Post-facto ratification cannot validate a charge memorandum issued without the disciplinary authority’s prior approval.

The Applicant, an Associate Professor at AIIMS Bhubaneswar, was issued a Memorandum of Charges dated 06.05.2025 following an incident involving an unauthorized outside specialist performing a procedure at the institute

On 13.11.2024, the 12th Governing Body (GB) of AIIMS decided not to suspend the Applicant but directed the institute to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

Consequently, the Executive Director issued the charge sheet

Subsequently, on 15.05.2025, the 13th GB meeting "ratified" the issuance of said charge sheet

The Applicant challenged the charge memorandum on the grounds that the Disciplinary Authority (the GB/President) had not approved the specific draft memorandum before issuance, rendering it void ab initio

1. Whether the Memorandum of Charges dated 06.05.2025 was issued by the competent authority in compliance with the mandatory requirements of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules and AIIMS Regulations

2. Whether a charge sheet issued without prior approval of the Disciplinary Authority can be legally validated through subsequent "ratification" by the Governing Body

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which distinguishes between the approval for initiating an inquiry and the approval for the specific charge memorandum

AIIMS Regulation 2019 (Schedule II), which mandates that the Director may issue a charge sheet only "after obtaining the approval of the Governing Body [or] the President"

The court strictly followed the precedents in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, which held that the Disciplinary Authority must personally approve the charge memorandum

Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, which established that a charge memorandum issued without prior approval is non est and cannot be validated by post-facto ratification

The Tribunal observed that while the 12th GB meeting authorized the initiation of proceedings, it did not deliberate upon or approve the specific draft of the charge memorandum as required by law

Under Schedule II of the AIIMS Regulations, the Director's authority to sign the charge sheet is conditional upon prior approval from the GB or President

The Tribunal applied the "Literal Rule of Interpretation," noting that the statutory language is unambiguous regarding the sequence of approval

The Respondents' admission that the charge sheet was "ratified" in the 13th GB meeting (after its issuance) proved that the mandatory prior approval was absent

Following the Supreme Court's mandate in Sunny Abraham, the Tribunal reasoned that life "cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum" and that a jurisdictional defect at the inception is not a remediable irregularity

Since the Executive Director issued the memorandum without the GB first approving the specific articles of charge, the act was beyond his competence

It held that the charge sheet was issued without the requisite prior approval of the Disciplinary Authority, rendering it a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law

The court further declared all subsequent actions taken pursuant to the impugned charge sheet as illegal and arbitrary

Specific relief was granted by setting aside the proceedings while leaving costs to be borne by the parties