Approving the start of a departmental enquiry is not the same as approving the charge memo, the Patna High Court has held, setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings against two Deputy Registrars of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, because the Board of Management never cleared the charge sheet.
Patna: The Patna High Court has quashed the charge memos, the departmental proceedings and the enquiry report against two Deputy Registrars of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University (RPCAU), Pusa, holding that a charge memo issued without the specific approval of the disciplinary authority, here the University’s Board of Management, violates Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution [Mahesh Hooda v. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University and Others; Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak v. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University and Others].
Justice Harish Kumar allowed both writ petitions by a common judgment on October 1, while leaving the disciplinary authority free to issue a fresh charge memo after obtaining the Board’s approval.
The case
The petitioners, Mahesh Hooda and Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak, were working as Deputy Registrars on deputation at RPCAU when the University advertised posts in 2020. They applied, were found eligible by the Screening Committee, were recommended by the Selection Committee after interviews in September 2020, and were appointed Deputy Registrars by direct recruitment with the approval of the Board of Management and the Vice-Chancellor.
Later, a complaint alleging administrative and financial irregularities by the Dean and the Vice-Chancellor reached the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE). On the orders of the Visitor, the President of India, a two-member committee inquired into the allegations, and action was directed under Section 9(6) of the RPCAU Act, 2016. The University’s case was that the petitioners lacked the required experience and had been wrongly screened in.
A three-member internal committee recommended departmental action, and the Board of Management, at its 21st meeting on December 6, 2023, resolved to proceed against the petitioners for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It authorised the Vice-Chancellor to issue the charge sheets, appoint the Enquiry and Presenting Officers and handle day-to-day decisions. The Chief Vigilance Officer then issued Memorandum Nos. 17 and 18 dated April 2, 2025. While the writ petitions were pending, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on February 2, 2026 holding the charges proved.
The rival arguments
Senior Advocate Shivendra Kishore, for the petitioners, argued that the Board of Management, being their appointing and disciplinary authority, had to approve the charge memo itself under Rule 14(3)(b) before it was issued, and that without such approval every subsequent step was illegal. He relied on Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, (2014) 1 SCC 351 and Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 12. He also raised the unexplained delay in issuing the memo and the denial of defence documents and assistance.
Senior Advocate Amit Srivastava, for the University, contended that the Board had already approved the charges at its December 2023 meeting on the basis of documentary material, and had expressly authorised the Vice-Chancellor to issue the charge sheet. The Chief Vigilance Officer had merely notified the Vice-Chancellor’s orders “for and on behalf of” the competent authority, and no further approval was needed.
Two approvals, two stages
The Court narrowed the dispute to one question: whether the Board’s approval to initiate proceedings was enough, or whether fresh approval was mandatory before the charge memo was issued. Examining the departmental record, the Court relied on B.V. Gopinath, State of Tamil Nadu v. Pramod Kumar and Sunny Abraham, and extracted the Supreme Court’s holding in Sunny Abraham:
“In our opinion, the approval for initiating disciplinary proceeding and approval to a charge memorandum are two divisible acts, each one requiring independent application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. If there is any default in the process of application of mind independently at the time of issue of charge memorandum by the disciplinary authority, the same would not get cured by the fact that such approval was there at the initial stage.”
Turning to the facts, the Court found that the Board’s approval had been taken for initiating the proceeding, issuing the charge sheet and appointing the Enquiry and Presenting Officers, but that, on the University’s own records and affidavit, “no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer.” It held:
“Thus, the very mandate of the law, especially Rule 14(3)(b) of the Rules 1965, stands not complied with. Any action inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution of India would not only destroy the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, such procedure would also do violence to the protective provisions contained under Article 311(2).”
The Court added that the Board’s authorisation to the Vice-Chancellor did not relieve it of the duty to approve the memo of charge before it was served, observing that such action does not “stand on the touchstone of fairness.” It therefore set aside all further proceedings, including the charge memos and the enquiry report of February 2, 2026, with liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh charge memo after obtaining the requisite approval of the Board of Management. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
Why The Patna High Court Ruling Matters
The decision applies a well-settled but frequently overlooked safeguard in service jurisprudence. Under the B.V. Gopinath line of cases, a charge memo issued without the disciplinary authority’s approval is treated as non est, and the defect cannot be cured by later ratification or by the fact that the authority had approved the decision to start the enquiry. Institutions that delegate the drafting and issue of charge sheets to a Vice-Chancellor, a vigilance officer or another subordinate must still place the final charge memo before the disciplinary authority.
The ruling turns only on that procedural defect. The Court did not decide whether the petitioners were eligible for their posts or whether the charges against them have substance, and the University remains free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Case Title: Mahesh Hooda v. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University and Others [CWJC No. 1734 of 2026], with Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak v. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agriculture University and Others [CWJC No. 1797 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Harish Kumar, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Shivendra Kishore with Advocate Saroj Kumar, and Advocate Prisu Snehil, for the Petitioners; Senior Advocate Amit Srivastava with Advocate Vijay Shankar Upadhyay for the University