Challenge to a charge memo is premature where alleged private conduct could constitute misconduct under service rules.

The applicant, an IPS officer, challenged the fresh charge memorandum dated 11 November 2024 issued under Rule 8(1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, concerning allegations arising from his alleged relationship with Ms. Krithika and related conduct.

An earlier charge memorandum dated 31 December 2022 had been quashed by the Tribunal on 8 April 2024, with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh charge memorandum in accordance with law.

The applicant alleged that the preliminary inquiry was vitiated by bias because Respondent No. 4, who had been involved in the matter and had submitted an adverse report, was subsequently appointed as the Enquiry Officer and cited as a witness.

He further contended that the allegations concerned his private life, were unrelated to his official duties, attracted the procedure under the POSH Act, and that the charge memorandum was issued without requisite approval of the competent authority.

The respondents maintained that the fresh charge memorandum had been duly approved by the competent Disciplinary Authority, that the POSH Act was inapplicable because the complainant had no workplace relationship with the applicant, and that the applicant had not submitted his written statement of defence.

1. Whether the fresh charge memorandum dated 11 November 2024 was liable to be quashed because the allegations concerned the applicant’s private life and had no nexus with his official duties or service misconduct.

2. Whether the alleged conduct could constitute misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an IPS officer under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

3. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias, mala fides, predetermination, or violation of natural justice on account of the preliminary inquiry and the role of Respondent No. 4.

4. Whether the charge memorandum was without jurisdiction because it was signed and issued by the Additional Chief Secretary without the requisite approval of the competent authority.

5. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with the charge memorandum at the threshold.

The Tribunal applied Rule 3(1), Rule 3(1A)(i), and Rule 3(2B)(x) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which require an officer to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, high ethical standards, honesty, and conduct becoming of a member of the Service.

It held that, where established, an illicit relationship or comparable conduct may constitute misconduct under the applicable service rules.

Relying on Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, and State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, (2001) 2 SCC 330, the Tribunal recognised that a charge memorandum may be interfered with in exceptional cases involving a predetermined mind, real bias, mala fides, or a proceeding that would be a mere formality.

However, under Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, and related authorities, courts ordinarily should not quash a charge-sheet because it is premature; interference is justified only where the charge-sheet is wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise patently illegal.

The Tribunal also referred to M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India, where conduct involving an illicit relationship was held capable of constituting conduct unbecoming of a public servant.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s challenge largely required an examination of the merits of the allegations, the evidentiary value of the preliminary inquiry, and the alleged bias of Respondent No. 4—matters ordinarily to be tested in the departmental inquiry rather than at the charge-sheet stage.

Although the applicant relied on privacy and the absence of a nexus with official duties, the Tribunal found that the All India Services Conduct Rules impose obligations extending beyond the immediate workplace and that conduct established as immoral, illicit, or unbecoming may attract disciplinary scrutiny.

The Tribunal did not accept that the charge memorandum was demonstrably without jurisdiction or that the disciplinary process was conclusively predetermined.

It noted that the applicant had an opportunity to submit his defence and to challenge the evidence during the regular inquiry, but had not submitted his written statement of defence.

The respondents’ explanation that the charge memorandum had been approved by the competent authority and merely signed by the Additional Chief Secretary in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Office Manual was also not found sufficient to warrant threshold interference.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review over charge-sheets, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the truth of the charges or the applicant’s defence.

It expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the charges or the applicant’s defence.

The applicant was directed to participate in and cooperate with the departmental proceedings, and the respondents were directed to conclude them in accordance with law and after providing due opportunity to the applicant within eight months from receipt of the order.

The interim order dated 21 November 2025 was vacated, and the Original Application was disposed of without costs.