Non est Charge-Sheets under Rule 14(3) CCS(CCA): Delhi High Court Reaffirms B.V. Gopinath, Rejects Res Judicata and Prospective-Only Arguments

Introduction

This decision addresses a structural question in disciplinary jurisprudence under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS(CCA) Rules): whether a charge-sheet issued without the express approval of the Disciplinary Authority (DA) under Rule 14(3) is void and whether such a defect can be cured by post facto acts, estoppel, or finality considerations after multiple rounds of litigation. The Union of India challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that quashed a 2009 charge-sheet against Shri S.K. Jasra, then a Joint Director in Air Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, on the ground that the charge-sheet lacked DA approval.

The factual substratum comprised sexual harassment-related complaints in 2007 by a subordinate employee (relating to conduct towards her daughter and daughter-in-law), an internal inquiry, and a Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee report finding insufficient corroboration but indicating distressing undercurrents. This culminated in a charge-sheet dated 24.03.2009 alleging conduct unbecoming of a government servant under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Multiple rounds of inquiry, penalties, remands, and writ petitions ensued through 2019. The respondent first discovered via RTI in September 2019 that the charge-sheet had not been approved by the DA, triggering the fourth round before CAT, which allowed his challenge in 2023. The present writ petition by the Union tested CAT’s order.

The core issues included:

• Whether Rule 14(3) mandates DA approval of the charge-sheet and if its absence renders the charge-sheet non est (void).
• Whether Authentication Rules, 2002, and a 1969 MHA memorandum could substitute or dilute the Rule 14(3) requirement.
• Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath applies to charge-sheets issued before that judgment and remains binding despite recent critical observations in State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025).
• Whether res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel, delay, or the principle of finality of litigation bar a later challenge when the defect goes to jurisdiction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Union’s writ petition and upheld the CAT’s order quashing the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings. The Court held:

• It is undisputed that the 24.03.2009 charge-sheet was issued without approval of the competent Disciplinary Authority (Hon’ble Raksha Rajya Mantri).
• Under Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, DA approval of the charge-sheet is mandatory. Absence of such approval renders the charge-sheet non est (void ab initio), as held in B.V. Gopinath and reaffirmed in Sunny Abraham; the defect cannot be cured by subsequent acts or post facto approvals.
• Authentication Rules, 2002 and the 16.04.1969 MHA memorandum cannot override or dilute the statutory requirement in Rule 14(3).
• B.V. Gopinath’s interpretation is binding and applies unless the Supreme Court limits it prospectively; it governs even charge-sheets issued prior to that judgment.
• Although the Supreme Court in Rukma Kesh Mishra expressed criticism about B.V. Gopinath in a different statutory context (1930 Rules), it did not overrule it. Hence, Gopinath continues to govern CCS(CCA) Rule 14 cases.
• Principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, estoppel, and finality of litigation do not revive a “stillborn” charge-sheet. A void order can be challenged at any stage.

The net result: the charge-sheet and all subsequent disciplinary orders fall. Consequential benefits are to follow, and the administration retains liberty to proceed afresh strictly in accordance with applicable rules (including any limitation or other statutory constraints).

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents and Authorities Cited: How They Shaped the Outcome

• Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351.
  The linchpin. Interpreting Rule 14(3), the Supreme Court held that DA must approve the charge-sheet; an initial decision “to initiate” proceedings is distinct from approval of the “articles of charge.” The phrase “draw up or cause to be drawn up” means drafting may be done by a subordinate but requires DA’s approval before issuance. A charge-sheet lacking DA approval is non est, being contrary to Article 311 safeguards and the CCS(CCA) framework.
• Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1284.
  Reaffirmed Gopinath and clarified that the absence of “prior” in Rule 14(3) does not permit post facto approval. If the charge-sheet lacked DA approval at issuance, it is a stillborn instrument incapable of revival: “Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum.”
• State of T.N. v. Promod Kumar, (2018) 17 SCC 677.
  Applied similar reasoning under All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, underscoring the centrality of DA approval in disciplinary architecture.
• P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. CAG, (1993) 1 SCC 419.
  Noted that while Article 311(1) doesn’t itself require initiation by the appointing authority, rules can prescribe stricter safeguards. Gopinath built on this: Rule 14(3) is such a safeguard and must be honored.
• State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 676.
  The Supreme Court expressed reservations about Gopinath’s reasoning but limited its discussion to rules distinct from CCS(CCA). The Delhi High Court read Rukma Kesh Mishra as not overruling Gopinath and confined its application to the 1930 Rules and facts there. Therefore, Gopinath remains binding precedent for CCS(CCA) Rule 14 cases.
• Authentication (Orders and Other Instruments) Rules, 2002.
  These rules govern who may authenticate orders issued in the President’s name. The Court held they do not supplant substantive requirements like DA approval under Rule 14(3).
• MHA Memorandum dated 16.04.1969.
  The memo suggests administrative routing in cases where the President is DA. The Court emphasized that no executive instruction can override statutory rules: Rule 14(3) still governs and requires DA approval of the charge-sheet.
• Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613; Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2004) 3 SCC 1; Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, (2021) 9 SCC 99.
  These authorities reinforce that questions of jurisdiction or orders void ab initio are not insulated by res judicata or estoppel. Delhi High Court applied the same logic: a void charge-sheet cannot be validated by procedural bars.
• State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249.
  Supports the proposition that a void order’s validity can be questioned at any stage.
• ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 309.
  Cited by the Union for finality. The Court distinguished it: finality cannot cure a jurisdictional nullity.
• Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1974.
  Invoked to caution against reopening concluded matters post new interpretations. The Court held Gopinath is not merely “new law” but an authoritative interpretation of existing Rule 14(3) that was never prospectively limited by the Supreme Court.
• All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. S.P. Vashisht, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3168.
  Illustrates that courts in Delhi have applied Gopinath to charge-sheets issued even prior to 2014, undermining the “prospective-only” thesis.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Rule 14(3) is a substantive safeguard requiring DA approval of the charge-sheet itself. The Court emphasized the distinction between:
  • Approval to “initiate” proceedings (Rule 14(2)), and
  • Approval of the charge memorandum (Rule 14(3)).
  Both demand independent application of mind by the DA. A mere initial “go ahead” does not satisfy the Rule 14(3) requirement.
• Non est consequence; no post facto cure. Following Gopinath and Sunny Abraham, a charge-sheet without DA approval is void in law and cannot be resurrected later by subsequent approvals, endorsements, or procedural steps.
• Form cannot trump substance. The annotation “By order and in the name of the President” and reliance on the 2002 Authentication Rules were rejected as insufficient. Authentication is about form; Rule 14(3) is about substantive authority and application of mind. Likewise, the 1969 MHA memo cannot override statutory rules.
• Binding nature and temporal reach of Gopinath. The Court held that Gopinath’s interpretation is declaratory of existing law and applies to all cases unless the Supreme Court limits it prospectively—which it did not. The plea that reopening concluded matters causes prejudice to administration was outweighed by the constitutional and statutory safeguards embedded in Article 311 and Rule 14(3).
• Rukma Kesh Mishra does not dislodge Gopinath in CCS(CCA) cases. While Rukma Kesh Mishra expresses criticism and poses a possible “healthy debate,” it was decided in the context of the 1930 CCA Rules and on facts where draft charges had DA approval. The Delhi High Court expressly held that B.V. Gopinath continues to “govern the field” under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA).
• No bar of res judicata/estoppel/finality where the foundational action is void. The Court treated the absence of DA approval as a jurisdictional defect going to the root, not a mere procedural irregularity. On such defects, principles like res judicata and estoppel yield; a void act cannot be given life by previous adverse orders. The respondent’s later discovery via RTI, and the deceptive comfort of the President’s-name endorsement, explain the timing of the challenge without attracting blame for laches.

3. Impact and Implications

The decision will reverberate across service jurisprudence and departmental practice under CCS(CCA):

• Departmental Compliance Culture: Authorities must evidence express DA approval of the charge-sheet before issuance. Drafting may be delegated, but approval cannot be presumed or inferred from initiation decisions or later steps. Departments should ensure:
  • A clear noting reflecting DA’s consideration and approval of the final articles of charge, not just the decision to initiate.
  • Retention of the approval trail in the record to withstand judicial scrutiny.
  • Awareness that “By order and in the name of the President” is an authentication device, not a substitute for DA’s application of mind under Rule 14(3).
• Pending and Concluded Proceedings: Proceedings originating from charge-sheets lacking DA approval are susceptible to challenge as void—even at advanced or concluded stages. Sunny Abraham’s “stillborn” metaphor underscores that later steps cannot cure the original defect.
• Retroactivity Questions Settled (for Rule 14 CCS(CCA)): Arguments that Gopinath should operate only prospectively will likely not succeed in CCS(CCA) cases unless and until the Supreme Court so directs.
• Limits on Fresh Proceedings: Although the Tribunal and the High Court leave liberty to proceed afresh “in accordance with relevant rules,” such liberty is meaningful only if the statute permits it. For retired employees, fresh proceedings are constrained by the CCS (Pension) Rules (e.g., Rule 9), including limitations on instituting proceedings in respect of events beyond specified time frames and the necessity of Presidential sanction. Practically, many legacy matters may be time-barred.
• Sexual Harassment Context: This judgment does not dilute the gravity of sexual harassment allegations. It reinforces that even in sensitive matters, disciplinary architecture must respect statutory safeguards to ensure fairness and legitimacy, lest the proceedings fail on foundational grounds.
• Strategic Litigation Conduct: Parties opposing disciplinary action may legitimately interrogate the DA-approval trail, including via RTI. Conversely, the State should proactively cure process vulnerabilities and ensure transparency of approval processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 311(1) and (2): Constitutional safeguards for civil servants, ensuring that removal/dismissal is not by a subordinate to the appointing authority, and that adverse actions follow a fair inquiry.
• Rule 14(2) vs. Rule 14(3) CCS(CCA): Rule 14(2) concerns the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Rule 14(3) concerns drawing up the charge-sheet; drafting can be delegated, but the DA must approve the charge-sheet before it is issued.
• “Non est”/“Stillborn” charge-sheet: A legal instrument deemed void from inception due to a foundational defect—in this scenario, issuance without DA approval—rendering it incapable of validation by later steps or approvals.
• Authentication Rules, 2002: Rules about form and signature “in the name of the President.” They do not confer substantive authority nor replace statutory approvals required under the CCS(CCA) Rules.
• Res judicata and Estoppel (including constructive res judicata): Doctrines that bar re-litigation of issues decided or that ought to have been raised earlier. They do not apply to foundational jurisdictional defects that make an action void; a nullity can be challenged at any time.
• Prospective vs. declaratory rulings: Courts usually interpret existing law; unless the Supreme Court limits a ruling prospectively, it applies to past and pending matters. Gopinath is treated as such a declaratory interpretation for Rule 14(3).

Key Takeaways and Practical Guidance

• Express DA approval of the charge-sheet, separate from initiation of proceedings, is mandatory under Rule 14(3) CCS(CCA).
• Authentication formulas and ministerial notings do not substitute for the DA’s specific approval of the articles of charge.
• A charge-sheet issued without DA approval is void ab initio; no post facto acts or subsequent steps can cure it.
• Gopinath and Sunny Abraham remain binding for CCS(CCA) Rule 14 cases and are not confined to prospective application.
• Doctrines of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and estoppel do not breathe life into a void charge-sheet.
• Departments should audit ongoing and legacy disciplinary matters for compliance with Rule 14(3) and preserve documentary proof of DA approval.
• Fresh proceedings post-quash are subject to the limits of the CCS(CCA) and CCS (Pension) Rules, including time bars and sanction requirements.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Union of India v. S.K. Jasra consolidates a now-settled rule: under Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, a charge-sheet must carry the Disciplinary Authority’s approval; otherwise, it is non est and incapable of resurrection through subsequent approvals or procedural steps. The Court rejects attempts to dilute this mandate via authentication formalities or executive memoranda and clarifies that the Supreme Court’s decision in B.V. Gopinath governs CCS(CCA) cases unless and until overruled or prospectively limited.

Equally significant is the Court’s refusal to allow doctrines of res judicata, estoppel, or finality to validate a jurisdictional nullity—even after multiple rounds of litigation. The judgment thus strengthens the constitutional and statutory architecture of fair disciplinary proceedings under Article 311 and Rule 14, while signaling to administrators the need for rigorous procedural compliance. In practical terms, it opens a pathway for employees to challenge legacy charge-sheets that were issued without DA approval and obliges the State to recalibrate disciplinary processes to ensure that substantive legal requirements are not lost in administrative shorthand.

Appendix: Procedural Timeline (Simplified)

• 2007: Complaints and inquiries; Sexual Harassment Committee notes insufficient corroboration but notes distressing undercurrents.
• 24.03.2009: Charge-sheet issued under Rule 14 CCS(CCA) without DA approval (undisputed).
• 18.12.2009: Inquiry Officer holds charges proved.
• 21.09.2010: First penalty (withholding increments); 10.01.2011: Presidential rejection of review.
• 28.02.2012: CAT sets aside first penalty; 25.07.2012: Delhi HC upholds remand.
• 28.09.2012: Second penalty (reduction in rank); 10.09.2013: CAT declines interference but directs reconsideration; 28.05.2015: Delhi HC dismisses challenge with costs; 27.08.2015: Penalty reiterated; 02.02.2016: Reviews rejected.
• 28.03.2018–16.01.2019: CAT partly allows OA; first penalty made operative; implemented on 16.01.2019; 18.09.2019: Respondent’s writ dismissed.
• 13.08.2019/Sept 2019: RTI reveals lack of DA approval of the charge-sheet; 23.09.2019: Review under Rule 29A rejected on 19.02.2020.
• 27.09.2023: CAT quashes the charge-sheet and orders consequential benefits; liberty to proceed afresh per rules.
• 10.10.2025: Delhi High Court dismisses Union’s writ; upholds CAT’s order.