Facts
The applicant, Sunita Meena, a TGT Social Science, availed LTC in 2013 and subsequently faced a show-cause notice on 17.05.2014 for purchasing tickets from unauthorized travel agents
Source reference: p.2She replied, admitting the unintentional act, and deposited the amount with interest on 08.10.2015
Source reference: p.2A memorandum for action under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued on 14.07.2014, but remained unconcluded before 2017
Source reference: p.3She was promoted to PGT Social Science on 03.01.2020 and directed to be posted on 24.09.2020, but not posted till the date of the OA
Source reference: p.3On 16.02.2021, a penalty of reduction to a lower scale without cumulative effect after seven years was imposed for concealing pending disciplinary proceedings in her 2020 vigilance clearance
Source reference: p.3The applicant's O.A. No. 3102/2021 was disposed of when respondents submitted that the 16.02.2021 order would be withdrawn and a fresh order passed
Source reference: p.4Vide order dated 13.09.2022, the orders dated 14.07.2014 and 16.02.2021 were withdrawn
Source reference: p.4A fresh chargesheet dated 17.03.2023 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued
Source reference: p.4Subsequently, the Director of Education, vide order dated 01.05.2023, imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage for two years without cumulative effect
Source reference: p.4The applicant's appeal against the 01.05.2023 order was rejected by the Appellate Authority (Secretary of Education) on 06.10.2023
Source reference: p.4It is undisputed that the disciplinary authority for a TGT (Group B, non-gazetted) is the Chief Secretary, GNCTD
Source reference: p.4-5Neither of the impugned orders (01.05.2023 and 06.10.2023) was issued by the Chief Secretary
Source reference: p.5Issues
Whether the impugned orders dated 01.05.2023 and 06.10.2023, issued by the Director of Education and Secretary of Education respectively, are valid in light of the competent disciplinary authority for a TGT (Group B Non-Gazetted) being the Chief Secretary, GNCTD
Source reference: p.4-5, p.10Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily relied on the settled legal principle that where charges are not approved by the competent disciplinary authority, and proceedings arise from such charges, they are a nullity in the eyes of law, as established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351
Source reference: p.7, p.9Additionally, the Tribunal noted its coordinate Bench's adjudication in O.A. No. 3096/2018 (with Rajesh Kumar Balara Versus GNCTD and Ors. as lead case) dated 01.12.2023, upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 9216/2024 dated 23.12.2024, which unequivocally held that the competent authority for a TGT (Group ‘B’, Non-Gazetted Post) is only the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi
Source reference: p.5The principle of judicial review ensuring fair treatment, as laid down in BC Chaturvedi Versus Union of India and Others reported in 1995 (6) SCC 749, was acknowledged but deemed not to alter the outcome regarding competent authority
Source reference: p.6-7, p.9Reasoning
The court applied the rule from Union of India and Others Vs. B.V. Gopinath, which renders disciplinary proceedings a nullity if not approved by the competent disciplinary authority.
Source reference: p.9It was undisputed that the competent disciplinary authority for a TGT (Group B Non-Gazetted) is the Chief Secretary, GNCTD.
Source reference: p.4-5Both impugned orders (01.05.2023 and 06.10.2023) were issued by the Director of Education and the Secretary of Education, respectively, not by the Chief Secretary.
Source reference: p.5, p.10The Tribunal referenced its coordinate Bench's judgment in Rajesh Kumar Balara Versus GNCTD and Ors., which confirmed the Chief Secretary as the sole competent authority for such posts.
Source reference: p.5Therefore, since the impugned orders were not issued by the prescribed competent authority, they are considered nullities in the eyes of law, regardless of the merits of the allegations.
Source reference: p.9-10The argument regarding the delay in issuing orders (allegations from 2013, orders in 2023) was noted but the primary basis for the decision rested on the authority issue.
Source reference: p.5-6The BC Chaturvedi dictum on limited judicial review was acknowledged but distinguished, as the core issue here was the fundamental lack of jurisdiction by the issuing authority.
Source reference: p.6-7, p.9Holding
The Tribunal allowed the O.A.
It held that the impugned orders dated 01.05.2023 and 06.10.2023 are set aside because they were not issued by the competent disciplinary authority, namely the Chief Secretary, GNCTD.
Source reference: p.8, p.10The applicant is entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law and relevant rules and instructions.
Source reference: p.8The respondents are directed to comply with these directions within six weeks.
Source reference: p.8The respondents retain the liberty to initiate or take action against the applicant if they decide to do so, in accordance with relevant rules and instructions.
Source reference: p.8Original Court PDF
Sunita Meena v. The Govt. of N.C.T, Delhi, O.A. No. 1934/2024
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in