Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the competence of the Minister of State for Finance in approving a charge-sheet against a Group A officer of the Indian Civil Accounts Service. The division bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, examined whether the allocation of disciplinary functions to the Minister of State constituted an impermissible sub-delegation of power. The court found that the allocation was a legitimate internal administrative function within the government.

The petitioner, a Group A officer of the Indian Civil Accounts Service, was issued a charge-sheet on July 5, 2018, by the Joint Controller General of Accounts (Vigilance) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Before its issuance, the charge-sheet was approved by the Minister of State for Finance based on an Office Order dated April 3, 2018, issued by the Department of Expenditure. The order allocated various functions, including disciplinary proceedings, to the Minister of State.

The petitioner argued that the competent disciplinary authority for Group A officers was the Union Minister of Finance and not the Minister of State. The challenge was based on the assertion that the Office Order of April 3, 2018, amounted to an illegal sub-delegation of powers vested in the Finance Minister by the President. The petitioner referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, contending that the charge-sheet must be approved by the competent disciplinary authority before issuance. Since the Minister of Finance had not personally approved the charge-sheet, the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated.

Also Read: If Two SC Decisions Are Inconsistent, HCs Can't Follow One Overlooking The Other; Must Try To Reconcile Them Both : Supreme Court

The court examined whether the allocation of disciplinary authority to the Minister of State was an internal governmental function or an impermissible sub-delegation. The judgment referred to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, and the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, under which the President has the authority to allocate government business among Ministers.

The judgment cited Supreme Court decisions in A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras and Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab. The court stated, "The Minister-in-Charge, i.e., the Minister of Finance in the case of the petitioner, is empowered to either discharge the business falling within his purview on his own or have the business discharged under his general or special directions." It further noted, "All that the Office Order dated April 3, 2018, did was to allocate certain aspects of the business which otherwise fell to the lot of the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of State. The Minister of State, while discharging the said functions, did not act as a delegatee of the Minister of Finance. The exercise of his functions was deemed to be the exercise of the said functions by the Minister of Finance himself."

The petitioner placed reliance on P.D. Kanunjna v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, asserting that the Finance Minister alone was competent to act as a disciplinary authority for Group A officers. The court examined this argument and considered past Office Orders, including one dated July 4, 2019, which stated, "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." The court considered this in evaluating the validity of the 2018 Office Order.

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on B.V. Gopinath, the court examined whether the charge-sheet’s approval met the procedural requirements. It stated, "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 Minister of State." The judgment also considered Rule 3 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961, which states, "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."

The petitioner further contended that the Office Order dated April 3, 2018, should have been issued in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). In response, the court referred to Rule 4(4)(a) of the Transaction of Business Rules and stated, "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 April 3, 2018, did not involve determination either of methods of recruitment or conditions of service of general application to Government servants in civil employment." The judgment concluded that consultation with the DoPT was not required for the issuance of the Office Order.

Also Read: ‘The Urgency of Justice Cannot Wait’: Orissa High Court Orders Immediate Termination of Pregnancy for 13-Year-Old Rape Survivor, Mandates Systemic Reforms

In examining the administrative framework, the court noted that the system of allocating government business ensures efficient functioning. It stated, "The allocation of business of various officials in the Ministry of Finance, including the Minister of State, is merely a matter of convenience and is well within the provinces of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance." The judgment added, "In exercising his powers in that regard, the Minister of State does not act as a delegatee to the Minister of Finance. The acts of the Minister of State could be treated as the acts of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for discharging of business in the Ministry of Finance which falls to his lot."

The court examined whether the Minister of Finance had abdicated his responsibility in disciplinary matters. It stated, "If the submission of the petitioner were accepted, the Minister of Finance – and, for that matter, every Minister – who acts as the delegate of the President of India in respect of a wide variety of functions, would have to discharge each and every function himself. This would place an impossible burden on the Minister and would paralyze Governmental functioning."

The petitioner’s contention that the Minister of State’s approval was invalid was rejected. The court found that the Office Order of April 3, 2018, did not constitute an unauthorized delegation of powers. It observed, "For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the Office Order dated April 3, 2018, merely involved an exercise of internal allocation of work by the Minister of Finance in his Ministry and was, therefore, perfectly legal."

The court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, concluding that the Minister of State had lawfully exercised the functions assigned within the framework of government business.

Case Title: Madan Mohan v. Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1393-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 12130/2018
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

[Read/Download order]