Prior disciplinary-authority approval suffices when the issued charge remains materially unchanged.

The appellant, a Deputy Director (Law) at the Competition Commission of India (CCI), was charged with tampering with witness statements recorded during a CCI investigation.

The CCI approved initiation of major-penalty proceedings on 27 June 2023 and approved a draft chargesheet on 4 August 2023, which was sent to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for first-stage advice.

The CVC concurred without suggesting changes.

The Chairperson directed issuance of the charge memorandum on 3 October 2023; a corrigendum later amended the statement of imputations.

The appellant challenged the memorandum and related inquiry orders in a writ petition, which the Single Judge dismissed on the approval issue while leaving document and defence-related objections for consideration in the disciplinary process.

The appellant appealed.

During the appeal, the CCI produced the departmental record containing the approved draft chargesheet.

1. Whether the charge memorandum was issued with the approval of the CCI, acting as the Disciplinary Authority, as required by Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and whether the approved draft and issued memorandum were the same document.

2. Whether the omission of the witness list from the material sent to the CVC, or the later corrigendum to the statement of imputations, required fresh approval by the CCI.

3. Whether the Chairperson’s direction to issue the charge memorandum was a valid administrative act under Section 13 of the Competition Act, 2002, and whether the CVC advice had to be placed before the CCI for a further decision.

4. Whether the appellant’s objections concerning defence documents and closure of his defence warranted appellate intervention at that stage.

Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules requires the Disciplinary Authority’s approval of the charge memorandum; that approval must relate to the charge as issued, rather than merely to a general decision to initiate proceedings (Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351).

Rule 14(4) contemplates delivery of the approved articles of charge to the charged officer, including through an authorised officer.

Section 13 of the Competition Act, 2002 gives the CCI Chairperson general administrative powers of superintendence, direction and control, but does not transfer the CCI’s disciplinary jurisdiction to the Chairperson.

The DoPT Office Memorandum of 29 November 2012 directs that, after receiving first-stage CVC advice, the matter be placed before the Disciplinary Authority; the Court treated it as an executive instruction whose breach, absent prejudice, would not invalidate the charge memorandum.

The Court distinguished A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (2) SCC 296, where the CVC advice was not brought to the disciplinary authority’s knowledge.

The appellate court examined the departmental record produced during the appeal and found that the CCI’s authenticated meeting record established approval of the draft chargesheet, while the file noting linked that draft to the later charge memorandum.

The absence of signatures on the draft or of individual Members’ signatures on the forwarding letter did not displace the recorded decision of the multi-member body; no evidence showed lack of quorum, dissent, or a difference between the approved draft and the memorandum.

Although the witness list was not sent to the CVC, it had already formed part of the draft approved by the CCI and was procedural rather than substantive; the corrigendum was a clerical correction that did not change the imputation.

Because the CCI had approved the charge and the CVC had concurred without alteration, the Chairperson’s direction was administrative implementation, not an exercise of the CCI’s disciplinary power.

The court found no demonstrated prejudice from the CVC advice not being placed before the CCI.

The objections to document disclosure and closure of the defence were left for determination by the inquiry and disciplinary authorities before any final order.

The Court held that Rule 14(3) was satisfied; the charge memorandum was the charge approved by the CCI; neither the witness list nor the corrigendum required fresh approval; and the Chairperson validly directed issuance of the approved charge.

The appellant remained at liberty to pursue his defence-document and inquiry-procedure objections before the appropriate authorities, which were to consider them on their merits by reasoned orders.

The inquiry and final disciplinary order were directed to be completed within six months from the judgment.