Prior Disciplinary Authority approval of draft charge-sheet remains valid despite intervening CVC advice and Chairperson’s administrative issuance.

The Petitioner, a Deputy Director (Law) at the Competition Commission of India (CCI), was accused of tampering with statements recorded during search and seizure proceedings.

On June 27, 2023, the CCI (the Disciplinary Authority) approved the initiation of major penalty proceedings and directed the draft charge-sheet to be placed before it.

On August 4, 2023, the Commission formally approved the draft charge-sheet.

The matter was then referred to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which rendered its first-stage advice on September 25, 2023, agreeing with the CCI's proposal without suggesting modifications.

Subsequently, on October 3, 2023, the Chairperson of the CCI directed the issuance of the charge-sheet "as approved by the Commission and CVC".

The Petitioner challenged the memorandum of charge, contending it lacked proper approval from the competent Disciplinary Authority (the full Commission) after the CVC stage.

1. Whether the memorandum of charge dated October 3, 2023, is void for want of approval by the Commission as the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

2. Whether, after receipt of CVC’s first-stage advice, the matter was required to be placed again before the Commission for fresh approval before issuance of the charge memo.

3. Whether the Chairperson’s direction to issue the charge-sheet amounted to an unauthorized exercise of the Commission's disciplinary power.

Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandates that the Disciplinary Authority must "draw up or cause to be drawn up" the articles of charge.

The precedent of Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014), which establishes that approval for initiation of proceedings is distinct from approval of the charge-sheet.

State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025), which cautions against a mechanical application of Gopinath and emphasizes checking whether the draft charge-sheet was part of the proposal approved by the authority.

Section 13 of the Competition Act, 2002 regarding the Chairperson's powers of general administrative superintendence.

The Court distinguished this case from B.V. Gopinath by noting that the CCI had not only approved the initiation of proceedings on June 27 but had specifically approved the draft charge-sheet in a subsequent meeting on August 4, 2023.

The Court reasoned that since the CVC advice did not result in any material changes to the draft already approved by the Commission, there was no legal requirement to seek fresh approval from the Commission.

The Chairperson’s involvement on October 3 was deemed purely administrative—directing the issuance of a document already approved by the competent body—consistent with Section 13 of the Competition Act.

Regarding the validity of minutes signed only by the CVO, the Court applied the presumption of regularity to official records, noting that the Petitioner provided no proof to displace the accuracy of the recorded decisions.

The Court held that fresh approval after CVC advice is unnecessary if the charge-sheet remains unchanged.

The Chairperson's direction was held to be a valid administrative act.

The petition was disposed of, vacating the interim stay on disciplinary proceedings but granting the Petitioner liberty to raise procedural grievances (e.g., non-supply of documents) before the Disciplinary Authority during the final stage of the inquiry.