Can a Chargesheet Issued Without the Prior Approval of the Disciplinary Authority Be Considered Valid?

Disciplinary proceedings form the cornerstone of accountability in public service. They ensure that civil servants maintain integrity and uphold the standards of conduct expected of them. However, when the very foundation of such proceedings—the chargesheet—is issued without authority, questions arise about the legality and fairness of the entire process.

Delhi High Court’s judgment in Union of India through Secretary & Ors. v. S.K. Jasra (2025) provides a comprehensive reaffirmation of this principle, holding that a chargesheet issued without the prior approval of the competent disciplinary authority is non est—void ab initio and incapable of subsequent validation.

This article examines the Court’s reasoning, the underlying constitutional and procedural framework, and the wider implications of this ruling on disciplinary jurisprudence in India.

Factual Background

The case arose out of a long-drawn disciplinary proceeding against S.K. Jasra, a Joint Director in the Directorate of Pay, Pension and Regulations, Air Headquarters, Ministry of Defence.

Origin of Complaint

In 2007, a peon in the department, Smt. Nirmala Devi made complaints alleging inappropriate conduct by the respondent towards her daughter and daughter-in-law. Following preliminary investigations, the administration decided to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings.

Issuance of Chargesheet

On 24 March 2009, a chargesheet was issued against Jasra for “conduct unbecoming of a Government servant” under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Subsequent Proceedings

Multiple inquiries and penalties followed: first, the stoppage of salary increments for two years (2010), later modified to a reduction in rank (2012), both upheld in successive rounds before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court.

Fourth Round of Litigation

In 2019, Jasra obtained, through an RTI application, internal noting sheets revealing that the 2009 chargesheet had never received approval from the competent disciplinary authority—the Hon’ble Raksha Rajya Mantri (Minister of State for Defence). He challenged the validity of the chargesheet before the CAT, which set it aside, holding it void.

Union’s Writ Petition

The Union of India assailed the CAT’s order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Minister had approved the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and that formal approval of the charge memo was unnecessary.

Issue

The central question before the Court was:

• Whether a chargesheet issued without the prior approval of the competent disciplinary authority is valid in law or void ab initio.

Legal Framework

Article 311 of the Constitution

• Article 311(1) safeguards that no civil servant shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
• Article 311(2) requires that dismissal or reduction in rank must follow a proper inquiry, ensuring adherence to natural justice.

Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

“Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge.”

This provision mandates that the disciplinary authority must either draw up the chargesheet itself or cause it to be drawn up under its explicit approval. The phrase “cause to be drawn up” does not imply delegation of the authority to approve the charges; it merely allows the drafting to be done by a subordinate, subject to the authority’s sanction.

Petitioners’ Contentions

The Union of India advanced several arguments:

Implied Approval: It claimed that since the Minister had approved the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the subsequent chargesheet carried implied approval.

Authentication Rules: The chargesheet was issued “by order and in the name of the President” under the Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002, and therefore presumed valid.

Retrospective Effect of Precedent: The Union argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014 1 SCC 351), which held that such chargesheets without approval are void, should apply prospectively, not to chargesheets issued prior to 2014.

Doctrine of Finality: The respondent had already undergone multiple rounds of litigation, and the case had attained finality. Reopening it violated the principle of interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium—there should be an end to litigation.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent countered these points effectively:

Discovery of Illegality: The lack of approval came to light only after receiving RTI documents in 2019. Thus, the plea was not barred by res judicata or estoppel.

Rule 14(3) Violation: Non-approval by the competent authority made the chargesheet void ab initio.

Settled Law: He relied on B.V. Gopinath, State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar (2018 17 SCC 677), and Sunny Abraham v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1284), where the Supreme Court consistently held that the absence of prior approval renders disciplinary proceedings void.

No Estoppel Against Law: A void act cannot be validated by waiver, estoppel, or res judicata; principles of natural justice and statutory compliance override procedural finality.

The Court’s Analysis

The Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Madhu Jain upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning, making several important observations:

1. Absence of Approval Is Admitted

The Union did not deny that the Raksha Rajya Mantri had not approved the final form of the chargesheet. Only the decision to initiate proceedings had been sanctioned. Thus, the factual foundation for invalidity was established.

2. Rule 14(3) Must Be Strictly Construed

The Court emphasised that the disciplinary authority must apply its mind twice:

• First, while deciding to initiate proceedings, and
• Second, while approving the specific charges framed.

The absence of the second approval makes the process unconstitutional and ultra vires Rule 14(3).

3. Reliance on B.V. Gopinath

The judgment in B.V. Gopinath was reproduced at length, reiterating that mere approval of initiation does not substitute approval of the chargesheet. The Supreme Court had held that “the term cause to be drawn up merely refers to a delegation to draft charges, but the finalised charges must be approved by the disciplinary authority.”

Thus, the Court concluded that the Union’s argument of implied approval was untenable

4. Stillborn Chargesheet

Citing Sunny Abraham, the Court noted that a charge memo without prior approval is a “stillborn instrument”—legally non-existent—and cannot be revived by any subsequent ratification. “Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum,” the Court observed, underscoring that ex-post facto approval is meaningless once a fundamental procedural defect occurs.

5. No Retrospective Limitation on Gopinath

The Court rejected the Union’s plea that Gopinath applies prospectively. Judicial interpretation of existing law is declaratory, not creative—it clarifies what the law has always meant. Unless the Supreme Court explicitly restricts its decision to prospective effect, it applies to all pending and prior cases.

6. Memoranda and Authentication Rules Cannot Override Statute

Neither the 1969 MHA memorandum nor the 2002 Authentication Rules could override the express mandate of Rule 14(3). Administrative instructions cannot dilute statutory safeguards.

7. Subsequent Approval Ineffective

The Court reaffirmed that approval for initiation and approval of the charge memo are “two divisible acts.” Even if the authority approves initiation, failure to approve the specific chargesheet renders the latter void.

8. No Bar of Res Judicata or Estoppel

Where a proceeding is void ab initio, the entire structure collapses. Such a defect is jurisdictional, not procedural, and may be raised at any stage. The Court relied on Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004 3 SCC 1) to hold that null acts cannot be sustained by procedural doctrines.

Key Judicial Precedents Affirmed

(1) Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014 1 SCC 351)

Established that under Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, a chargesheet must be approved by the disciplinary authority. Approval of initiation does not suffice.

(2) State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar (2018 17 SCC 677)

Reiterated that lack of such approval renders the chargesheet void and incapable of being cured by later ratification.

(3) Sunny Abraham v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1284)

Clarified that even if “prior approval” is not expressly stated in the rules, the interpretation in Gopinath requires pre-issuance approval. What is non-existent in law cannot be revived retrospectively.

(4) State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 676)

Although this judgment critiqued Gopinath’s reasoning in the context of different service rules, the Delhi High Court noted that Gopinath still governs the field for Rule 14(3) cases.

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s ruling in Union of India v. S.K. Jasra is a reaffirmation of the cardinal principle that disciplinary authority is not a mere formality but a jurisdictional necessity. A chargesheet issued without the prior approval of the competent authority is non est—it has no existence in the eyes of law and cannot be revived through later ratification.

By aligning with the precedents in B.V. Gopinath and Sunny Abraham, the Court has underscored that legality precedes legitimacy: administrative efficiency cannot come at the cost of constitutional compliance. The judgment serves as a cautionary reminder to all government departments that adherence to Rule 14(3) is not optional—it is the very foundation of lawful disciplinary action.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams