Delhi High Court
Madan Mohan vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 18 December 2024
Pronounced on: 04 March 2025
+ W.P.(C) 12130/2018, CM APPLs. 47100/2018 & 47105/2018
MADAN MOHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shankar Raju and Mr.
Nilansh Gaur, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr.
Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGMENT
% 04.03.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. 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, 19651 . The allegations in
the charge-sheet pertained to the period during which the petitioner
1 “the CCS (CCA) Rules” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 1 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
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.
2. Admittedly, 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 following Office Order dated 3 April
2018, issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the
Department of Expenditure4, Ministry of Finance:
“No. A-22012/1/2012-Admn. I (ii)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of ExpenditureNew Delhi, 3 April 2018
OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Allocation of work to Minister of State in
Ministry of Finance [Shri Radhakrishnan P.]Reference is invited to this Department’s Office Order of
even number dated 11th September 2017. In partial modification of
the ibid order, the Union Finance Minister has allocated the
following work (earlier handled directly by the Finance Minister)
in addition to the work already allocated to Shri Radhakrishnan P.,
Minister of State pertaining to Department of Expenditure (DoE),
Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) and Department of
Investment & Public Asset Management (DIPAM) until further
orders:
2. Common to all Departments (Expenditure, Economic
Affairs and DIPAM):
2 “CGA” hereinafter
3 “the MOS” hereinafter
4 “DoE” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 2 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
a. Answering all Starred Questions (after Union
Finance Minister has been briefed on the replies for Starred
Questions).
b. Disposal of all VIP references.
c. All disciplinary cases - both initiation and final
orders.
d. Cases related to appointment, promotion,
resignation and voluntary retirement of officers below
Deputy Secretary level in services under the Ministry of
Finance.
e. Appeals/Petitions in disciplinary cases.
f. Cases of training/deputation abroad.
g. Cases relating to premature retirement under FR 56
and Rule 48 of Pension Rules.
h. Comments on draft Note for the Cabinet or its
Committees.
3. All other matters not specifically delegated to the MoS will
be submitted directly to Finance Minister.
(Annie George Mathew)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India”
3. Without submitting himself to disciplinary proceedings, the
petitioner assailed the chargesheet dated 5 July 2018, as well as the
earlier Office Order dated 3 April 2018, issued by the DoE, to the
extent it allocated, to the MOS, all powers to initiate disciplinary
proceedings and pass final orders thereon. The petitioner contended
that, as a Group A ICAS Officer, his disciplinary authority was the
Union Minister of Finance5, and that the Office Order dated 3 April
2018, to the extent it permitted the MOS to institute disciplinary5 “MOF” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 3 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
proceedings in respect of Group A officers such as the petitioner, was
illegal. Consequently, it was submitted that, as the charge-sheet dated
5 July 2018, prior to being issued, had not been approved by the MOF,
but only by the MOS, who was incompetent to do so, the disciplinary
proceedings stood vitiated ab initio, in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in UOI v B.V. Gopinath6, which requires the charge-
sheet, prior to its being issued, to be put up before, and approved by,
the disciplinary authority.
4. Though nothing really turns on it, we may note, for the record,
the prior trajectory of litigation. The petitioner had earlier instituted
OA 2759/2018, before the Tribunal, challenging the charge-sheet
dated 5 July 2018. The petitioner raised, in the said OA, inter alia the
plea that the charge-sheet had not been approved by the appointing
authority at the relevant stage. The Tribunal, by order dated 25 July
2018, dismissed the OA. Apropos the petitioner’s contention that the
charge-sheet had not been approved by the authority, the Tribunal
merely observed, in para 7 of its order, that the file placed before it by
the respondent revealed that the charge-sheet had in fact been
approved by the appointing authority. The plea that it had not been so
approved, as advanced by the petitioner, was, therefore, rejected. The
petitioner challenged the said order dated 25 July 2018, passed by the
Tribunal, before this Court by way of WP (C) 8194/20187. Before this
Court, the petitioner advanced, for the first time, the contention that
the Office Order dated 3 April 2018, to the extent it empowered the
MOS not to institute disciplinary proceedings in respect of Group A
6 (2014) 1 SCC 351
7 Madan Mohan v UOI
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 4 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
officers, amounted to illegal sub-delegation of the power which
vested, statutorily, in the MOF. As this contention had never been
advanced before the Tribunal, this Court permitted the petitioner to
withdraw the writ petition with liberty to re-approach the Tribunal
taking all pleas, including the challenge to the Office Order dated 3
April 2018. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Review Application,
numbered RA 139/2018 in OA 2759/2018, seeking review of the
judgment dated 25 July 2018 passed by the Tribunal in the said OA.
By order dated 20 August 2018, the Tribunal dismissed the Review
Application is not having been filed in accordance with the liberty
granted by this Court in its order dated 6 August 2018 in WP (C)
8194/2018. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 20 August
2018, passed by the Tribunal, before this Court by way of WP (C)
9071/20188. This Court, by its order dated 29 August 2018, dismissed
the said writ petition, holding that the liberty granted by this Court, in
its order dated 6 August 2018 in WP (C) 8194/2018, was to institute
an independent petition before the Tribunal, in which the petitioner
assail the Office Order dated 3 April 2018, and not to file a Review
Application. The petitioner, thereafter, proceeded to file OA
3909/2018, in which the presently impugned order has come to be
passed by the Tribunal.
5. The respondent-Union of India9 has, in its counter-affidavit both
before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, sought to advance a
plea that OA 3909/2018 was not maintainable in view of the dismissal
of RA 139/2018 by the Tribunal and WP (C) 9071/2018, challenging
8 Madan Mohan v UOI
9 “UOI” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 5 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
the said dismissal of RA 139/2018, by this Court. The principle of
constructive res judicata has also been raised. We may note, here
itself, that these pleas are without any merit, as this Board has, in its
order dated 6 August 2018 in WP (C) 8194/2018, reserved liberty with
the petitioner to re-approach the Tribunal, challenging the Office
Order dated 3 April 2018, as well as the charge-sheet dated 5 July
2018. No doubt, the petitioner, instead of filing a fresh OA, filed a
Review Application, which was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal,
whose order was also appropriately upheld by this Court. That does
not, however, efface the liberty granted by this Court in its order dated
6 August 2018 in WP (C) 8194/2018, to the petitioner, to file a fresh
OA before the Tribunal challenging the charge-sheet dated 5 July 2018
as well as the Office Order dated 3 April 2018. OA 3909/2018 was,
therefore, competent.
6. The Tribunal has, by order dated 15 October 2018, dismissed
OA 3909/2018. The Tribunal observes, in para 8 of its order, that the
OA was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability
but, nonetheless, proceeds to examine it on merits “in deference to
observation made by Hon’ble Delhi High Court”. We may observe
that precisely because of the “observation” – which, presumably,
refers to the liberty granted by this Court to the petitioner in its order
dated 6 August 2018 – the Tribunal was clearly in error in observing
that OA 3909/2018 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-
maintainability. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has deigned to consider the
case set up in the OA on merits and, therefore, we, too, may proceed
to the merits of the matter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 6 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
7. On the merits of the challenge faced by the petitioner, the
Tribunal merely holds thus:
“9. From this, it is evident that the allocation of powers
between the Minister of Finance on the one hand and Minister of
State for Finance, on the other hand, were made. It is a matter of
arrangement and allocation within the Ministry and by no stretch
of imagination, it can be treated as sub delegation. The power
exercised by the Minister of State would be as good as it having
been exercised by the Minister of Finance.
10. The applicant placed reliance upon certain paragraphs in
the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v B.V.
Gopinath. That was the case in which the powers of Minister of
Finance were exercised by the Chairman of Central Board of
Direct Taxes. That is not the case here.”
Based on these somewhat laconic observations and findings, the
Tribunal proceeds to dismiss the petitioner’s OA.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before us in the present writ
petition, instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner has separately placed on record, under CM 35844/2022, a
copy of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in
P.D. Kanunjna v Central Board of Direct Taxes10 which, according to
the petitioner, covers the dispute in his favour. Alongside, the
petitioner has also placed, on record, Office Order dated 4 July 2019,
issued by the DoE, which was under consideration in Kanunjna, and
which reads thus:
“No. A-22012/1/2012-Admn. I
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
10 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1337Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 7 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
*****
New Delhi, the 4th July, 2019OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Allocation of work to Minister of State in
Ministry of Finance – reg.
Reference is invited to this Department’s Office Order of
even number dated 19 June 2019 on the subject cited above
allocating work to Shri Anurag Singh Thakur, Minister of State
(MOS) in the Ministry of Finance.
2. The following amendments are made to the 19 June 2019
Office Order:
(i) All Un-starred Parliament Questions will be
disposed of at the level of the MOS;
(ii) All matters where the President of India is the
Appointing and Disciplinary Authority, shall be submitted
to the Finance Minister through the Minister of State;
(iii) The following items of work/subject matters shall
be submitted directly to the Union Finance Minister:
a) All matters pertaining to Group of Ministers
(GoM)/Alternative Mechanism where Finance
Minister is the Chairperson or a member;
b) All Budget -related matters;
c) Matters related to Enforcement Directorate
(ED), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI),
Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI),
Directorate of Investigation – CBDT, Financial
Intelligence Unit (FIU);
d) Matters pertaining to financial sector
regulators.
3. The 19 June 2019 Office Order stands modified to
the extent as specified out in Para 2 above.
4. This issues with the approval of the Union Finance
Minister.
Signature Not Verified
(Annie George Mathew)
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 8 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
Additional Secretary to the Government of India
9. The writ petition also places, on record, Office Order dated 11
September 2017, issued by the DoE, Ministry of Finance, where under
work has been allocated to the MOS in the Ministry of Finance.
Though lengthy, it is necessary to reproduce this Office Order also in
extenso, thus:
“F.No.A-22012/1/2012-Admn.l (i)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of ExpenditureNew Delhi, 11th September, 2017
OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Allocation of work to Minister of State in
Ministry of FinanceIn continuation of this Ministry’s order of even number
dated 21st July 2016, the Finance Minister has allocated the
following work pertaining to the Department of Revenue (DoR)
and Department of Financial Services (DFS) to Shri Shiv Pratap
Shukia, Minister of State. ”
2. All matters except those listed below at Para 3 and Para 4
shall be submitted to the Finance Minister through Minister of
State (MoS):
3. The following matters will be disposed of at the level of
MoS:
i. All Un-starred Questions, Assurances, Special
Mentions, verification and authentication of notifications,
other documents, reports, etc, which are required to be laid
on the Table of Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha.
ii. Disposal of V.I.P. references other than those
received from Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Chief
Ministers of States.
iii. Matters relating to Official Language.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 9 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
iv. Department of Revenue:
A. CBDT-
1. All matters relating to establishment
and vigilance of Group ‘A’ officers below the
rank of Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Matters relating to appointment of
Standing Counsels, Prosecution Counsels
and Special Counsels for the Income Tax
Department before the High Courts and the
Supreme Court.
3. All matters relating to Regional
Direct Taxes Advisory Committees.
B. CBEC-
1. Engagement of SPP for prosecution
matters.
2. Engagement of Special Fee
Counsels.
3. Postings and transfers at the level of
Additional,/Joint Commissioners and
Deputy/Asstt. Commissioners.
4. Disciplinary matters where the MoS
is the Disciplinary Authority.
5. Recruitment Rules for all Grades
except for Group ‘A’ officers.
C. Revenue Headquarters –
1 Grants-in-aid to the National Institute
of Public Finance and Policy.
2 Administration of the Medicinal and
Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act,
1955 (16 of 1955).
3 Administration of the Sales Tax-
Laws Validation Act, 1956 (7 of 1956).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 10 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
4 Levy of tax on the course of inter-
state Trade or Commerce problems arising
out of the administration of the Central Sales
Tax 1956 (74 of 1956).
5 All Bills etc. relating to Sales Tax
levy in States coming up for the previous
instructions, recommendations or assent of
the President.
6. Problems arising out of the
invalidation of sugarcane cess levies of State
including Validation of such levies,7 Recruitment Rules and amendments
thereto for posts in the Department of
Revenue upto Group B employees.
8 Appeals/Petitions in disciplinary
cases of officers other than Group ‘A’,9 Engagement of non-panel counsels.
10 All exemption proposals upto Rs. 2
crores.
11 Disciplinary cases of Group B
employees.
v Any other matter which the Finance Minister may
like to delegate.
*****
(Annie George Mathew)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India
Ph. No; 011-23093283″
10. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner
superannuated as Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of
Education, on 30 September 2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 11 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
11. While issuing notice in this writ petition on 13 November 2018,
this Court identified the limited issue arising for consideration before
it, in the present case, as “whether the Minister of State for Finance
acts as a delegate of the Minister for Finance in respect of works are
located to such Minister of State”. The UOI was, therefore, directed to
file an affidavit on this aspect, supported by the relevant rules, and the
petitioner was permitted to file a rejoinder thereto.
12. Counter-affidavit by the UOI, and rejoinder thereto by the
petitioner, stand filed in the writ petition.
13. In the counter affidavit, the UOI places reliance on Rule
4(3)(b)11 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules12,
1961, as also Rule 313 of the Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961, both enacted under Article 77 (3) of the
Constitution of India. The Office Order dated 3 April 2018, which,
too, the petitioner has chosen to impugn, it is submitted, merely
allocate business of the Government between the MOF and the MOS,
which is well within the powers of the MOF, conferred by Gaborone 411 4. Allocation of Departments among Ministers –
(1) The business of the Government of India allocated to Cabinet Secretariat is and, shall always be
deemed to have been, allotted to the Prime Minister.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the President may, on the advise of the Prime Minister,
allocate the business of the Government of India among Ministers by assigning one or more departments to
the charge of a Minister.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2), the President may, on the advice
of the Prime Minister –
(a) associate in relation to the business allotted to a Minister under either of the said sub-
rules, another Minister or Deputy Minister to perform such functions as may be assigned to him; or
(b) entrust the responsibility for specified items of business affecting any one or more than
one Department to a Minister who is in charge of any other Department or to a Minister without
Portfolio who is not in charge of any Department.
12 “the Allocation of Business Rules” hereinafter
13 3. Disposal of Business by Ministries.- Subject to the provisions of these Rules in regard to consultation
with other departments and submission of cases to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and its Committees and
the President, all business allotted to a department under the Government of India (Allocation of Business)
Rules, 1961, shall be disposed of by, or under the general or special directions of, the Minister-in-charge.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 12 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
of the Allocation of Business Rules. The petitioner, it is submitted, is
in error regarding the allocation of business as sub- delegation.
Inasmuch as the charge-sheet issue of the petitioner was, a priori,
approved by the MOS, submitted that the mandate of B.V. Gopinath
stands complied with.
14. The petitioner, in his rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the
UOI, has submitted that the power to act as disciplinary authority
stands delegated to the Minister in charge by Rules 2(g)14, 8(1)15 and
1216 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, and has never been otherwise delegated
by the President of India to anyone else. The Allocation of Business
Rules, it is submitted, are not applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction
under Articles 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2(g) of
the CCS (CCA) Rules identifies the disciplinary authority as the
authority specified in Rule 11. Rule 8 of the CCS (CCA) Rules
stipulates that appointment to Group A services is by the President of
India. The proviso to Rule 8 empowers the President to, by special
order, delegate his jurisdiction to any other authority. Such a delegatee
cannot, however, sub-delegate the power to anyone else. Specifically,
14 (g) “disciplinary authority” means the authority competent under these rules to impose on a Government
servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 11;
15 8. Appointments to Group ‘A’ Services and Posts –
(1) All appointments to Central Civil Services, Group ‘A’ and Central Civil Posts, Group ‘A’, shall be
made by the President :
Provided that the President may, by a general or a special order and subject to such conditions as
he may specify in such order, delegate to any other authority the power to make such appointments.
16 12. Disciplinary Authorities –
(1) The President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 on any Government servant.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4), any
of the penalties specified in Rule 11 may be imposed on –
(a) a member of a Central Civil Service other than the General Central Service, by the
appointing authority or the authority specified in the schedule in this behalf or by any other
authority empowered in this behalf by a general or special order of the President;
(b) a person appointed to a Central Civil Post included in the General Central Service, by the
authority specified in this behalf by a general or special order of the President or, where no such
order has been made, by the appointing authority or the authority specified in the Schedule in this
Signature Not Verified behalf.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 13 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
it is submitted that, in the guise of allocation, the MOF could not have
sub-delegated his power as disciplinary authority to the MOS.
15. It is further submitted, in the rejoinder, that, while the Office
Order dated 3 April 2018 purports to partially modify the earlier
Office Order dated 11 September 2017, the latter Office Order does
not stipulate, anywhere, that the MOS would be the disciplinary
authority for Group A officers. Nor is any power, to that effect,
allocated to the MOS by the Office Order dated 3 April 2018. The
Office Order dated 11 September 2017 makes reference only to
officers below the level of Deputy Secretary. Para 3 of the said Office
Order provides that all matters, not specifically dedicated to the MOS,
would be submitted directly to the MOF. There being no specific
delegation to the MOS in respect of disciplinary matters of Group A
officers even in the Office Order dated 3 April 2018, the disciplinary
authority, in respect of such officers, continues to remain the MOF.
Reliance is placed, in this context, on para 4(iii)(c) of the Office Order
dated 11 September 2017.
16. By mere allocation, it is further submitted, the MOS could not
have usurped the jurisdiction of the MOF as the delegatee of the
President under the CCS (CCA) Rules.
17. In this connection, reliance was also placed, in the rejoinder, on
office order dated 19 June 2019 issued by the DoE, Ministry of
Finance, which read thus:
“No. A-22012/1/2012 – Admn.I
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 14 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
******
New Delhi, the 19th June, 2019OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Allocation of work to Minister of State in Ministry of
FinanceThe Union Finance Minister has allocated the following
work to Shri Anurag Singh Thakur, Minister of State (MOS) in the
Ministry of Finance with immediate effect.
2. All matters pertaining to the five Departments of Ministry
of Finance except those mentioned in Para 3 below, but including
Starred & Unstarred Parliament Questions and Calling Attention
Motions, shall be submitted to the Finance Minister through the
Minister of State. However, VIP References addressed to the
Finance Minister will be submitted directly to her.
3. The following matters will be disposed of at the level of the
Minister of State:
a) All matters relating to:
(i) Assurances (Fulfillment/Extension of time,
request for dropping the Assurance)
(ii) Special Mentions
(iii) Laying the Annual
Reports/Rules/Regulations etc. in Rajya Sabha and
Lok Sabha
(iv) Authentication of papers/notifications
required to be laid in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha
b) Matters relating to Official Language
c) Disposal of all VIP references addressed to the
Minister of State
d) The following works specific to each Department
are also delegated to the MOS as follows:
Signature Not Verified
(A) Department of Revenue (DOR):
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 15 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
Revenue Headquarters
(i) Grants-in-aid to the National Institute of
Public Finance and Policy.
(ii) Administration of the Medicinal and Toilet
Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (16 of
1955).
(iii) Administration of the Sales-Tax Laws
Validation Act, 1956 (7 of 1956).
(iv) Levy of tax on the course of inter-State
Trade or commerce-problems arising out of the
administration of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
(74 of 1956).
(v) All Bills etc., relating to sales-tax levy in
States coming up for the previous instructions,
recommendations or assent of the President.
(vi) Problems arising out of the invalidation of
sugarcane cess levies of States including Validation
of such levies.
(vii) Recruitment Rules and Amendments thereof
for posts in the Department of Revenue upto Group
B employees.
(viii) Appeals/Petitions in disciplinary cases of
Officers other than Group ‘A’.
(ix) Engagement of non-panel counsels.
(x) Disciplinary cases of Group B employees.
(xi) All exemption proposals upto Rs. 2 (Two)
crores.
CBDT
(i) All matters relating to establishment and
vigilance of Group A officers below the rank of
Commissioner of Income Tax.
(ii) Matters relating to appointment of Standing
Signature Not Verified
Counsels, Prosecution Counsels and Special
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 16 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
Counsels before the High Courts and the Supreme
Court.
(iii) All matters relating to Regional Direct Taxes
Advisory Committees.
CBIC
(i) Matters relating to engagement of SPPs,
Special Fee Counsels.
(ii) Postings/transfers at the level of
Additional/Joint Commissioners and
Deputy/Assistant Commissioners.
(iii) Disciplinary matters where the MOS is the
Disciplinary Authority.
(iv) Matters relating to Recruitment Rules and its
amendments other than that of Group A officers.
(B) Department of Economic Affairs (DEA):
(i) National Savings Organizations and small
saving related matters except matters meant for
Cabinet and its Committees and policy matters.
(ii) Matters pertaining to Currency & Coinage.
(iii) Matters relating to Controller of Aid,
Accounts & Audit (CAAA).
(C) Department of Expenditure (DOE):
(i) Recruitment Rules of Group B & C
employees and amendments thereof.
(ii) Files relating to Cabinet Committee on
Accommodation.
(D) Department of Investment & Public Asset
Management (DIPAM):
(i) Recruitment Rules of Group B & C
employees and amendments thereof.
4. It may be ensured that all files are submitted/routed to the
Signature Not Verified
Ministers strictly in accordance with this allocation of work.
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 17 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
5. This issues with the approval of the Union Finance
Minister.
(Annie G Mathew)
Additional Secretary to the Government of India”
18. The petitioner submitted that the afore-extracted office order
dated 19 June 2019, did not allocate the jurisdiction in respect of
disciplinary matters pertaining to Group A officers on the MOS, in
Clauses 3(A)(viii) and (iii)(C). Thus, exercise of powers, in respect of
disciplinary action in the case of Group A officers continued to vest
with the MOF.
19. We have heard Mr. Shankar Raju, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for the UOI
at length.
20. Mr. Raju has also placed written submissions on record.
21. Mr. Raju has broadly reiterated the contentions contained in the
pleadings before the Tribunal and before this Court as well as in his
written submissions. In the written submissions, the following issues
have been delineated as arising for consideration, in para 12, thus:
“12. That further, the Petitioner humbly submits that the present
Petition also raises the following Constitutional and legal issues for
consideration, which require to be adjudicated for once and all by
this Hon’ble Constitutional Court:
a) Whether the Union Finance Minister can
unilaterally change the Disciplinary Authority of the
Petitioner, who is a Group “A” officer and is afforded the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 18 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
constitutional protection under Article 311 read with
Article 309 of the Constitution?
b) Whether the Union Finance Minister can
circumvent the aforesaid Constitutional protection afforded
to the Petitioner through internal work allocations and
unilaterally allocate the said quasi-judicial Disciplinary
Authority powers to the Minister of State?
c) Whether the Union Finance Minister has power to
unilaterally allocate/assume the business to himself or to his
subordinate Minister of State of Finance, the business
which is not originally allocated to the Ministry of Finance
as per the Rules of the Business of the Government of India
framed under the Article 77 of the Constitution i.e. the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961?
d) Whether the quasi-judicial Disciplinary Authority
powers can be unilaterally allocated to the Minister of State
by the Union Finance Minister without consulting the
Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), which has
been allocated the subject matter of the “conditions of
service” of the Petitioner as per the Government of India
(Allocation of Business) Rules 1961.
e) Whether the statutory requirement laid down in the
Rule 3 and Rule 4(4) Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961, which prescribes mandatory DoPT
consultation in case of any change in “conditions of
service” of the Petitioner, can be unilaterally dispensed
with by the Union Finance Minister?”
22. Having heard learned Counsel at length, we find ourselves, in
agreement with the judgment of the Tribunal.
23. The submissions of Mr. Raju proceed on a basically erroneous
premise that the Office Order dated 3 April 2018 involved a sub
delegation of the power vested in the MOF, to initiate and proceed
with disciplinary action against Group A officers, to the MOS. This
aspect of the matter has been neatly captured in the order dated 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 19 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
November 2018 whereby notice was issued in this writ petition, which
precisely identifies the “limited issue” arising for consideration as
being “whether the Minister of State for Finance acts as a delegate of
the Minister for Finance in respect of works allocated to such Minister
of State”.
24. The disciplinary authority, in respect of Group A officers in the
Central Government is the President of India. The President has
delegated the function to act as disciplinary authority, in respect of
officers in the Ministry of Finance, on the MOF. The MOF is,
therefore, the delegatee of the President in this regard. The MOF has,
by Office Order dated 3 April 2018, allocated certain works, which
were being undertaken by him, to the MOS. Among these was work
relating to “all disciplinary cases – both initiation and final orders”.
Mr Raju contends that this was not allocation, but sub-delegation.
This Court, therefore, identified the issue arising for consideration, in
its order dated 13 November 2018, as whether the allocation was a
mere allocation, or sub-delegation masquerading as allocation.
25. We, having heard learned Counsel and perused the record and
the law in that regard, are of the view that there was, in fact, no such
sub delegation, as the Tribunal has correctly held. All that the Office
Order dated 3 April 2018 did was to allocate, certain some of the
business which otherwise fell to the lot of the MOF, to the MOS. The
MOS, while discharging the said functions, did not act as a delegatee
of the MOF. The exercise of his functions was deemed to be exercise
of the said functions by the MOF himself. In exercise of the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 20 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
function, the MOS was, therefore, answerable, not to the MOF, but to
the Government itself.
26. This position is not res integra. It stands lucidly captured in the
following passages from A. Sanjeevi Naidu v State of Madras17
rendered in the context of Article 16618 of the Constitution of India:
“9. We think that the above submissions advanced on behalf of
the appellants are without force and are based on a misconception
of the principles underlying our Constitution. Under our
Constitution, the Governor is essentially a constitutional head, the
administration of State is run by the Council of Ministers. But in
the very nature of things, it is impossible for the Council of
Ministers to deal with each and every matter that comes before the
Government. In order to obviate that difficulty the Constitution has
authorised the Governor under sub-article (3) of Article 166 to
make rules for the more convenient transition of business of the
Government of the State and for the allocation amongst its
Ministers, the business of the Government. All matters excepting
those in which Governor is required to act in his discretion have to
be allocated to one or the other of the Ministers on the advice of
the Chief Minister. Apart from allocating business among the
Ministers, the Governor can also make rules on the advice of his
Council of Ministers for more convenient transaction of business.
He cannot only allocate the various subjects amongst the Ministers
but may go further and designate a particular official to discharge
any particular function. But this again he can do only on the advice
of the Council of Ministers.
10. The cabinet is responsible to the Legislature for every
action taken in any of the Ministries. That is the essence of joint
responsibility. That does not mean that each and every decision17
(1970) 1 SCC 443
18 166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State. –
(1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the
Governor.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor shall be authenticated
in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of an order or
instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or
instrument made or executed by the Governor.
(3) The Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the
Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not
business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his
discretion.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 21 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
must be taken by the cabinet. The political responsibility of the
Council of Ministers does not and cannot predicate the personal
responsibility of the Council of Ministers to discharge all or any of
the Governmental functions. Similarly an individual Minister is
responsible to the Legislature for every action taken or omitted to
be taken in his ministry. This again is a political responsibility and
not personal responsibility. Even the most hard working Minister
cannot attend to every business in his department. If he attempts to
do it, he is bound to make a mess of his department. In every well
planned administration, most of the decisions are taken by the civil
servants who are likely to be experts and not subject to political
pressure. The Minister is not expected to burden himself with the
day-to-day administration. His primary function is to lay down the
policies and programmes of his ministry while the Council of
Ministers settle the major policies and programmes of the
Government. When a civil servant takes a decision, he does not do
it as a delegate of his Minister. He does it on behalf of the
Government. It is always open to a Minister to call for any file in
his ministry and pass orders. He may also issue directions to the
officers in his ministry regarding the disposal of Government
business either generally or as regards any specific case. Subject to
that over all power, the officers designated by the “Rules” or the
standing orders, can take decisions on behalf of the Government.
These officers are the limbs of the Government and not its
delegates.”
27. The above exposition of the law in A. Sanjeevi Naidu was
rendered in the context of Article 166 of the Constitution of India
which is the provision parallel to Article 7719, in respect of State
Government. In other words, just as Article 77(3) empowers the
President to make Rules for more convenient transaction of business
of the Government of India, and for allocation amongst Ministers of
the said business, Article 166(3) empowers the Governor of a State to
19 77. Conduct of business of the Government of India. –
(1) All executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the
President.
(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated
in such manner as may be specified in rules78 to be made by the President, and the validity of an order or
instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or
instrument made or executed by the President.
(3) The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the
Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 22 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the
State Government and for allocation amongst Ministers of the said
business. As the Supreme Court has held in paras 9 and 10 of A.
Sanjeevi Naidu, the very intent of Article 166(3) – and, therefore, of
Article 77(3) in the case of the Union Government – is to obviate the
difficulty of the Council of Ministers having to attend to every aspect
of government business. Thus, Article 166(3) empowers the Governor
of a State to allocate, to one or other of his Ministers, any matter
except those in which the Governor is required to act in his discretion.
28. Equally, the President can allocate, to any one or more of the
Ministers, the functions which vest in the President – which would
include the power to act as disciplinary authority in respect of Group
A officers, as vested by Rules 12(1) and 13(1) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules.
29. Para 10 of A. Sanjeevi Naidu further clarifies that the
responsibility of any individual Minister, for every action taken or
omitted to be taken in his Ministry, is a political, and not a personal
responsibility. No Minister can attend to all the work in his Ministry.
30. Thus, it is open to a Minister to issue directions to officers in his
Ministry regarding disposal of government business. Such officers are
entitled to take decisions. In doing so, they do not act as delegates of
the Minister, but as limbs of the government. In other words, merely
by allocating work which otherwise falls to his lot to officials in his
Ministry, the Minister does not delegate such work. He merely
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 23 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
allocates the work so as to enable him to attend to work which would
necessarily require his, and his own, intervention, such as laying down
policies and programmes of the government. The official in the
Ministry, to whom the work is allocated by the Minister does not,
therefore, while performing the said work, act as the Minister’s
delegate. He is another limb of the government.
31. A. Sanjeevi Naidu was followed by the Supreme Court in
Samsher Singh v State of Punjab20. Paras 31 to 35 read thus:
“31. Further the Rules of Business and allocation of business
among the Ministers are relatable to the provisions contained in
Article 53 in the case of the President and Article 154 in the case of
the Governor, that the executive power shall be exercised by the
President or the Governor directly or through the officers
subordinate. The provisions contained in Article 74 in the case of
the President and Article 163 in the case of the Governor that there
shall be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President or
the Governor, as the case may be, are sources of the Rules of
Business. These provisions are for the discharge of the executive
powers and functions of the Government in the name of the
President or the Governor. Where functions entrusted to a Minister
are performed by an official employed in the Minister’s department
there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or
decision of the official is that of the Minister. The official is merely
the machinery for the discharge of the functions entrusted to a
Minister (see Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed., Vol. I, paragraph
748 at p. 170 and Carltona Ltd. v Works Commissioners21).
32. It is a fundamental principle of English Constitutional law
that Ministers must accept responsibility for every executive act. In
England the Sovereign never acts on his own responsibility. The
power of the Sovereign is conditioned by the practical rule that the
Crown must find advisers to bear responsibility for his action.
Those advisers must have the confidence of the House of
Commons. This rule of English Constitutional law is incorporated
in our Constitution. The Indian Constitution envisages a
Parliamentary and responsible form of Government at the Centre
20 (1974) 2 SCC 831
21 (1943) 2 All ER 560
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 24 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
and in the States and not a Presidential form of Government. The
powers of the Governor as the constitutional head are not different.
33. This Court has consistently taken the view that the powers
of the President and the powers of the Governor are similar to the
powers of the Crown under the British Parliamentary system.
(See Ram Jawaya Kapur v State of Punjab22, A. Sanjeevi
Naidu, U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi23). In Ram Jawaya Kapur
case Mukherjea, C.J. speaking for the Court stated the legal
position as follows. The Executive has the primary responsibility
for the formulation of governmental policy and its transmission
into law. The condition precedent to the exercise of this
responsibility is that the Executive retains the confidence of the
legislative branch of the State. The initiation of legislation, the
maintenance of order, the promotion of social and economic
welfare, the direction of foreign policy, the carrying on of the
general administration of the State are all executive functions. The
Executive is to act subject to the control of the Legislature. The
executive power of the Union is vested in the President. The
President is the formal or constitutional head of the Executive. The
real executive powers are vested in the Ministers of the Cabinet.
There is a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister as the head
to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions.
34. The functions of the Governor under the rules of business
of Madras Government in regard to a scheme for nationalisation of
certain bus routes were considered by this Court in Sanjeevi
Naidu. The validity of the scheme was challenged on the ground
that it was not formed by the State Government but by the
Secretary to the Government pursuant to powers conferred on him
under Rule 23-A of the Madras Government Business Rules.
35. The scheme was upheld for these reasons. The Governor
makes rules under Article 166(3) for the more convenient
transaction of business of the Government of the State. The
Governor cannot only allocate the various subjects amongst the
Ministers but may go further and designate a particular official to
discharge any particular function. But that could be done on the
advice of the Council of Ministers. The essence of Cabinet System
of Government responsible to the Legislature is that an individual
Minister is responsible for every action taken or omitted to be
taken in his Ministry. In every administration, decisions are taken
by the civil servants. The Minister lays down the policies. The
Council of Ministers settle the major policies. When a civil servant
takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate of his Minister. He
22 AIR 1955 SC 549
23 (1971) 2 SCC 63
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 25 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
does it on behalf of the Government. The officers are the limbs of
the Government and not its delegates. Where functions are
entrusted to a Minister and these are performed by an official
employed in the Minister’s department, there is in law no
delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the
official is that of the Minister.”
(Emphasis supplied)
32. Rule 3 of the Transaction Business Rules envisages that all
business allotted to a Department under the Allocation of Business
Rules shall be disposed of by or under the general or special directions
of, the Minister-in-Charge. The Allocation of Business Rules have
been enacted in exercise of the power conferred by Article 77(3) of the
Constitution of India. Rule 2 of the Allocation of Business Rules
stipulates that the business of the Government of India shall be
transacted in the Ministries, Departments, Secretariats and Officers
specified in the First Schedule to the Allocation of Business Rules.
33. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in P D
Kanunjna, on which Mr Shanker Raju placed reliance, identifies the
MOF as the Authority Competent to exercise the power of the
President, vested by Rules 12 and 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to
institute disciplinary proceedings against Group A Officers of the
Ministry of Finance and to pass orders of penalty. The petitioner also
does not dispute the fact that the MOF was empowered to do so.
34. The petitioner’s contention is that it was the MOF and the MOF
alone who could exercise this function and could not have delegated it
to the MOS by the office order dated 3rd April 2018.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 26 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
35. The submission is fundamentally flawed. Rule 3 of the
Transaction of Business Rules specifically ordains that all business
allotted to a Department under the Allocation of Business Rules would
be disposed of by, or under the general or special directions of, the
Minister-in-Charge. Thus, the Minister-in-Charge, i.e. the MOF in the
case of the petitioner, is empowered to either discharge the business
falling within his purview under the Allocation of Business Rules on
his own or have the business discharged under the general or special
directions.
36. Paras 2(ii) of Office Order dated 4 July 2019 – which is not
under challenge in the present case – specifically states that all matters
where the President of India is the Appointing and Disciplinary
Authority would be submitted to the Finance Minister through the
Minister of State. Thus, the involvement of the Minister of State in
disciplinary matters concerning Group A officers, cannot be wished
away. In exercising his powers in that regard, the MOS does not act as
a delegatee to the MOF. The acts of the MOS could be treated as the
acts of the MOF, who is responsible for discharging of business in the
Ministry of Finance which falls to his lot. The allocation of business
of various officials in the Ministry of Finance including the MOS, is
merely a matter of convenience as observed by the Supreme Court in
A. Sanjeevi Naidu and is well within the provinces of the jurisdiction
of the MOF. Smooth, efficient and expedient functioning of the
Government has, in the ultimate eventuate, to be the predominant
consideration. Inasmuch as the MOS while exercising the said power,
does not act as a delegate of the MOF, he is not answerable in such
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 27 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
exercise to the MOF either but acts as an officer of the Government of
India. Such allocation of business is within the province of the MOF,
as upheld by the Supreme Court in A Sanjeevi Naidu and Shamsher
Singh.
37. If the submission of Mr Raju were accepted, the MOF – and,
for that matter, every Minister – who acts as the delegate of the
President of India in respect of a wide variety of functions which,
statutorily are to be discharged by the President, would have to
discharge each and every function herself or himself. This would
place, as is noted in A. Sanjeevi Naidu, an impossible burden on the
Union Minister in each case, and would paralyze Governmental
functioning. The power and discretion to allocate some of the
business which the Minister, as the delegate of the President, is
required to discharge, to officers in his Ministry is, therefore,
indispensable and essential. It would be extremely hazardous,
therefore, to hold that the Minister has no power or authority to do so.
We, certainly, are unwilling to accept such a proposition.
38. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioner’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. He
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 28 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
exercises the power which the MOF would have otherwise exercised
and, in doing so, is directly answerable to the Union Government and
the President, and not to the MOF.
39. In that view of the matter, there is complete compliance in the
present case with the mandate of B.V. Gopinath as the charge-sheet
was specifically put up before and approved by, the MOS.
40. Mr. Raju cited the orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Ramesh Chander v Central Board of Direct Taxes24 and
P.D. Kanunjna. They are essentially the same order, passed on the
same date, in two writ petitions, but were released as separate orders.
We have noted that P.D. Kanunjna identifies the MOF as the authority
competent to exercise the power of the President, vested by Rules 12
and 13 of the CCS (CCA) Rules to institute disciplinary proceedings
against Group-A Officers of the Ministry of Finance. Beyond this,
however, the decision is of no particular relevance, as it does not deal
with the aspect of allocation of work by the MOF to the MOS, with
which, principally, we are concerned in the present case. Besides, we
have decided this matter on the basis of authoritative pronouncements
of the Supreme Court, with which the decision in P.D. Kanunjna does
not deal.
41. Before parting we may note that Mr. Raju also sought to
contend – though no such ground was taken before the Tribunal in the
OA – that the Office Order 3 April 2018 could not have been issued
24 Judgment dated 22 April 2022 passed in WP(C) 11260/2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 29 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
without prior consultation of the DOPT. For this purpose, he relies on
Rule 4(4)(a) of the Transaction of Business Rules.
42. It is obvious that the invocation of Rule 4(4)(a) by Mr. Raju is
completely misdirected. Rule 4(4)(a) only requires prior consultation
with the DOPT before determining methods of recruitment and
conditions of service generally applicable to Government servants in
civil employment. The Office Order dated 3 April 2018 did not
involve determination either of methods of recruitment or conditions
of service of general application to Government servants in civil
employment. It did not even involve any abdication by the MOF, of
his power to act as Disciplinary Authority in respect of Group A
officers in the Ministry of Finance. It merely allocated to the MOS in
the Ministry of Finance, certain aspects of the work which was, prior
thereto, being undertaken by the MOF himself. Rule 4(4) of the
Transaction of Business Rules has no application in such a case.
Conclusion
43. For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the
Tribunal correctly 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.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal does so without any analysis or
examination of the law. We hope that we have cured that lacuna.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 30 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
44. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no
orders as to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
MARCH 04, 2025
aky/yg/ar Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
W.P.(C) 12130/2018 Page 31 of 31
KUMAR
Signing Date:04.03.2025
13:59:27
[ad_1]
Source link