by the fundamental right guaranteed inclusively under Article-21 of the Constitution as upheld by the principle of law. Thus, the memo of charges against the applicant contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as a result is liable to be set- aside. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order of the Respondent No. 2 at (A/12) ought to be set aside, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and void being without jurisdiction and thus bad in the eye of law.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 14 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025
9. The respondents by filing their counter at the outset raised the preliminary objection on the point of entertainability of the O.Α. specifically on the ground that at show cause stage in a disciplinary proceeding the original application is not liable to be entertained. It is stated that the settled principal of law that ordinarily the Court or Tribunal will not interfere in the Departmental Proceedings at the initial stage of Show Cause Notice unless the show cause notice is without jurisdiction or there is any violation of Statutory Rule on face of the record. In the present case the issuance of charge sheet vide Annexure-A/12 is neither without jurisdiction nor there is any violation of Statutory Rule. The memorandum of charges vide Annexure-A/12 is issued by the Director being authorized by the Governing Body. As per regulation 33 of All India Institute of Medical Science Regulation, 2019 the provision of Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 shall apply to the employees of the institute in disciplinary matter. Further, penalties that may be imposed and the Appellate Authority for the various post in the institute shall be as prescribed in Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 15 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 Scheduled-II. As per the Schedule-II the Governing Body is the Appointing Authority in respect of the Post held by the applicant. It has been clearly mentioned in the said schedule. As per Schedule-II (Para-ii) it is provided that Director, All India Institute of Medical Science to issue the charge sheet and statement of allegations, penalties, suspension orders after obtaining the approval of the governing body, the president as the case may be. The notice and the charge sheet etc. shall be signed by the Director for and on behalf of the Governing body or the President either case may be. In Schedule-II Para (ii) it has also been provided that since the governing body meeting decisions on the Penalty shall be taken in the governing body meeting.
10. It is contended by the respondents that the President, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar by virtue of Office Order dated 15.05.2020 and Office Order dated 22.05.2020 constituted a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) under the Chairmanship of Prof. Sandeep Agarwala, Department of Paediatric Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi and other members Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 16 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 being Prof. Madhabananda Kar, HoD, Department of Surgical Oncology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Prof. Bibekananda Jindal, Head of the Department of Paediatric Surgery, JIPNMER, Puducherry and Prof. Sachidananda Mohanty, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar. The Fact Finding Committee(FFC), as mentioned in the Office Order Dated 15.05.2020, was directed to ascertain the facts/ veracity of several complaints submitted by some faculty members of the Department of Paediatric Surgery & other Departments about alleged unprofessional conduct of the present Applicant as the HoD of the Department of Paediatric Surgery and to examine whether the present applicant has failed to provide guidance and leadership as expected from the Applicant as Head of the Department. It is further stated that, in the Office Orders Dated 15.05.2020 & 22.05.2020, the FFC was directed to take all the complaints as available in the file into consideration and may summon any one of the Institute-AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, who are connected with the case and to record their evidence, if feel necessary.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 17 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 The FFC was also directed to recommend the measures to be taken for smooth management of the Department of Paediatric Surgery. By virtue of the office order dated 22.05.2020, the FFC was also directed to enquire into all such complaints/ information/ allegations as made by the present Applicant against any such faculty members of the Paediatric Surgery Department which are on record in addition to the existing scope of Fact Finding Committee, as stated in office order dated 15.05.2022. Thus, the FFC was directed to ascertain the facts regarding allegations made by the present Applicant and also the allegations made against the present Applicant. There was no biasness or malafideness in constitution of the FFC as alleged by the Applicant. The FFC was constituted with defined scope of enquiry, with objective of finding truthfulness of the allegations and recommending measures to be taken for future smooth management of the Department of Paediatric Surgery as there were various internal issues among the faculty members of the Department, which were hampering the smooth functioning of the Department. It is further stated Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 18 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 that the FFC was an administrative mechanism to ascertain the facts of the matter to help the Competent Authority to take some decisions. The FFC inquiry is not an inquiry under CCS (CC & A) Rules and therefore the provisions of CCS (CC & A) Rules will not be applicable. It is further stated that after conclusion of Inquiry, the FFC submitted the report on 23.09.2020, which was placed before the Governing Body of the Institute, in its meeting held on 16.12.2020 under the Chairmanship of the President of the Institute. The Governing Body took serious note of the findings of the FFC report on various alleged misconduct of the present Applicant and emphasized to ensure discipline and expected work standards from all faculty members of the Institute. The Governing Body also noted that the above findings of the FFC about the present Applicant are very serious in nature and needs initiation of disciplinary action in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the GB accepted the FFC report as the preliminary inquiry report and approved to issue show cause notice to the Applicant by Competent Authority as to why disciplinary action as per the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 19 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 provision of the CCS (CC & A) Rules will not be taken against the Applicant based on the report of the FFC and by giving a reasonable opportunity to the Applicant for his defence in compliance with the Principle of Natural Justice. Thereafter, the Director of the Institute issued the Memorandum dated 04.02.2021 to the applicant to submit his reply to the show cause Notice within 10 days from the date of receipt of Notice as per recommendation of the Governing Body of the Institute in its 7th meeting dated 16.12.2020. Hence, the question of violation of Law as well as exceeding jurisdiction by the Director in issuing the show cause notice to the Applicant does not arise at all since the Governing Body is the Disciplinary Authority of the employees belonging to Group-A posts including Professors under Schedule-II of AIIMS Act, 1956. But the Present Case relates to the Procedure to be followed by the Doctor & regarding discharge of duty of the Doctor towards the institution. Therefore, the applicant is totally misconceived of the fact and has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. The present OA is outcome of malice and to linger the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 20 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 departmental proceeding and hence, the O.A. should be dismissed.
11. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records.
12. Law on quashing of charge sheet/disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee is well settled in a plethora of judicial pronouncements to the effect that challenge against charge sheet or show cause notice does not lie 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 or in violation of any of the Rules/law. 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, it was held that a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. [Ref. State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 21 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 1467; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906).
13. We have examined the facts of the case in hand, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. We find that in the instant case charge sheet was issued to the applicant vide Memorandum dated 17.12.2021 by the Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, for and on behalf of Disciplinary Authority i.e. Governing Body, AIIMS, BBSR. Under the Rules the Governing Body of AIIMS, BBSR is the competent authority/Disciplinary Authority to issue charge sheet against an officer like the present applicant. In the case of inspector General of Police & Anr. v. Thavasiappan, AIR 1996 SC 1318, this Court reconsidered its earlier judgments on the issue and came to the conclusion that there is nothing in law which inhibits the authority subordinate to the appointing authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or issue charge memo and it Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 22 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025 is certainly not necessary that charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the punishment or that the inquiry should be conducted by such an authority. Similar view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Steel Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. R.K. Diwakar & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2210; and State of U.P. & Anr. v. Chandrapal Singh & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 4119. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transport Commissioner, Madras -Vs- A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332, also held that "Insofar as initiation of enquiry by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority is concerned, it is well settled now that it is unobjectionable. The initiation can be by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Only the dismissal/removal shall not be by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Accordingly it is held that this was not a permissible ground for quashing the charges by the Tribunal. Ref. Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak etc., AIR 1996 SC 2292; and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 142).". Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 23 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025
14. It is seen from Schedule II of Gazette of India that the Governing Body is the competent authority to impose punishment in a Disciplinary Proceeding and point (i) and (ii) states as under:-
"(i) Authorisation 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 state this fact. Phrases like "By order of the Governing Body" or "the President" or the "approval by the Governing Body" or the President" can be used on such documents.
(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 the financial decision on penalty shall be taken in the Governing Body meeting." It is seen from Annexure-A/12 that the Memorandum of Charges are issued by the Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar for and on behalf of Disciplinary Authority by the order of the Governing Body, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30' 24 OA NO.260/00053 OF 2025
15. Therefore, we find that the Charge Memo has been issued as per the AIIMS Act, 1956 Notification dated 18.10.2019 thus, on examination of the facts and grounds taken by the applicant keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, we see no such justification to get into the matter in exercise of the judicial review at this stage.
16. In the result, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
K.B/P.S
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.12.24 12:28:23 +05'30'