Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Kashyap vs N/A on 17 July, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.503 of 2023
Orders reserved on : 09.07.2025
Orders pronounced on : 17.07.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Sh. Anil Kumar Kashyap Group 'A'
(Aged about 56 years)
S/o late S.P. Kashyap
Working as Scientist-D (Emp Code: 2295)
Ministry of Communication & Information
Technology, Department of Electronics &
Information Technology., National Informnatics Centre.
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
R/o U-180/A, Sakarpur, Delhi-110092
Posted at: NIC HỌ
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri H.P. Chakravorty)
VERSUS
Union of India through
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Electronics &
Information Technology,
Department of Electronics & Information Technology,
Electronics Nilketan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003
2. The Director General
National Informatics Centre,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology,
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-1 10003
3. The Deputy Director General & Vigilance Officer
National Informatics Centre,
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology,
A-Block, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar)
2025.07.21
RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31
+05'30'
Item No.3/01 2 OA No.503/2023
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By way of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 13.9.2022 and impugned office order dt. 13.1.2023 (Annexure A-1, A-2)
(b) To grant any other further relief as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost and expenses of the present litigation."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was initially appointed as Scientific Officer (SB/Engineer-in SB, Delhi) on 17.11.1989 by National Informatics Centre (in short 'NIC') and subsequently promoted to the post of Scientist-D vide order dated 04.01.2018. On a complaint of misconduct against the applicant during the period he was posted in Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, the matter was referred to the Central Vigilance Commission by the respondent no.1 seeking its advice and the CVC vide Office Memorandum dated 22.8.2022 (Annexure A-5), tendered its advice.
2.1 Thereafter, the applicant was served a Memorandum dated 13.9.2022 (Annexure A-1) vide which the respondents have proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which includes the statement of articles of charge; statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of articles of charge; list of documents as well as list of witnesses as (Annexures-I to IV respectively), and the applicant was directed to submit his written statement within 10 days of receipt of the said Memorandum as also to indicate whether he desired to be heard in person. The articles of charge framed against the applicant read as under:-
2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 3 OA No.503/2023 "ARTICLE -I "That the said Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, while functioning as Scientist - D in NIC Cell at Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (MSDE) had promoted M/s Digiweb Solutions Pvt. Ltd, a company where his wife is one of the Directors, through the Prime Minister Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) portal while handling the project of PMKVY in National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC).
Thus, by the above said act, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, Scientist - D, has violated Rule 4(3), 3(1)(iü) & 3(1)(xv) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE- II That the said Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, while functioning as Scientist - D in NIC Cell, at Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (MSDE) had neither intimated nor obtained permission from National Informatics Centre, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology- his employer, about his wife's association with M/s Digiweb IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thus, by the above said act, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, Scientist - D, has violated Rule 4(2)(i), Rule 3(1)(iiü) & 3(1)(ix) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE - III That the said Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, while functioning as Scientist - D in NIC Cell at Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (MSDE) had misused his official position by indirectly promoting M/s Digiweb IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in connivance with Shri Ritesh Chaurasia by way of subcontracting the work order of National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) and National Institute of Solar Energy (NISE) through M/s Akal Information Systems Ltd. and M/s Pioneer e-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Digiweb IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in which Shri Ritesh Chaurasia and the wife of Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, namely, Smt. Kavita Kashyap were Directors.
By the above said act, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, Scientist - D, had incurred expenditure from public money for the benefit of himself/his family/Shri Ritesh Chaurasia and has thus violated provisions of GFR 2017 laid down in Rule 21(iv) and the provisions of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Thus, by the above said act, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, Scientist - D, has violated Rule 21(iv) of GFR-2017, Rule 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xii) and 3(1)(xv) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE - IV That the said Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, while functioning as Scientist - D in NIC Cell at Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship had a role in hiring manpower for AEBAS Helpdesk in NSDC and payment of their salary from M/s Digiweb IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd in connivance with Shri Ritesh Chaurasia. The manpower for AEBAS Help Desk in NSDC was interviewed by Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap before being hired. Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap not only had a role in the hiring of manpower but also misused his official position and influenced M/s Akal Information Systems Ltd. & M/s Pioneer e-Solutions Pvt. Ltd. by getting the work order subcontracted to M/s 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 4 OA No.503/2023 Digiweb IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. who was paying salary to the hired manpower of Help Desk of AEBAS, National Skill Development Corporation.
Thus, by the above said act, Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, Scientist - D has violated Rule 3(1) (iii), 3/1)(xii) and 3(1) (xv) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964."
2.2 On receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet, the applicant gave his detailed reply on 26.9.2022, 30.9.2022 and 07.10.2022 followed by Written Statement of defence dated 17.10.2022. Thereafter the applicant also made an interim written statement on 17.10.2022 refuting the charges levelled against him by the aforesaid chargesheet. However, according to the applicant, without considering the above replies and written statements, the respondents appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, that too without approval of the competent authority. Hence, this OA.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL
3. Shri H.P. Chakravorty, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, mainly argued that the impugned charge Memorandum has been issued without approval of the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology, the applicant being a Group 'A' officer of the Central Government in respect of whom the President is the Appointing Authority. However, the said charge Memorandum had been issued only with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister of State of IT and not that of the Hon'ble Cabinet Minister. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. B.V. Gopinath, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351.
3.1 Further, drawing our attention to Annexure A-7 communication dated 23.7.2021, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that channel of submission and levels of final disposal of different categories of cases in the M/o Electronics and Information Technology has been specifically provided, and with 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 5 OA No.503/2023 regard to the cases of Group 'A' officers, the competent authority is prescribed as the Minister.
3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in TA No.1482/2009, titled Dr. V.N. Pandey vs. Union of India and others decided on 5.7.2021 in support of above contention. Further reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ramesh Chander vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes in Writ Petition (Civil) No.11260/2019 decided on 22.4.2022, contended that in the said case also the petitioner was a Group 'A' officer and his appointing and disciplinary authority was also the President of India and the Hon'ble High Court noted the fact that the Government of India had itself clarified that the sole authority to issue Charge Memo or initiate any disciplinary proceedings against a Group - A Officer or an Officer whose appointing authority is the President of India, would lie with the Finance Minister, and observed as under:-
"9. No further reference is required to any precedent. That being the position, the issuance of the Charge Memo cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside as being non est."
3.3 Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding the case of P.D. Kanunjna vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes in Writ Petition (Civil) No.11262/2019 decided on 22.04.2019. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brajendra Singh Yamber vs. Union of India and another in Civil Appeal No.8323/2016 decided on 26.08.2016.
3.4 Learned counsel has also urged another ground that the impugned charge sheet is hopelessly barred by time as the alleged complaint was of the year 2018 and the impugned charge Memorandum was issued on 12.9.2022, i.e., after more than four years of the alleged complaint.
2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 6 OA No.503/2023 3.5 Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present OA deserves to be allowed by this Tribunal and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.
REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. Per contra, Shri Hanu Bhasker, learned counsel appearing for the respondents by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Charge Memorandum had been issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Minister, Information Technology, for Electronics and the Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology was allocated to dispose of all disciplinary/vigilance matters relating to the officers upto the level of Director/Scientist-F (where President is the appointing/disciplinary authority) vide order No. M. 11012/1/2016-MS (0&M) dt. 06.04.2022. Further, vide para 2.3 of Chapter - 2 of Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure (CSMOP), 2022, the business of the Government among its different departments which are assigned to the charge of the Ministers by the President on the advise of the Prime Minister, is allocated as per Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. In relation to the business allocated to a Minister, these rules also permit the association of another Minister or Deputy Minister to perform such functions as may be specifically assigned to him/her. From the above, it is clear both Cabinet Minister as well as Minister of State exercise the authority on behalf of the President on the function assigned to them through work allocation, and the Minister of State is not a subordinate authority to the Cabinet Minister. In this regard, learned counsel drew our attention to order dated 06.04.2022 (Annexure R-l) and copy of note sheet of Additional Secretary (Pers.), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (Annexure R-2). As such Hon'ble MoS, E&IT, in his capacity as the Disciplinary Authority in the case considered initiation of Major Penalty proceedings against the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence, in view of the above, the contention of the applicant that 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 7 OA No.503/2023 the charge Memorandum dated 13.09.2022 was issued by an authority not competent to do so, is not sustainable and correct.
4.1 Learned counsel also submitted that upon receipt of the complaint in the matter, the competent authority had sought first stage advice of CVC and the same was received vide OM dated 22.8.2022 (Annexure A/5), whereby the CVC also advised to initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant and that only after considering the reply submitted by the applicant to the said charge Memorandum, the Inquiry Officer/Presenting Officer were appointed with the recommendations of the Disciplinary Authority (DA), i.e. Hon'ble MoS, (E & IT), which is in consonance with the order dated 6.4.2022.
4.2 So far as the contention of the applicant that the impugned charge Memorandum is barred by limitation is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the complaint was filed in the year 2018 and a preliminary investigation was done in the case. Thereafter, the charge memorandum dated 13.09.2022 was issued to the applicant, after obtaining the CVC advice. The supporting documents of the chargesheet have also been provided to the applicant.
4.3 Learned counsel further emphasised that after the matter had been considered by the Disciplinary Authority, the charge Memorandum dated 13.09.2022 was issued to the applicant as per the procedures laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and he was required to submit his reply within 10 days. However, the applicant submitted his interim reply dated 26.9.2022 and detailed defence statement dated 17.10.2022, which were considered by the Disciplinary Authority, and even the same were submitted after lapse of given time and only thereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to conduct the inquiry proceedings in respect of the impugned charge Memorandum. Hence, there is no violation of Articles 14 and 311 of Constitution of India.
2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 8 OA No.503/2023 4.4 Learned counsel also reiterated that as per the Section 17 (1), (2) & (3) of CVC Act, 2003, first stage advice of CVC was sought after receiving the preliminary investigation report in the case of the applicant. The First stage advice of CVC was received vide OM dated 22.8.2022, whereby CVC had also advised to initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant and thereafter the disciplinary authority issued the impugned charge Memorandum. After considering the applicant's reply to the above chargesheet, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the DA, i.e. Hon'ble MoS, E&IT as per Order dated 6.4.2022.
4.5 In support of the above contentions of the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Order/Judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.3909/2018, titled Shri Madan Mohan vs. Union of India; (ii) Judgment dated 8.10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.25693/2018, titled Madan Mohan vs. Union of India; (iii) Order/Judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Tribunal in MA No.2531/2022 in OA No.978/2022, titled C. Maheshwaran vs. Union of India and others; (iv) Order/Judgment dated 15.3.2023 in RA 34/2023 in MA 2561/2022 in OA 978/2022, titled C. Maheshwaran vs. Union of India and others; and
(v) Order/Judgment dated20.4.2022 in OA 1895/2018, titled Alka Rajvanshi Jain vs. Union of India and anr.
REJOINDER OF THE APPLICANT
5. Learned counsel for the applicant while reiterating the contentions as raised in the OA has refuted the contents of the counter reply filed by the respondents and submitted that Minister cannot delegate its power to Minister for State (MoS), which have been so delegated by the Rules framed by the Hon'ble President of India. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the respondents have landed in the shoes of the CVC, and their whole 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 9 OA No.503/2023 action is fraught with malafide and ulterior motives. Reliance has also been placed on the following decisions: (i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308; & (ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 679.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS
7. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we observe that there is no dispute that the applicant, being a Scientist-D, is a Group 'A' officer and his Disciplinary Authority is the President of India i.e. Minister of Electronics and Information Technology and vide Order dated 6.4.2022 (Annexure R-1) issued with the approval of the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology in connection with the allocation of work to Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology, it has been decided that all disciplinary/vigilance matters relating to officers up to the level of Director/Scientist F (Where President is the Appointing/ Disciplinary Authority) will be disposed of at the level of Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology and the impugned charged Memorandum dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure A/1) admittedly has been issued with the approval of the MoS, and further contention of the applicant that the impugned charge Memorandum is hopelessly time barred, we are of the considered view that the following issues are required to be adjudicated by this Tribunal in the instant case:-
(i) Whether the Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology can act as a delegate of the 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 10 OA No.503/2023 Minister of Electronics and Information Technology in respect of works allocated to such Minister of State?
(ii) Whether the impugned chargesheet is barred by limitation?
8. For appreciating the issue (i) as noted under para 7 above, which mainly relates to conduct of business of the Government of India, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Article 77 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:-
"77. Conduct of business of the Government of India. - (1) All executive actions of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules (notification No. S.O. 2297, dated the 3rd November, 1958, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, 1958, Pt. II, Sec. 3 (ii), p. 1315, as amended from time to time) to be made by the President, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the President.
(3) The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business.
(4) 2[***]"
(emphasis supplied) 8.1 Having regard to the above provisions of the Constitution of India, it is observed that Clause (1) enacts that whenever executive action is to be taken by way of an order or instrument, it shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President in whom the executive power of the Union is vested. A similar provisions is made for the conduct of Government business in the States. The provisions of clause (1) are merely directory. Where an order is not issued in strict compliance with the provisions of Article 77 (1), it can be established by evidence aliunde from elsewhere or from another source that the order was made by the appropriate authority. Clause (2) provides that the validity of an order or instrument made or executed in the name of the 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 11 OA No.503/2023 President, and authenticated in the manner specified in the rules made by the President, shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the President. If an order is issued in the name of the President and is duly authenticated in the manner prescribed in clause (2), there is an irrebuttable presumption that the order or instrument is made or executed by the President. Any non-compliance with the said rule does not invalidate the order, but it precludes the drawing of any such irrebuttable presumption.
8.2 It does not prevent courts from inquiring into the correctness of recitals contained in an order or instrument. Nor does it prevent a person from challenging orders of the government as being bad or invalid or ultra vires. In Emperor v. Shib Nath Banerji, reported in AIR 1945 PC 156, a case under the Government of India Act, 1935, which contained a similar provision, the Privy Council observed as follows:
"It is quite a different thing to question the accuracy of recital contained in a duly authenticated order, particularly where that recital purports to state as a fact the carrying out of what I regard as a condition necessary to the valid making of that order. In the normal case the existence of such a recital in a duly authenticated order will, in the absence of any evidence as to its inaccuracy, be accepted by a court as establishing that the necessary condition was fulfilled. The presence of the recital in the order will place a difficult burden on the detenu to produce admissible evidence sufficient to establish even a prima facie case that the recital is not accurate."
8.3 Under clause (3) the President is to make rules for the more convenient transaction of government business and for the allocation of the same amongst ministers. A similar provision occurs in Article 166(3) empowering the Governor to make rules for the conduct of government business in the States. In all cases in which the President or the Governor exercises his functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution with the aid and advice of his minister, he does so by making rules for more convenient transaction of business and for allocation among 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 12 OA No.503/2023 ministers of the said business in accordance with Articles 77(3) and 166(3), respectively. Further the rules of business and allocation among ministers of the said business is relatable to Articles 53(1) and 154(1) that the executive power shall be exercised by the President or the Governor directly or through the subordinate officers. Articles 74(1) and 163(1) providing for a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President and the Governor respectively are the sources of the rules of business. In this context, in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1974) 2 SCC 831, the then the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India observed that the decision of any minister or officer under rules of business made under any of the two Articles 77(3) and 166(3) is the decision of the President or the Governor respectively. These articles do not provide for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of the minister or officer under the rules of business is the decision of the President or the Governor. Referring to the holding in State of U.P v. Babu Ram Upadhya, reported in AIR 1961 SC 751, that the power of the Governor to dismiss at pleasure, subject to the provisions of Article 311, is not an executive power under Article 154 but a constitutional power and is not capable of being delegated to officers subordinate to him, the then the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India observed that it is no longer good law after the decision in Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N.E.F Railway, AIR 1964 SC 600. The theory that only the President or the Governor is personally to exercise pleasure of dismissing or removing a public servant is repelled by express words in Article 311 that no person who is a member of the civil service in the Union or the State shall be dismissed or removed by authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Thus the pleasure of the President or the Governor is exercised by such officers on whom the President or the Governor confers or delegates power. In Bejoy Lakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of W.B., reported in AIR 1967 SC 1145, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the decision of any minister or officer under the rules of business is a decision of the President or 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 13 OA No.503/2023 the Governor, as the case may be. The President or the Governor means the President or the Governor aided and advised by the minister. Neither Article 77(3) nor Article 166(3) provides for any delegation Power. Although the executive power vests in the President and the Governor respectively, it is carried on by ministers under Articles 77(3) and 166(3). The allocation of business is the decision of the President or the Governor on the aid and advice of ministers. In A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, reported in (1970) 1 SCC 443, it was reiterated that the essence of the cabinet system of government responsible to legislature is that an individual minister is responsible for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his ministry. In every administration decisions are taken by civil servants, the ministers lay down the policy and the Council of Ministers settle major issues. When a civil servant takes a decision, he does so on behalf of the government and not as its delegate.
8.4 Clause (4) introduced by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976 denying any court or other authority power to require the production of any rules made under clause (3) for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, was omitted by the Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
8.5 Further, as per the provisions of Article 53 (1) of the Constitution of India, the executive power of the Union vests in the President and the same is exercised by him directly or through officers subordinate to him. Further, for smooth and convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, the President in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (3) of article 77 of the Constitution has made the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 and the Government of India Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. These rules lay down the functions and the manner of their discharge for the Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and Offices of Govt. of India. The 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 14 OA No.503/2023 decisions of the Government of India are not always taken personally by the President and the same may be taken by the Minister concerned or by the officials authorized under the above- mentioned Rules. Further, Rule 4 (3) of The Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 provides as under:-
"(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(1) or sub-
rule(2), the President may, on the advice of the Prime Minister
-
(a) associate in relation to the business allotted to a Minister under either of the said sub-rules, another Minister or Deputy Minister to perform such functions as may be assigned to him;
(b) entrust the responsibility for specified items of business affecting any one or more than one Department to a Minister who is in charge of any other Department or to a Minister without Portfolio who is not in charge of any Department."
8.6 Further Rule 8 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961 (in short 'TBRs') deals with Submissions of Cases to the Prime Minister and the President. Rule 8 of the TBRs reads as under:-
"All cases of the nature specified in the Third Schedule to these Rules shall, before the issue of orders thereon, be submitted to the Prime Minister or to the President or to the Prime Minister and the President, as indicated in that Schedule."
8.7 It is apt to mention that in Sanjeevi Naidu and others vs. State of Madras and others, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Minister is not expected to burden himself with the day to day administration. His primary function is to lay down the policies and programmes of his ministry while the Council of Ministers settle the major policies and programmes of the government. Hence, arises the need for making provision for the more convenient transaction of business within each ministry. This is done by the Rules of Business by designating particular civil servants or officials within the ministry who shall be competent to take decisions or dispose of business of the Government, subject of course, to the control of the minister-in-charge, or directions issued by him, which are 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 15 OA No.503/2023 known as 'standing orders'. Any action taken by the specified official is an action of the Government, because the Officials designated by the Rules of Business are limbs of the Government, nor its delegates. Further, in Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2192, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Council of Ministers exercise power not as delegate of President, but as official subordinate to him by the constitutional mechanism envisaged by Article 77(3).
8.8 In the light of the above legal discussion assigning of the subject related to cases of disciplinary action, against officers of the All India Services and all Group 'A' Central Civil Services including those under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, in which the applicant is working, by the President to the Minister in-charge is not ipso facto a delegation of power. Further, as per Rule 4(3) of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, President is empowered to associate, on the advice of Prime Minister, any Minister or Deputy Minister to perform such function as may be assigned to him. Thus when the Minister-in-charge (Prime Minister) further entrusts the function to the subordinate (including Minister of State), and accordingly such function is performed by the subordinate so empowered, there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the subordinate is that of the Minister. Therefore, MoS for Electronics and Information Technology can be said to be the competent authority for approving the chargesheet issued to the applicant.
8.9 At this stage, we deem it fit to refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Madan Mohan vs. Union of India in OA No.3909/2018 decided on 15.10.2018 in which this Tribunal in paras 9 and 10 held as under:-
"9. From this, it is evident that the allocation of powers between the Minister of Finance on the one hand and Minister of State for Finance, on the other hand, were made. It is a matter of arrangement and allocation within the Ministry and by no 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 16 OA No.503/2023 stretch of imagination, it can be treated as sub delegation. The power exercised by the Minister of State would be as good as it having been exercised by the Minister of Finance.
10. The applicant placed reliance upon certain paragraphs in the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v B.V. Gopinath. That was the case in which the powers of Minister of Finance were exercised by the Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes. That is not the case here."
8.10 The above Order/Judgment of this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the said Madan Mohan by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 12130/2018, titled Madan Mohan vs. Union of India, and the Hon'ble High Court had also an occasion to deal with the similar issue as noted in para 7 (i) above, which reads as under:-
"whether the Minister of State for Finance acts as a delegate of the Minister for Finance in respect of works are located to such Minister of State"
8.11 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Order/Judgment dated 04.03.2025 elaborately noted the rules position as well as the law on the said subject and held as under:-
"25. We, having heard learned Counsel and perused the record and the law in that regard, are of the view that there was, in fact, no such sub delegation, as the Tribunal has correctly held. All that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 did was to allocate, certain some of the business which otherwise fell to the lot of the MOF, to the MOS. The MOS, while discharging the said functions, did not act as a delegatee of the MOF. The exercise of his functions was deemed to be exercise of the said functions by the MOF himself. In exercise of the said function, the MOS was, therefore, answerable, not to the MOF, but to the Government itself.
26. This position is not res integra. It stands lucidly captured in the following passages from A. Sanjeevi Naidu v State of Madras, (1970 1 SCC 443), rendered in the context of Article 16618 of the Constitution of India:
"9. We think that the above submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are without force and are based on a misconception of the principles underlying our Constitution. Under our Constitution, the Governor is essentially a constitutional head, the administration of State is run by the Council of Ministers. But in the very nature of things, it is impossible for the Council of Ministers to deal with each and every matter that comes before the Government. In order to obviate that difficulty the Constitution has authorised the Governor under sub-article (3) of Article 166 to make rules for the more convenient transition of business of the Government of the State and for the allocation amongst its Ministers, the business of the Government. All 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 17 OA No.503/2023 matters excepting those in which Governor is required to act in his discretion have to be allocated to one or the other of the Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister. Apart from allocating business among the Ministers, the Governor can also make rules on the advice of his Council of Ministers for more convenient transaction of business. He cannot only allocate the various subjects amongst the Ministers but may go further and designate a particular official to discharge any particular function. But this again he can do only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
10. The cabinet is responsible to the Legislature for every action taken in any of the Ministries. That is the essence of joint responsibility. That does not mean that each and every decision must be taken by the cabinet. The political responsibility of the Council of Ministers does not and cannot predicate the personal responsibility of the Council of Ministers to discharge all or any of the Governmental functions. Similarly an individual Minister is responsible to the Legislature for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his ministry. This again is a political responsibility and not personal responsibility. Even the most hard working Minister cannot attend to every business in his department. If he attempts to do it, he is bound to make a mess of his department. In every well planned administration, most of the decisions are taken by the civil servants who are likely to be experts and not subject to political pressure. The Minister is not expected to burden himself with the day-to-day administration. His primary function is to lay down the policies and programmes of his ministry while the Council of Ministers settle the major policies and programmes of the Government. When a civil servant takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate of his Minister. He does it on behalf of the Government. It is always open to a Minister to call for any file in his ministry and pass orders. He may also issue directions to the officers in his ministry regarding the disposal of Government business either generally or as regards any specific case. Subject to that over all power, the officers designated by the "Rules" or the standing orders, can take decisions on behalf of the Government. These officers are the limbs of the Government and not its delegates."
27. The above exposition of the law in A. Sanjeevi Naidu was rendered in the context of Article 166 of the Constitution of India which is the provision parallel to Article 7719, in respect of State Government. In other words, just as Article 77(3) empowers the President to make Rules for more convenient transaction of business of the Government of India, and for allocation amongst Ministers of the said business, Article 166(3) empowers the Governor of a State to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the State Government and for allocation amongst Ministers of the said business. As the Supreme Court has held in paras 9 and 10 of A. Sanjeevi Naidu, the very intent of Article 166(3) - and, therefore, of Article 77(3) in the case of the Union Government - is to obviate the difficulty of the Council of Ministers having to attend to every aspect of government business. Thus, Article 166(3) empowers the Governor of a State to allocate, to one or other of his Ministers, any matter except those in which the Governor is required to act in his discretion.
28. Equally, the President can allocate, to any one or more of the Ministers, the functions which vest in the President - which 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 18 OA No.503/2023 would include the power to act as disciplinary authority in respect of Group A officers, as vested by Rules 12(1) and 13(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
29. Para 10 of A. Sanjeevi Naidu further clarifies that the responsibility of any individual Minister, for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his Ministry, is a political, and not a personal responsibility. No Minister can attend to all the work in his Ministry.
30. Thus, it is open to a Minister to issue directions to officers in his Ministry regarding disposal of government business. Such officers are entitled to take decisions. In doing so, they do not act as delegates of the Minister, but as limbs of the government. In other words, merely by allocating work which otherwise falls to his lot to officials in his Ministry, the Minister does not delegate such work. He merely allocates the work so as to enable him to attend to work which would necessarily require his, and his own, intervention, such as laying down policies and programmes of the government. The official in the Ministry, to whom the work is allocated by the Minister does not, therefore, while performing the said work, act as the Minister's delegate. He is another limb of the government.
31. A. Sanjeevi Naidu was followed by the Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831. Paras 31 to 35 read thus:
"31. Further the Rules of Business and allocation of business among the Ministers are relatable to the provisions contained in Article 53 in the case of the President and Article 154 in the case of the Governor, that the executive power shall be exercised by the President or the Governor directly or through the officers subordinate. The provisions contained in Article 74 in the case of the President and Article 163 in the case of the Governor that there shall be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President or the Governor, as the case may be, are sources of the Rules of Business. These provisions are for the discharge of the executive powers and functions of the Government in the name of the President or the Governor. Where functions entrusted to a Minister are performed by an official employed in the Minister's department there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the official is that of the Minister. The official is merely the machinery for the discharge of the functions entrusted to a Minister (see Halsbury's Laws of England 4 th Ed., Vol. I, paragraph 748 at p. 170 and Carltona Ltd. v Works Commissioners, (1943) 2 All ER 560).
32. It is a fundamental principle of English Constitutional law that Ministers must accept responsibility for every executive act. In England the Sovereign never acts on his own responsibility. The power of the Sovereign is conditioned by the practical rule that the Crown must find advisers to bear responsibility for his action. Those advisers must have the confidence of the House of Commons. This rule of English Constitutional law is incorporated in our 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 19 OA No.503/2023 Constitution. The Indian Constitution envisages a Parliamentary and responsible form of Government at the Centre and in the States and not a Presidential form of Government. The powers of the Governor as the constitutional head are not different.
33. This Court has consistently taken the view that the powers of the President and the powers of the Governor are similar to the powers of the Crown under the British Parliamentary system. (See Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab, (1971) 2 SCC 63, A. Sanjeevi Naidu, U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971) 2 SCC 63). In Ram Jawaya Kapur case Mukherjea, C.J. speaking for the Court stated the legal position as follows. The Executive has the primary responsibility for the formulation of governmental policy and its transmission into law. The condition precedent to the exercise of this responsibility is that the Executive retains the confidence of the legislative branch of the State. The initiation of legislation, the maintenance of order, the promotion of social and economic welfare, the direction of foreign policy, the carrying on of the general administration of the State are all executive functions. The Executive is to act subject to the control of the Legislature. The executive power of the Union is vested in the President. The President is the formal or constitutional head of the Executive. The real executive powers are vested in the Ministers of the Cabinet. There is a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions.
34. The functions of the Governor under the rules of business of Madras Government in regard to a scheme for nationalisation of certain bus routes were considered by this Court in Sanjeevi Naidu. The validity of the scheme was challenged on the ground that it was not formed by the State Government but by the Secretary to the Government pursuant to powers conferred on him under Rule 23-A of the Madras Government Business Rules.
35. The scheme was upheld for these reasons. The Governor makes rules under Article 166(3) for the more convenient transaction of business of the Government of the State. The Governor cannot only allocate the various subjects amongst the Ministers but may go further and designate a particular official to discharge any particular function. But that could be done on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The essence of Cabinet System of Government responsible to the Legislature is that an individual Minister is responsible for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his Ministry. In every administration, decisions are taken by the civil servants. The Minister lays down the policies. The Council of Ministers settle the major policies. When a civil servant takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate of his Minister.
He does it on behalf of the Government. The officers are the limbs of the Government and not its delegates.
2025.07.21
RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31
+05'30'
Item No.3/01 20 OA No.503/2023
Where functions are entrusted to a Minister and these are performed by an official employed in the Minister's department, there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the official is that of the Minister."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Rule 3 of the Transaction Business Rules envisages that all business allotted to a Department under the Allocation of Business Rules shall be disposed of by or under the general or special directions of, the Minister-in-Charge. The Allocation of Business Rules have been enacted in exercise of the power conferred by Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India. Rule 2 of the Allocation of Business Rules stipulates that the business of the Government of India shall be transacted in the Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and Officers specified in the First Schedule to the Allocation of Business Rules.
33. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P D Kanunjna, on which Mr Shanker Raju placed reliance, identifies the MOF as the Authority Competent to exercise the power of the President, vested by Rules 12 and 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to institute disciplinary proceedings against Group A Officers of the Ministry of Finance and to pass orders of penalty. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that the MOF was empowered to do so.
34. The petitioner's contention is that it was the MOF and the MOF alone who could exercise this function and could not have delegated it to the MOS by the office order dated 3rd April 2018.
35. The submission is fundamentally flawed. Rule 3 of the Transaction of Business Rules specifically ordains that all business allotted to a Department under the Allocation of Business Rules would be disposed of by, or under the general or special directions of, the Minister-in-Charge. Thus, the Minister- in-Charge, i.e. the MOF in the case of the petitioner, is empowered to either discharge the business falling within his purview under the Allocation of Business Rules on his own or have the business discharged under the general or special directions.
36. Paras 2(ii) of Office Order dated 4 July 2019 - which is not under challenge in the present case - specifically states that all matters where the President of India is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority would be submitted to the Finance Minister through the Minister of State. Thus, the involvement of the Minister of State in disciplinary matters concerning Group A officers, cannot be wished away. In exercising his powers in that regard, the MOS does not act as a delegatee to the MOF. The acts of the MOS could be treated as the acts of the MOF, who is responsible for discharging of business in the Ministry of Finance which falls to his lot. The allocation of business of various officials in the Ministry of Finance including the MOS, is merely a matter of convenience as observed by the Supreme Court in A. Sanjeevi Naidu and is well within the provinces of the jurisdiction of the MOF. Smooth, efficient and expedient functioning of the Government has, in the ultimate eventuate, to be the predominant consideration. Inasmuch as the MOS while exercising the said power, does not act as a delegate of the MOF, he is not answerable in exercise to the MOF either but acts as an officer of 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 21 OA No.503/2023 the Government of India. Such allocation of business is within the province of the MOF, as upheld by the Supreme Court in A Sanjeevi Naidu and Shamsher Singh.
37. If the submission of Mr Raju were accepted, the MOF - and, for that matter, every Minister - who acts as the delegate of the President of India in respect of a wide variety of functions which, statutorily are to be discharged by the President, would have to discharge each and every function herself or himself. This would place, as is noted in A. Sanjeevi Naidu, an impossible burden on the Union Minister in each case, and would paralyze Governmental functioning. The power and discretion to allocate some of the business which the Minister, as the delegate of the President, is required to discharge, to officers in his Ministry is, therefore, indispensable and essential. It would be extremely hazardous, therefore, to hold that the Minister has no power or authority to do so. We, certainly, are unwilling to accept such a proposition.
38. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's submission that the Office Order dated 3rd April 2018 is illegal to the extent it allocates the work of disciplinary matters in the Ministry of Finance to the MOS, is misconceived. There is no sub-delegation of work involved in this exercise. The MOF has only allocated the work relating to all disciplinary matters - which would include disciplinary matters relating to Group A officers - to the MOS. Neither is this subdelegation, nor does the MOS act as a delegate of the MOF. He exercises the power which the MOF would have otherwise exercised and, in doing so, is directly answerable to the Union Government and the President, and not to the MOF.
39. In that view of the matter, there is complete compliance in the present case with the mandate of B.V. Gopinath as the charge- sheet was specifically put up before and approved by, the MOS.
40. Mr. Raju cited the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chander v Central Board of Direct Taxes (Judgment dated 22nd April 2022 passed in WP(C) 11260/2019) and P.D. Kanunjna. They are essentially the same order, passed on the same date, in two writ petitions, but were released as separate orders. We have noted that P.D. Kanunjna identifies the MOF as the authority competent to exercise the power of the President, vested by Rules 12 and 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to institute disciplinary proceedings against Group- A Officers of the Ministry of Finance. Beyond this, however, the decision is of no particular relevance, as it does not deal with the aspect of allocation of work by the MOF to the MOS, with which, principally, we are concerned in the present case. Besides, we have decided this matter on the basis of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, with which the decision in P.D. Kanunjna does not deal.
41. Before parting we may note that Mr. Raju also sought to contend - though no such ground was taken before the Tribunal in the OA - that the Office Order 3 April 2018 could not have been issued without prior consultation of the DOPT. For this purpose, he relies on Rule 4(4)(a) of the Transaction of Business Rules.
42. It is obvious that the invocation of Rule 4(4)(a) by Mr. Raju is completely misdirected. Rule 4(4)(a) only requires prior 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 22 OA No.503/2023 consultation with the DOPT before determining methods of recruitment and conditions of service generally applicable to Government servants in civil employment. The Office Order dated 3 April 2018 did not involve determination either of methods of recruitment or conditions of service of general application to Government servants in civil employment. It did not even involve any abdication by the MOF, of his power to act as Disciplinary Authority in respect of Group A officers in the Ministry of Finance. It merely allocated to the MOS in the Ministry of Finance, certain aspects of the work which was, prior thereto, being undertaken by the MOF himself. Rule 4(4) of the Transaction of Business Rules has no application in such a case.
Conclusion
43. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly held that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 merely involved an exercise of internal allocation of work by the MOF in his Ministry and was, therefore, perfectly legal..."
8.12 The aforesaid Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged by the said Madan Mohan by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12784/2025 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide Order dated 13.5.2025 while issuing notice, declined to stay the disciplinary proceedings.
8.13 With regard to the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in P.D. Kanunjna (supra), it is pertinent to note that the said decision was also considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a subsequent latest judgment dated 04.03.2025 rendered in the case of Madan Mohan (supra). It is relevant to mention that the decision in P.D. Kanunjna (supra) was challenged by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by way of SLP No. 699/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Although the said SLP was dismissed, the Hon'ble Apex Court expressly left the question of law, i.e., whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the authority of the competent authority, open to be decided in an appropriate case. In view of this, and considering that the Hon'ble High Court in Madan Mohan (supra) has rendered a detailed and recent judgment on the issue, with due reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 23 OA No.503/2023 Tribunal, being a subordinate judicial forum, is bound to follow the latest binding precedent, i.e., the judgment in Madan Mohan (supra). As such the issue (i) as noted in para 7 above is answered in favour of the respondents. Further the case law relied upon by the applicant with regard to the above issue is not helpful to the applicant in view of latest judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Madan Mohan (supra).
9. As regards issue (ii) noted in para 7 above, it is not in dispute that the complaint against the applicant was filed in the year 2018. However, the charge memorandum dated 13.09.2022 was issued only after the conclusion of a preliminary investigation, and upon obtaining the requisite advice from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), as well as approval from the competent authority. Therefore, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations contained in the impugned charge memorandum, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the chargesheet is vitiated on account of delay or is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is a well-settled principle of law that disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground of delay unless it is shown that such delay has caused prejudice to the delinquent officer. In this regard, it is apt to mention that it is not possible to lay down any pre-determined or mathematical formula for determining whether the delay is such as to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. Each case has to be examined in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. It is also trite law that mere delay in issuing a chargesheet, in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, does not by itself render the proceedings invalid. In the present case, there is no material on record to show that the applicant has suffered any prejudice due to the delay. On the contrary, the issuance of the chargesheet appears to be in conformity with due process after a proper preliminary inquiry and administrative approvals. Hence, we find no merit in the challenge to the chargesheet on the ground of limitation. As such the issue (ii) noted in para 7 above is also answered in favour of 2025.07.21 RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31 +05'30' Item No.3/01 24 OA No.503/2023 the respondents, as we are fully in agreement with the stand taken by the respondents on this issue.
10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the forgoing reasons, the present OA deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
11. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More)
Member (A) Chairman
/ravi/
2025.07.21
RAVI KANOJIA12:56:31
+05'30'