Disciplinary proceedings initiated without serving a charge-sheet are without jurisdiction.

Niranjan Singh, employed as a Subedar in a unit-run station canteen, was suspended on 27 April 2004 following allegations that he had used derogatory language towards senior officers.

No charge-sheet was issued; an inquiry was conducted treating the suspension order as the charge-sheet, and he was dismissed from service effective from the date of suspension.

His appeal was rejected.

The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the dismissal and directed reinstatement under deemed suspension, while permitting the Union of India to proceed from the charge-sheet stage.

A Division Bench of the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision with modifications, but that judgment was recalled on review because of the Supreme Court’s decision in R.R. Pillai.

The present Bench reconsidered the writ petition while a larger-bench reference concerning the status of unit-canteen employees remained pending.

1. Whether employees of unit-run canteens are Central Government employees, given the conflicting Supreme Court decisions in Bheek Singh Rathore and R.R. Pillai.

2. Whether disciplinary proceedings and dismissal could stand when no charge-sheet was issued and the inquiry was initiated by treating the suspension order as the charge-sheet.

3. Whether the respondent should be relegated to fresh disciplinary proceedings or granted reinstatement-related relief, including back wages.

Under Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference, when Supreme Court decisions of equal strength conflict, a High Court must follow the earlier decision unless directed otherwise; it should not defer a case merely because a reference is pending.

Applying that rule, the Court followed Bheek Singh Rathore, which adopted Union of India v. M. Aslam and treated unit-canteen employees as Central Government employees, rather than the later decision in R.R. Pillai.

The Court also applied the settled service-law principle that disciplinary proceedings commence with the issuance of a charge-sheet; an inquiry cannot lawfully proceed without one.

The Court held that Bheek Singh Rathore preceded R.R. Pillai and, under Union Territory of Ladakh, was therefore the decision it had to follow; it accordingly proceeded on the basis that the respondent was a Central Government employee.

On that basis, the disciplinary process was legally defective: the authorities had appointed an Inquiry Officer without issuing a charge-sheet, instead treating the suspension order as one, rendering the ensuing proceedings without jurisdiction.

Given the passage of time, the Court agreed that requiring the respondent to face a fresh inquiry would be unjust; it also agreed that the appropriate relief was notional pay fixation and future arrears, rather than back wages.

The dismissal was set aside; the respondent was entitled to notional fixation of pay and arrears for the future, but not back wages.

The direction placing him under deemed suspension and the liberty to initiate de novo proceedings were set aside.