Dinesh Singh Vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1. The applicant is an officer of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) of the 1984 batch. He was on deputation to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as

„Custodian of Enemy Property for India†between 24.11.2005 and 25.10.2011 and worked at Mumbai. After the applicant was repatriated to the

lending department, the MHA issued a memorandum on 19.05.2014 requiring him to explain the circumstances under which he issued „No

Objection Certificate†(NOC) in respect of a property under his control, while working as Custodian of Enemy Property. The applicant responded to

this, by submitting a detailed representation dated 10.11.2014. This was followed by letters dated 14.03.2016 and 17.03.2016 from the applicant, with a

request to the MHA to examine the matter objectively.

2. The applicant became due for promotion to the next higher post in the year 2015. His juniors were promoted on 16. 09.2015, but he was denied the

same. He filed O.A. No.3604/2015 before this Tribunal, aggrieved by the denial of promotion. The O.A. was allowed through an order dated 12.

05.2016, holding that the applicant was entitled to be promoted with effect from the date on which his junior was promoted, and for consequential

benefits. Alleging that the order passed in the said O.A. was not complied with, the applicant filed C.P. No.422/2016 and the same is pending before

this Tribunal.

3. On 06.02.2017, the Ministry of Finance (1st respondent), the lending department of the applicant, issued a charge memo. It was alleged that the

applicant issued an NOC on 13.04.2007 in favour of M/s. Poddar Infraventures Ltd., Mumbai, in respect of enemy property, enabling them to

purchase it; and that he did so, without seeking approval of Central Government and in contravention of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court,

as confirmed by the Honâ€ble Supreme Court. It was alleged that the NOC has resulted in alienation of the enemy property in relation to 1/4th share

of one Dhun Supariwala. Other allegations were also made regarding acts and commissions on his part, as Custodian of Enemy Property.

4. In the memorandum of charge, it was mentioned that the applicant can state whether he desires to be heard in person. Referring to that, the

applicant filed a detailed representation with a request to give him personal hearing. Through an order dated 12.07.2017, the applicant was informed

that his request for personal hearing cannot be acceded to. He has also submitted representation with a request to furnish documents; and the same

was acceded to. He was informed that since he has denied the charges, an inquiry would be conducted in the matter.

5. On a request made by the MHA, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the 3rd respondent, gave its advice/opinion as regards initiation of

disciplinary proceedings, through O.M. dated 26.06.2015. This O.A. is filed by the applicant challenging the O.M. dated 06.02.2017, order dated

12.07.2017 and the O.M. dated 26.06.2015 issued by the CVC.

6. The applicant contends that he discharged his duties as Custodian of Enemy Property strictly in accordance with law and that no complaints were

received from any circle whatever, during his tenure in that office. He submits that long after he was repatriated to the lending department, the MHA

sought his explanation and that the same was adequately replied. The applicant contends that once he was repatriated to the lending department, the

MHA has no competence or jurisdiction to take any steps against him. It is also stated that in case the 1st respondent wanted to initiate disciplinary

proceedings, it ought to have taken steps to get the advice from 3rd respondent and it cannot rely upon the one, which was tendered, at the instance of

the MHA. The applicant further contends that the charge memo is motivated and that none of the charges can be sustained in law, either on facts, or

in law.

7. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the acts and commissions on the part of the applicant,

referable to his functioning as Custodian of Enemy Property, surfaced after he was repatriated and that it was competent for the borrowing

department, i.e., MHA, to take necessary steps, as provided under Rule 20 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short “the Rulesâ€). It is stated that

the advice tendered by the 3rd respondent, at the instance of MHA, can certainly be taken into account, for the purpose of issuance of charge memo

by the lending department. The respondents contend that the truth or otherwise of the charges are contained in the inquiry report and that the O.A.

cannot be maintained against the charge memo.

8. It is also stated that the personal hearing, at that stage was not possible and that the applicant was accordingly informed through order dated

12.07.2017. Other contentions advanced by the applicant are specifically denied in the counter affidavit.

9. Sri R V Sinha, learned counsel for applicant advanced extensive arguments covering all the points raised in the O.A. He submits that though it is

competent for the borrowing department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee working on deputation, it cannot take any steps, once

the employee is repatriated to parent department. He submits that it was not competent for the MHA to take any steps against the applicant, after he

was repatriated to the parent department.

10. Sri Sinha submits that the advice of 3rd respondent is essential for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Central Government employees

and such advice was required to be sought only by the Department, which issued the charge memo, but not at the instance of any other department.

According to him, the advice tendered by the 3rd respondent on 26.06.2015 does not hold good for the impugned charge memo. It is also pleaded that

when the charge memo contained a clause that the applicant can make a request for personal hearing, there was no basis for denial of the same. He

further submitted that the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained in law since no acts of misconduct are attributed as regards

functioning in that department.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that there was inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and placing reliance upon certain

precedents, he contends that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the issuance of NOC or taking any other steps by

the applicant, are in the course of exercise of quasi judicial powers by him and that the same cannot constitute the basis for any disciplinary

proceedings.

12. Lastly, he submitted that the charge memo is defective inasmuch as the approval of the Finance Minister was taken for initiation of the

proceedings as well as draft articles of charge at one and the same time. He submits that unless the approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings

was accorded, there was no occasion for framing of articles of charge, much less the approval thereof. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of

Honâ€​ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath & others, (2014) 1 SCC 351.

13. Sri R K Jain, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Hanu Bhasker, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have advanced their

arguments with reference to each and every point argued by learned counsel for applicant. They submit that whenever an employee is sent on

deputation to another department, it is competent either for the borrowing department or the lending department, to initiate proceedings as regards any

illegalities or acts of misconduct, referable to the period of deputation. They submit that Rule 20 of the Rules is comprehensive in this behalf. It is also

stated that the borrowing department can initiate proceedings and the only restriction is that the punishment can be imposed only by the lending

department.

14. The learned counsel contends that the applicant has deviated from the prescribed procedure, in the context of administering enemy properties, and

once they were noticed, necessary steps were initiated by seeking explanation from him and thereafter by issuing charge memo. An objection is raised

by the learned counsel for respondents as to the failure to implead MHA as a party in the O.A.

15. Learned counsel for respondents further submit that though the discharge of duties by the Custodian of Enemy Property may involve exercise of

quasi judicial powers, the applicant was required to follow the prescribed procedure and relevant instructions, and the deviation made in that behalf is

certainly amenable to disciplinary proceedings. They submit that the contention of the applicant that there must be separate approval for initiation of

disciplinary proceedings on the one hand and the charge memo on the other, is not contemplated either in the relevant rules or in the judgment in B.V.

Gopinath’s case (supra).

16. The facts that gave rise to the filing of O.A. and the proceedings that are challenged therein, have already been mentioned in the preceding

paragraphs. The applicant was on deputation to MHA between 24.11.2005 and 25.10.2011; and he worked as Custodian of Enemy Property at

Mumbai. After he was repatriated to parent department, the MHA issued a memorandum dated 19.05.2014. Extensive reference was made to two

items, namely, (a) the Diana Talkies property and (b) the Bandra property. It was mentioned that the applicant issued NOC in respect of the first

property, in contravention of Section 7 (3) of Enemy Property Act, 1968 and without consenting the Government. It was stated that as against the

market value of the property, only an amount of 14.50 crores was mentioned. It was alleged that the Trustees were required to conduct an open

auction for sale but the applicant allowed the execution of Deed of Assignment dated 06.09.2007 on the basis of NOC issued by him without there

being any auction. The gist of the allegation was mentioned as under:-

“11. The issuance of NOC by Mr. Dinesh Singh has resulted in the alienation of the enemy property in relation to share of Dhun Supariwalaâ€s

1/4th share in the property that was held by the Trustees on her behalf as Dhunbaiâ€​s Trust Fund.â€​

17. As regards 2nd item, i.e., Bandra property, it was mentioned that though the applicant came to know about execution of Sale Deed in respect of

enemy property, he did not take steps for prevention of construction and has even violated the orders of Bombay High Court and Honâ€ble Supreme

Court.

The omission on the part of the applicant was mentioned as under:-

“16. Despite the Orders passed by Bombay High Court (in Kishore Court case Appeal No.108 and 124 of 1975 Ramniklal A. Shah and ors. V/s

Hamida Begum) and the judgement of the Supreme Court in which it was held by the courts that the custodianâ€s duty is confined to preservation and

management of enemy property and was not vested with the power to sell the property, Mr. Dinesh Singh passed an Order dated 28.06.2006 stating

that the transfer of the property in question was in accordance with the law and that the vesting certificate dated 17.02.2005 shall have no effect.

Thus, he cancelled the aforesaid vesting order which was issued by Mrs. Ruby Srivastava and had withdrawn the stay order dated 02.01.2004 and

finalised the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2005 in favour of the builder vide his aforesaid order dated 28.06.2006.â€​

18. Ultimately, his explanation was sought as under:-

“18. Therefore, Mr. Dinesh Singh, the then Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Mumbai is directed to give his written statement within 15 days

from the date of receipt of this O.M. as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under CCS (Conduct) Rule. If no reply is received

within the stipulated period, it shall be presumed that he has nothing to say and the matter shall be referred to the appropriate authority for initiating

disciplinary proceedings against him.â€​

19. The applicant submitted his explanation, running into 350 pages, on 10.11.2014. It is important to note that the applicant did not raise any objection

as to the competence of the MHA to take steps in the year 2014 with reference to his working while on deputation. On the other hand, he thanked the

MHA for affording him an opportunity to offer his explanation. He has also referred to the CVC guidelines. Paragraph 1 of the explanation reads as

under:-

“I am thankful to the MHA for affording me an opportunity by calling for my explanation/written submission vide the above subject reference

Memorandum, which in fact should have been done at the “Preliminary fact finding Enquiry†stage itself as per the CVC guidelines or at the most

before taking the “enigmatic†decisions of “Issuing a charge sheet, Registering of an FIR in Local Police and referring the matter to the CBI

for Investigationâ€. In fact, the then Addl. Secretary (F), Shri Anil Goswami (present Honâ€ble Union Home Secretary) had approved and

recommend vide Order Sheet Noting dated 20.09.2011 (place 28 of the Order Sheet of File No.37/77/2010-EP, Diana Talkies Trust Property,

Annexure-I of my reply) as follows:

“In the circumstances Shri Dinesh Singh may be asked to explain the lapse on his part and on receipt of his explanation, a view could be taken

whether the matter could be referred to his Cadre Controlling Authority for appropriate action.â€​

The above note was approved by Honâ€ble Union Home Secretary and MOS (S). The file was put up to Honâ€ble Union Home Minister Shri P.

Chidambaram, who examined the matter and put up following note vide his “Minutesâ€​ dated 28.09.2011 (Order Sheet Note page 29):

“I begin by noting that the services of Shri Dinesh Singh have been extended up to 13.10.2011.â€​

20. The MHA approached the 3rd respondent, for its advice. The latter, in turn, gave its advice, through an O.M. dated 26.06.2015, as under:-

“Sub: Disciplinary proceedings against Sh. Dinesh Singh, Former Custodian of Enemy Property for India, Mumbai.

MHA may refer to their ID Note dated 18.05.2015 in file No.C-12020/83/2014-VC on the above subject.

2. The case has been examined by the Commission. The Commission in agreement with the recommendations of Disciplinary Authority and CVO.

MHA would advise initiation of major penalty proceedings under rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 against Shri Dinesh Singh, the then CEPI.

3. MHAâ€​s F.No.C-12020/83-2014-VC is sent herewith. Receipt of the same may be acknowledged.â€​

21. After obtaining this advice, the MHA seem to have forwarded the entire file to the 1st respondent, for taking necessary action. Accordingly, a

charge memo was issued on 06.02.2017. It contains 8 articles. Serious allegations against the applicant are contained in articles 1 & 7. Articles 1 to 5

are in relation to one item of property, whereas articles 6 to 8 are in relation to other. They read as under:-

“Article-1

During his deputation tenure in CEPI, Shri Dinesh Singh issued NOCs vide Order No.12(24)/Pak/125, dated 13.04.2007 (Annexure-I) and letter

no.12(24)/Pak/1258, dated 16.08.2007 (Annexure-II) to the purchasing party, namely, Poddar Infraventures Ltd., Mumbai with reference to his letter

dated 24.03.2007 (Annexure-III) for transfer, by the trustees, of rights, title and interest of the share in respect of Mrs. Dhun Supariwala, Pakistan

National, situated at Tardeo Mumbai. Deed of Assignment dated 06.09.2007 was executed in favour of the purchasing party. The issuance of NOC

by Shri Dinesh Singh has resulted in the alienation of the enemy property in relation to share of Dhun Supariwalaâ€s 1/4th share in the property that

was held by the Trustees on her behalf as Dhunbaiâ€​s Trust Fund.

Article-2

Shri Dinesh Singh issued NOC without seeking approval of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 7 (3) of the

Enemy Property Act.

Article-3

Shri Dinesh Singh ignored the order dated 16/17.02.1979 (Annexure-IV) in Misc. Petition No.790 of 1969 passed by Bombay High Court and

confirmed by the Supreme Court of India in its order dated 16.12.1992 and issued NOC for sale of the share of property in respect of Smt. Dhun

Supariwala.

Article-4

Department of Legal Affairs, Mumbai vide their note dated 22.03.2007 (Annexure-V) had advised the Custodian that the land was valued taking the

FSI at 1.33 and that the Custodian should look into it and satisfy himself whether FSI at 1.33 is appropriate or it should be

3. It was also suggested by the Department of Legal Affairs that in case of higher FSI, the sale price will be more, consequently, share of beneficiary

will get increased proportionately. He did not make any serious efforts for verifying the correct FSI. Thus, he did not comply with the legal opinion

given by the Department of Legal Affairs.

Article-5

Shri Dinesh Singh did not give any directions to the Trustees to conduct an open auction for sale of the 1/4th share of Dhun Supariwala. He allowed

the sale of enemy property on the basis of NOC issued by him as a result of which the transaction fetched a meager amount of around Rs.3 crores to

the public exchequer, which would have been at least Rs.6.25 crores had he given directions to the Trustees for conducting open auction. Thus, he

caused a huge loss of revenue to the public exchequer.

Article-6

Mrs. Ruby Srivastava, Custodian had published a public notice in the Time of India (Mumbai edition) on 07.08.2004 (Annexure-VI) stating that the

Trust Premises is declared as an enemy property to the extent of 1/4th share belonging to Pakistani National managed and preserved by the Custodian

and that any transactions by any person by way of granting of development rights/sale/transfer/mortgage etc. of the Trust Premises will be illegal and

null and void. Despite this, Shri Dinesh Singh issued NOC to the purchasing party vide his letters dated 13.04.2007 and 06.09.2007 which resulted in

the alienation of enemy property from the Government of India.

Article-7

An Order dated 02.01.2004 was passed by Mrs. Ruby Srivastava, the then Custodian staying the construction work on the enemy property situated at

Survey No.276, Hissa No.4(Part) at H. Ward No.1069 (2), Street No.760, Chapel Road, Chandiwala, Compound, Bandra (W), Mumbai belonging to

Aziz Tabani. A vesting certificate dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure-VII) was issued by Mrs. Ruby Srivastava, in respect of enemy property. A show

cause notice dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure-VIII) was also issued by Shri Dinesh Singh to M/s. Jay Construction Company to show cause as to how the

construction work had been undertaken. However, later on, Shri Dinesh Singh passed an Order dated 28.06.2006 (Annexure-IX), cancelling the

aforesaid vesting order dated 17.02.2005 and withdrawing the stay order dated 02.01.2004. Shri Dinesh Singh finalised the Show Cause Notice dated

29.11.2005 in favour of the builder vide his aforesaid Order dated 28.06.2006.

Article-8

Thus, Shri Dinesh Singh committed misconduct under Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by omissions and commissions

detailed in the preceding paragraphs.â€​

22. The applicant submitted his explanation to the charge memo. It runs into about 40 pages and is appended with enclosures of about 50 pages.

Nowhere, in the explanation, the applicant raised any issue as to competence. The only grievance ventilated by him was that the draft charge sheet

was prepared by the MHA, in pursuance of the first stage of advice of CVC, and the disciplinary authority has mechanically approved the same. The

entire explanation was devoted only to offer justification for the steps taken by him. Notwithstanding that, we propose to deal with contentions

advanced by learned counsel for applicant that it was not competent for the MHA to take any steps whatever, once the applicant was repatriated to

lending department, and other contentions advanced by him.

23. Rule 20 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed, in the context of initiation of disciplinary proceedings with reference to acts of

omissions of an employee, who worked on deputation in another department. It reads as under:-

“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 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.â€​

24. From the rule, it becomes clear that it is competent for the lending as well as borrowing departments to initiate proceedings against an employee,

who worked on deputation. Depending on whether the employee is still on deputation or has since been repatriated, certain steps are required to be

taken. However, the competence of either of the departments to initiate the proceedings is neither doubted nor restricted. The applicant is not able to

demonstrate that the proceedings initiated against him are, in any way, violative of Rule 20 of the Rules.

25. It is strongly pleaded that the first stage advice tendered by the CVC, at the instance of MHA, cannot constitute the basis for issuing the charge

memo by the 1st respondent. The answer to this once again lies in Rule 20. If it was competent for the MHA to initiate proceedings as provided under

Rule 20, the advice obtained by it, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Further, the steps that are taken by the borrowing and lending departments

vis-Ã -vis employee, who was on deputation, are either in continuation or tandem. They cannot be compartmentalized from the point of view of

competence. The steps taken by the borrowing department can certainly be used and utilized by the lending department for the purpose of taking them

to finality.

26. It was strongly urged on behalf of the applicant that the disciplinary proceedings could not have been initiated against him since the steps taken by

him as Custodian of Enemy Property were quasi judicial in nature. Even if the acts and omissions are referable to exercise of such powers, there is

nothing in law, which galvanizes them, if there exists serious violations, touching the propriety or honesty. When the acts of omissions on the part of

the judicial officers, as regards their functions, can be subject matter of disciplinary proceedings in deserving cases, it is just un-understandable as to

how the applicant enjoys the greater immunity.

27. An issue is raised that though it was specifically mentioned in the charge memo that the applicant can indicate whether he intends to be heard and

he made request in this behalf, the same was not acceded to. Rule 14 (4) of the Rules stipulates that along with the articles of charge, the statement of

imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses proposed to be examined, must be enclosed; and the government servant be required to submit

written statement in his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. The hearing, contemplated under sub-rube 4 of Rule 14 of the

Rules, is the one referable to the inquiry, where an opportunity of presenting his case is given to the employee. In case the explanation offered by an

employee is so impressive, the proceedings are dropped by the disciplinary authority. The decision, however, need not be preceded by any hearing.

The applicant was informed through order dated 12.07.2017 as under:-

“I am directed to refer to your representation dated 04.05.2017 challenging the charge sheet dated 06.02.2017 on various issues.

2. Your representation dated 04.05.2017 has been considered by the Competent Authority and not found tenable. Accordingly, the same is rejected by

the Competent Authority.

3. As you have denied the charges, the enquiry proceedings will commence shortly after appointment of the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting

Officer.â€​

28. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same. The applicant would have adequate opportunity, not only in the departmental inquiry but also

at the subsequent stages in the form of explanation to the report of inquiry officer if the charges are held proved, and the advice, that may be tendered

by the UPSC.

29. Though extensive arguments are advanced on the merits of the charges, we do not propose to deal with the same. The truth or otherwise of the

allegations contained in the charge memo needs to be evaluated by the inquiry officer. We do not intend to express any view on the charges. The

applicant has to put forward his defence, before the concerned authority. The next contention is about the approval accorded by the Finance Minister

to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and to the charge memo, simultaneously.

30. A perusal of the judgment of Honâ€ble Supreme Court in B.V. Gopinath’s case (supra) discloses that approval for disciplinary proceedings

needed four stages, namely, (a) initiation of disciplinary proceedings, (b) issuance of the memorandum of charges, (c) appointment of inquiry officer;

and (d) imposition of punishment. There is nothing in that judgment to indicate that the approval for the charge memo must be obtained separately and

independently. On the other hand, from a reading of paragraph 50 of the judgment, it becomes clear that defect was on account of there being no

approval of the charge memo, at all.

31. In Vikram Singh v. Union of India & another (W.P. (C) No.6694/2014) decided on 24.08.2015, the Honâ€ble Delhi High Court took the view that

the approval for initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the one hand and approval of charge memo on the other, need not be separate. The same was

further explained in Suresh Sharma v. NTRO through its Chairman & others (W.P. (C) No.3937/2017 & connected matters )decided on 18.08.2017,

and with reference to the judgment in B.V. Gopinath’s case (supra), it has been held as under:-

“30. When the Disciplinary Authority, after consideration of all the relevant material, approves the charge memo, it is implicit therein that the

Disciplinary Authority has also approved the ""initiation"" of Disciplinary Proceedings against the government servant. It is obvious that the Disciplinary

Authority would grant approval to the charge memo/charge- sheet, only if he has formed the opinion that there are grounds available for initiation of

Disciplinary Proceedings against the government servant. The general and initial approval - that the petitioner talks about on a plainly erroneous

reading of sub rule (2) of Rule 14, even if granted, would be a non specific approval - with no clarity on the specific articles of charge that may, or

may not, eventually be framed. This is not mandated by the Rules. On the other hand, the approval of the charge memo/ charge sheet under sub rule

(3) of Rule 14 is in respect of definite and distinct articles of charge which are drawn up against the government servant on the basis of the imputation

of misconduct or misbehaviour. The Disciplinary Authority is obliged to draw up, or cause to be drawn up, with his approval, the substance of the

imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; the statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in

support of each articles of charge which shall contain a statement of the relevant facts including any admission/ confession made by the government

servant, and; a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

31. Thus, in our view, it is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give its separate/ distinct and initial approval for ""initiation"" of disciplinary

proceedings. Once the Disciplinary Authority grants its approval to the charge memo/ charge sheet after perusing the entire material, it would be

sufficient compliance of the Rules, and the same would completely safeguard the interests of the government servant concerned.â€​

The same view was quoted with approval by the High Court in Manjit Singh Bali v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No.9078/2017) decided on 16.10.2017.

32. Placing reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in A R Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak & another (1984) 2 SCC 500, Joint Action

Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) & others v. Director General of Civil Aviation & others (2011) 5 SCC 43 5and

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & others (2003) 2 SCC 111, it is pleaded that any deviation from the steps for initiation of

proceedings is fatal and that in the instant case, the CVC advice, if at all, ought to have been obtained by the 1st respondent. Reliance is also placed

reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in B L Satyarthi v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & another (W.A. No.1058/2009) decided

on 29.09.2014.

33. That was a case in which the borrowing department not only initiated disciplinary proceedings but also conducted the inquiry and indicated the

punishment, after the repatriation of the employee. Rule 20 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, which is pari materia to Rule 20 of

the Rules, was taken note of and it was held that the borrowing department ought to have forwarded the proceedings to the lending department for

further action without indicating the punishment. In the instant case, except for making some preliminary steps, the borrowing department, i.e., MHA

did not take any tangible steps against the applicant, and initiation of proceedings by issuing charge memo was done by the lending / parent

department.

34. Another ground urged by the applicant is about delay. The alleged acts and omissions took place when the applicant was on deputation. They were

not routine in nature. As soon as they were noticed, explanation of the applicant was called for. The explanation offered by the applicant demonstrates

as to how complicated the entire episode is. Hence, we do not find that there was any delay.

35. We do not find any merit in this O.A. and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order passed in O.A. shall stand vacated. We direct that the

disciplinary proceedings against the applicant shall be concluded as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.