Dr. Ranjeev Kumar Sahu Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Ministry Human Resource Development, and 3 Others

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8924 of 2025

Petitioner :- Dr. Ranjeev Kumar Sahu Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Ministry Human Resource Development, And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Nilaya Gupta,Ajay Rawat

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Rastogi,Rajesh Tiwari

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University.

¶9

3. Under challenge is the inquiry report of the Board of Inquiry dated 12.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure-28 to the petition, and the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated with the memorandum of charge sheet dated 17.12.2022, a copy of which is annexure-18 to the petition, as well as the consequential action proposed to be taken in pursuance thereof.

¶10

4. The charge sheet has been challenged on primarily two grounds, namely, (A) that earlier a charge sheet dated 10.12.2019, a copy of which is annexure-19 to the petition, had been issued, in which the inquiry report dated 20.05.2020 was

¶11

submitted, which was approved by the Board of Management in its Agenda Item No. 71.2 on 18.11.2020, which had accepted the finding of the inquiry report by which the petitioner had been exonerated of the charges levelled against him. However, disregarding the same, the second charge sheet dated 17.12.2022, as impugned herein, has been issued, which pertains to the same charges, and consequently, once the petitioner had already been acquitted for the same charges in the earlier round, for the same proceeding there cannot be any occasion for issuance of a second charge sheet with respect to the same charge; (B) that the impugned charge sheet dated 17.12.2022 has been issued by the Registrar of the University.

¶12

5. Placing reliance on the Rules, namely, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow Cadre Recruitment Rules for NonTeaching and Other Academic Posts, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2020"), the contention is that, in terms of Rule 6(A) of the Rules, 2020, the Appointing Authority for all permanent appointments to all Group 'A' posts is the Board of Management, and as the petitioner falls within the ambit of being an officer in a Group 'A' post, as such, the Board of Management is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner.

¶13

6. Placing reliance on the Agenda Item Nos. 76.1 and 77.1, the relevant extract of which has been

¶14

filed as annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, which have been included with the minutes of the 83rd meeting of the Board of Management held on 04.07.2023, the contention is that the impugned charge sheet has been issued in terms of Agenda Item Nos. 76.1 and 77.1, by which the Registrar Incharge/Registrar of the University was empowered by the Board of Management to issue the charge sheet to various persons including the petitioner.

¶15

7. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. B.V. Gopinath , AIR 2014 SC 88 , the contention is that the question of law before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether, although a charge sheet has been issued, the same is to be approved by the Disciplinary Authority. This issue has been considered threadbare, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the term "cause to be drawn up," as used in Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, merely refers to a delegation by the Disciplinary Authority to a subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up the substance of the proposed "definite and distinct articles of charge sheet", yet these proposed articles of charge would only be finalized upon approval by the Disciplinary Authority, as has also been specifically observed in paragraph-49 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that the charge sheet/charge memo not approved by the Disciplinary Authority is non est in the eyes of law.

¶16

8. The contention is that although Agenda Item Nos. 76.1 and 77.1 duly authorized the Registrar to issue a charge sheet, yet after the issuance of the charge sheet, the same was required to be approved by the Board of Management, the Appointing Authority. However, as there is no such approval on record, the impugned charge sheet deserves to be set aside on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) .

¶17

9. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, has contended that the said charge sheet was duly approved, as is evident from Resolution 83.04, which has been extracted in annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit.

¶18

10. The same is objected to by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the word used in Resolution 83.04 is “noted” and the same, by no stretch of imagination, would fall within the meaning of “approved” as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) .

¶19

11. Upon the same being pointed out, Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, prays for and is granted a week's time to indicate or bring on record any Resolution of the Board of Management, per which, the impugned charge sheet had been “approved” by the Appointing Authority, i.e., the

¶20

Board of Management, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. Gopinath (supra) .

¶21

12. As the matter has been heard at length, list this case on 27.08.2025 at 02:15 P.M. for further hearing .

¶22

[Abdul Moin, J.]

¶23

Order Date :- 18.8.2025 cks/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Ranjeev Kumar Sahu v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Ministry Human Resource Development, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ranjeev Kumar Sahu v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Higher Edu. Ministry Human Resource Development, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Edu. (Basic ) Lko. and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Education Deptt. Lko andORS.

Sudhir Kumar and 111 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Sunita Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. U.P. Parti Bhumi Vikas Vibhag Lko. and Another

Mahendra Bahadur Singh Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others