Administrative amendments altering disciplinary jurisdiction cannot be applied retrospectively to validate orders passed by incompetent authorities.

The respondent, a Beldar in the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), was absent from work due to illness from October 2013 to November 2018

Upon his retirement on December 31, 2019, the DJB initiated major penalty proceedings for unauthorized absence

Based on an Inquiry Report dated March 25, 2021, the Member (Admn.) of the DJB issued an order on April 22, 2022, imposing a 20% pension cut for five years and treating the absence as dies non

The respondent challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 959/2024. The Tribunal quashed the punishment on May 23, 2025, ruling it was passed by an incompetent authority under the prevailing Office Order No. 51

The DJB filed a review (RA 189/2025) citing a subsequent "Corrigendum" (Office Order No. 60) intended to validate the Member’s authority retrospectively, which was dismissed

1. Whether the Member (Admn.) was the competent Disciplinary Authority to penalize a retired employee under the regulations existing at the time of the order

2. Whether a subsequent Corrigendum (Office Order No. 60) could retrospectively confer jurisdiction on an authority and validate a previously void-ab-initio order

Under DJB Office Order No. 51 (dated March 4, 2021), the "Board" was designated as the competent Disciplinary Authority for retired officials in Category A, B, and C

Legal principles establish that an administrative authority must act within the four corners of the delegated powers existing at the time of the order; any order passed by an incompetent authority is a nullity for want of jurisdiction

Administrative orders or corrigendums cannot be applied retrospectively to affect civil rights unless expressly authorized by statute or a formal Board resolution

The Court observed that at the time the punishment was awarded (April 2022), Office Order No. 51 clearly mandated that only "the Board" had the authority to penalize retired employees

The DJB's attempt to justify the Member (Admn.)’s order via a 2025 Corrigendum was rejected because the Corrigendum lacked a supporting Board resolution for its retrospective application

The Court reasoned that since the original punishment resulted in adverse civil consequences (pension cut), a subsequent administrative "correction" four years later could not cure the initial lack of jurisdiction

The Court found no evidence of "inadvertent omission" and held that the DJB could not presume retrospective validity without explicit legal or administrative sanction

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, upholding the Tribunal’s judgment; however, the Court maintained the liberty granted to the DJB to proceed against the respondent afresh in accordance with the law