The Delhi High Court has upheld that order initiating disciplinary proceedings against Madan Mohan, a Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration).
The petitioner, who belongs to the Indian Civil Accounts Service, was issued a charge-sheet on 5 July 2018 by the Joint Controller General of Accounts (Vigilance), by order and in the name of the President of India, proposing to hold a disciplinary enquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 .
The allegations in the charge-sheet pertained to the period during which the petitioner was working as Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration) in the office of the Controller General of Accounts2 . For the purposes of the present judgment, and in view of the limited ground canvassed by the petitioner, it is not necessary to refer to the charges against him.
The charge-sheet dated 5 July 2018 was, before it was issued to the petitioner, approved by the Minister of State (Finance)3, on the basis of the Office Order dated 3 April 2018, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Expenditure.
Madan Mohan, a Joint Controller General of Accounts (Administration) challenged the office order and chargesheet on the grounds that as a Group A ICAS Officer, his disciplinary authority was the Union Minister of Finance (MOF), and that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018, to the extent it permitted the Minister of State (Finance) (MOS) to institute disciplinary proceedings in respect of Group A officers such as the petitioner, was illegal.
The bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta has observed that the petitioner, Madan Mohan’s submission that the Office Order dated 3rd April 2018 is illegal to the extent it allocates the work of disciplinary matters in the Ministry of Finance to the MOS, is misconceived. There is no sub-delegation of work involved in this exercise. The MOF has only allocated the work relating to all disciplinary matters – which would include disciplinary matters relating to Group A officers – to the MOS. Neither is this sub-delegation, nor does the MOS act as a delegate of the MOF.
The bench held that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 merely involved an exercise of internal allocation of work by the MOF in his Ministry and was, therefore, perfectly legal.
Case Details
Case Title: Madan Mohan Versus UOI
Case No.: W.P.(C) 12130/2018, CM APPLs. 47100/2018 & 47105/2018
Date: 04.03.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Shankar Raju
Counsel For Respondent: Ripudaman Bhardwaj
Read More: S. 9C Bogus Purchase Fully Disallowed: Bombay High Court
