The fact of the matter is that while the applicant was working as Associate Professor, Department of Trauma & Emergency, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, respondent No.3 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 issued Memorandum dated 23.03.2024 (A/2) which is a show cause notice to the applicant to submit his written statement of his defense in respect of 05 article of charges which is reproduced below:

Further, the reports of the FFC has mentioned that Dr. Chinmaya Dash has tried to intimidate or influence the Committee members during the course of the enquiry even before the Committee reached to its conclusion by sending an email to all faculty In his capacity as General Secretary of FAIIMS on 30.08 2023 at 06 20 a m informing the faculty about the FFC constituted to look into his allegations. Thus, this is viewed highly inappropriate and unnecessary on the part of Dr Chinmaya Dash and is a breach of the official decorum during the process of an enquiry. In addition, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 4 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 it is also established from an evidence in the form of WhatsApp message circulated at 10 11 p.m wherein, it has been circulated by Dr. Chinmaya Dashi e, "Ec meeting tornorrow 4 pm Agenda-recent FFC and further course of action, Venue FAIIMS office of audit of finance is over. Else shall notify after discussing with president, any other agenda can be taken with permission of chair Hence, it is evident that Dr. Chinmaya Dash was conducting EC meeting of the Association during the office hour resulting in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

Thus, the aforesaid acts of Dr. Chinmaya Dash are tantamount to mis-conduct in terms of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and accordingly, he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Institute thereby contravening Rule-3(1)(0) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the employees of the Institute.

Article of Charge-ll Dr. Chinmaya Dash has failed to provide no concrete proof or evidence in support of his complaints regarding Dr. Mahalingam Venkateshan making factually incorrect statements against faculty involved in clinical care. Also, there is no proof/direct evidence provided by Dr. Chinmaya Dash regarding interference in clinical decisions, of faculty by Dr Mahalingam Venkateshan and the matter is viewed as more of a personal nature rather than an issue involving all faculty. Hence, as per the report of the FFC, it is inappropriate of Dr. Chinmaya Dash to escalate the matter as the then General Secretary of FAIIMS which appears to be an apparent misuse of the office of the General Secretary of FAIIMS Moreover, Dr. Chinmaya Dash had been operating patients in the hospital without getting them admitted. Operating on patients without admission is a serious lapse on the part of the Dr. Chinmaya Dash. Dr. Chinmaya Dash has tried to intimidate or influence the Committee members during the course of the enquiry by sending an email to all faculty in his capacity as General Secretary of FAIIMS on 30.08 2023 at 06:20 am., which is a breach of the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 5 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 official decorum during the process of an enquiry Dr. Chinmaya Dash has also circulated a WhatsApp message at 10:11 pm to discuss an Agenda-recent FFC and further course of action, during Ec meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. at FAIIMS office, during the office hour, resulting in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

Thus, the above act of Dr. Chinmaya Dash is tantamount to mis-conduct in terms of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and accordingly, he has failed to maintain devotion to duty and has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Institute, thereby contravening Rule-3(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the employees of the Institute.

Article of Charge-III As per the reports of the FFC. Dr. Chinmaya Dash has failed to substantiate his complaints against Mr. Mahalingam Venkateshan Nursing Superintendent i.e., frequently making factually incorrect statements regarding faculty Involved in patient care and is frequently interfering in clinical decision which is affecting patent-care. Hence it is inappropriate of Dr. Chinmaya Dash to escalate the matter as the then General Secretary of FAIIMS which appears to be an apparent misuse of the office of the General Secretary of FAIIMS In addition, it is observed that Dr. Chinmaya Dash is operating patients without admitting them, which is a serious lapse on the part of him being a Government servant and amounts to gross mis-conduct in terms of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Dr. Chinmaya Dash has tried to intimidate or influence the Committee members during the course of the enquiry by sending an email to all faculty in his capacity as General Secretary of FAIIMS on 30.08.2023 at 06:20 am, which is a breach of the official decorum during the process of an enquiry Dr. Chinmaya Dash has also circulated a WhatsApp message at 10:11 p.m. to discuss an Agenda-recent FFC and further course of action, during Ec meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. at FAIIMS office, during the office hour, resulting in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 6 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 Thus, in terms of the above act of Dr. Chinmaya Dash has failed to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant and accordingly, he has acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Institute, thereby contravening Rule-3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1954, as applicable to the employees of the Institute.

Article of Charge-IV Based on the reports of the FFC, it is found that Dr. Chinmay Dash has not only failed to provide concrete proof or evidence in support of his complaints against Dr. Mahalingam Venkateshan for making factually incorrect statements against faculty involved in clinical care but also failed to provide proof/direct evidence regarding interference in clinical decisions of faculty by Dr. Mahalingam Venkateshan The matter is viewed as more of a personal nature rather than an issue involving all faculty. Hence, Dr. Chinmaya Dash has escalated the matter as the then General Secretary of FAIIMS by misusing of the office of the General Secretary of FAIIMS. Also, it has been observed that Dr. Chinmaya Dash is operating patients without admitting them. which is an act of negligence on part of him being a Government servant while discharging his duties. Dr. Chinmaya Dash has tried to intimidate or influence the Committee members during the course of the enquiry by sending an email to all faculty in his capacity as General Secretary of FAIIMS on 30.08.2023 at 06 20 a m., which is a breach of the official decorum during the process of an enquiry. Dr Chinmaya Dash has also circulated a WhatsApp message at 10:11 pm. to discuss an Agenda-recent FFC and further course of action, during Ec meeting tomorrow at 4 pm at FAIIMS office, during the office hour, resulting in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

Thus, in terms of the aboveaid acts, Dr. Chinmaya Dash is responsible for gross misconduct and failed to maintain high ethical standards and honesty; thereby contravening Rule-3(1)(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 as applicable to the employees of the Institute.

Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 7 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 Article of Charge-V Based on the reports of the FFC, it is found that Dr. Chinmay Dash has not only failed to provide concrete proof or evidence in support of his complaints against Dr Mahalingam Venkateshan for making factually incorrect statements against faculty involved in clinical care but also failed to provide proof/direct evidence regarding interference in clinical decisions of faculty by Dr. Mahalingam Venkateshan. The matter is viewed as more of a personal nature rather than an issue involving all faculty Hence, Dr. Chinmaya Dash has escalated the matter as the then General Secretary of FAIIMS by misusing of the office of the General Secretary of FAIIMS Also, it has been observed that Dr. Chinmaya Dash is operating patients without admitting them, which is an act of negligence on part of him being a Government servant while discharging his duties. Dr Chinmaya Dash has tried to intimidate or influence the Committee members during the course of the enquiry by sending an email to all faculty in his capacity as General Secretary of FAIIMS on 30.08.2023 at 06:20 am, which is a breach of the official decorum during the process of an enquiry Dr. Chinmaya Dash has also circulated a WhatsApp message at 10:11 p.m. to discuss an Agenda-recent FFC and further course of action, during Ec meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. at FAIIMS office, during the office hour, resulting in violation of the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

Thus, Dr Chinmaya Dash is responsible for gross misconduct and failed to refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, Regulations and established practices, thereby contravening Rule-3(1)(xviii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as applicable to the employees of the Institute.

2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that, the memo of charges as at Annexure-A/2 is violative of the AIIMS Regulations 2019 and contrary to the paramount Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 8 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 duty imposed on the doctors to discharge their utmost duty of treating patients by the Fundamental Right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution as per law laiddown in Paramananda Katara vs. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 286. The impugned memo of charges has been issued by the Executive Director without the approval of the governing body though the Executive Director is not the Disciplinary Authority to issue such memo of charge as per the relevant AIIMS Regulations, 2019. Thus, the impugned order as at Annexure A/2 is in violation of the Clause (i) & (ii) of Schedule- II of Regulation 33the AIIMS Regulations and thus being illegal and liable to be set-aside. The extract of the Clause(i) & (ii) of Schedule- II of Regulation 33 of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019 is reproduced below:

sheet and statement of allegations shall be signed by the Director for and on behalf of the Governing Body or the President, as the case may be, and the documents shall also expressly state this fact. Phrases like "By order of the Governing Body" or "the President" or the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 9 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 "approval by the Governing Body" or the "President" can be used on such documents.

(ii) Since the Governing Body meeting are fixed at intervals, the Chairman of the Governing Body is authorised to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees of Group A and faculty members and the final decision on penalty shall be taken in the Governing Body meeting.

3. It is stated by the applicant that, the impugned order, as at (A/2), containing the memorandum of charges having issued against the applicant without the prior approval of the Governing Body which is the mandate of law as per the prescribed AIIMS Regulations, 2019, particularly regulation 33 of Schedule-11, is illegal. It is prima facie beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent authority i.e, the Executive Director to issue such a memorandum of charges without the prior approval of the Governing Body. Thus, the impugned order as at (A/2) is illegal and without jurisdiction rendering the impugned order null and void and thus liable to be set- aside. It is a settled principle of law that an order which is void ab initio is liable to be set-aside in its entirety as the defect therein goes to the root of the matter. In the present Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 10 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 case, the articles of charges having no prior approval of the Governing body as per the mandate of the AIIMS Regulations 2019, except the one charge which is contrary to paramount duty imposed by the Fundamental Right envisaged under Article 21 as per the law laid down in Paramananda Katara (supra), results in an order which is void ab initio and thus liable to be set aside. In this context, it is apposite to state here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Brundaban Sharma as reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 249 has categorically laid down the law that an order without jurisdiction is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside. The relevant portion is extracted herein below:

4. It is contended by the applicant that, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paramananda Katara (Supra) has upheld that every doctor whether at a Government Hospital or otherwise has a professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. Such obligation being absolute and paramount in nature does not allow any laws of procedure, whether in statute or otherwise, to interfere with the discharge of this obligation. The extract of the judgment is quoted below:-

Thus, in light of the above principle of law upheld in Paramananda Katara (supra), the memo of charges issued against the applicant are bad in law and liable to be set-aside as the actions of the applicant are protected by the fundamental right guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution which casts an absolute and paramount obligation Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 13 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 on the doctors to save lives without any procedural hindrance. It is further submitted by the applicant that, the impugned order has been issued by the present respondent no.3. i. e the Executive Director, who is an authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority prescribed as per the AIIMS Regulations, 2019. Hence, the impugned order containing the memorandum of charges having passed by an authority subordinate to the disciplinary authority is illegal and not sustainable in law.

5. It is stated by the applicant tat, the subsequent actions of the respondent authority to ratify the articles of charges at GB 11/13, as at Annexure-A/11, during the pendency of the writ application, on the teeth of an interim protection granted by the Hon'ble High Court, ipso facto establishes the fact that the articles of charges were indeed not approved by the governing body, which the mandate of AIIMS Regulations, 2019. Hence, the actions of the respondent authority is motivated to harass the applicant and the impugned order arising out of such malicious actions is arbitrary and illegal. Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 14 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024

6. It is stated by the applicant that, the Fact-Finding Committee (FFC) in the present case constituting 4 members was chaired by one Dr. Manas Ranjan Sahoo. The National Commission for S.T has recommended an inquiry against Dr. Manas Ranjan Sahoo on the basis of a fact-finding committee which was constituted for that purpose. It is pertinent to submit here that the applicant in the instant case is a witness in the inquiry against Dr. Manas Ranjan Sahoo. In this context, the conclusion of allegation against the present applicant, derived by the Fact Finding Committee is flawed as the element of conflict of interest and bias prima-facie exists. Thus, the memo of charges having issued on the basis of such flawed FFC report is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20A read with section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Medical Council of India, with the previous approval of the Central Government, makes the regulations relating to the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics for registered medical practitioners. Particularly under sub-clause 2.1 and Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 15 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 2.4 of Clause-2 under Chapter-2 of regulations clearly impose a professional obligation on every doctor to discharge his duty of saving lives without any hindrance. Thus, the applicant is also protected under the Indian Medical Council Act which has framed regulations imposing obligation on doctors to save lives:

2.4 The Patient must not be neglected-

7. It is stated by the applicant that, every institution has to be functioned by an administration imposing certain binding rules and regulations for maintaining a balanced work environment. However, these rules and regulations cannot supersede the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 which imposes a paramount duty on a doctor to discharge his utmost duty of saving lives without any kind of hindrance. In the present case, the present applicant and his action are protected by the very same duty imposed by the fundamental right guaranteed inclusively under Article-21 of the Constitution as upheld by the principle of law in Paramananda Katara (Supra). Thus, the memo of charges against the applicant contrary to the law laid down in Paramananda Katara (Supra) Article-21 and as a result is liable to be set- aside. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid facts and Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 17 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 circumstances, the order of the Respondent No. 2 at (A/2) ought to be set aside, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and void being without jurisdiction and thus bad in the eye of law.

8. The respondents by filing their counter at the outset raised the preliminary objection on the point of entertainability of the O.Α. specifically on the ground that at show cause stage in a disciplinary proceeding the original application is not liable to be entertained. It is stated that the settled principal of law that ordinarily the court or tribunal will not interfere in the Departmental Proceedings at the initial stage of Show Cause Notice unless the show cause notice is without jurisdiction or there is any violation of Statutory Rule on face of the record. In the present case the issuance of charge sheet vide Annexure-A/2 is neither without jurisdiction nor there is any violation of Statutory Rule. The memorandum of charges vide Annexure-A/2 is issued by the Executive Director being authorized by the Governing Body. As per regulation 33 of All India Institute of Medical Science Regulation, 2019 the provision of Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 shall Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 18 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 apply to the employees of the institute in disciplinary matter. Further, penalties that may be imposed and the Appellate Authority for the various post in the institute shall be as prescribed in Scheduled-II. As per the Schedule-II the Governing Body is the Appointing Authority in respect of the Post held by the applicant. It has been clearly mentioned in the said schedule. As per Schedule-II (Para-ii) it is provided that Director, All India Institute of Medical Science to issue the charge sheet and statement of allegations, penalties, suspension orders after obtaining the approval of the governing body, the president as the case may be. The notice and the charge sheet etc. shall be signed by the Director for and on behalf of the Governing body or the President either case may be. In Schedule-II Para (ii) it has also been provided that since the governing body meeting decisions on the Penalty shall be taken in the governing body meeting.

9. It is contended by the respondents that keeping in view of the aforesaid provision, the Governing body in its 10th meeting dated 12.09.2023, agenda item GB-10/14 (b) took Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 19 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 cognizance of the finding of Fact Finding Committee dated 05.09.2023 constituted by the Director. The GB noted that the Fact Finding Committee in its report has observed that Dr. Chinmaya Dash had been operating patients in the hospital without getting them admitted. Further, it has been found that Dr. Chinmaya Dash has prima facie committed serious lapse which amounts to misconduct in term of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. The GB decided to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding under Rule 14 of CCS (CAA) Rule, 1965 strictly in accordance with Regulation 33 , Schedule-II of AIIMS Regulation, 2019. It is stated that in pursuance to the GB Resolution dated 12.09.2023 regarding initiation of disciplinary proceeding against Dr. Chinmaya Dash further decision was taken through Official Note Sheet on 05.03.2024 by the Competent Authority authorizing the director to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding against Dr. Chinmaya Dash strictly in accordance with Regulation 33 . It is further contended that the applicant is trying to dispute the allegations by describing the merit of the charges which is not entertainable before this Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 20 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 Tribunal at this initial state of the Disciplinary Proceeding. The decision reported in Paramananda Katara Vs. Union of India Case as cited by the applicant is based on misconception of fact. The said decision is not applicable at all in the present case on the ground that the said decision clearly emphasizes the duty of the doctor in relation to treatment of the Patient. But the Present Case relates to the Procedure to be followed by the Doctor & regarding discharge of duty of the Doctor towards the institution. Therefore, the applicant is totally misconceived of the fact and has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. The present OA is outcome of malice and to linger the departmental proceeding and hence, the O.A. should be dismissed.

10. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the records.

11. Law on quashing of charge sheet/disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee is well settled in a plethora of judicial pronouncements to the effect that challenge against charge sheet or show cause notice does not lie for the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 21 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence or in violation of any of the Rules/law. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed; it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, it was held that a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. [Ref. State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma , AIR 1987 SC 943; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. , (1996) 1 SCC 327; Ulagappa & Ors. v. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2); Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Anr. , AIR 2004 SC 1467; and Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana , AIR 2007 SC 906).

12. We have examined the facts of the case in hand, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. We find that in the instant case charge sheet was issued to the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 22 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 applicant vide Memorandum dated 23.03.2024 by the Executive Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, for and on behalf of Disciplinary Authority i.e. Governing Body, AIIMS, BBSR. Under the Rules the Governing Body of AIIMS, BBSR is the competent authority/Disciplinary Authority to issue charge sheet against an officer like the present applicant. In the case of inspector General of Police & Anr. v. Thavasiappan , AIR 1996 SC 1318, this Court reconsidered its earlier judgments on the issue and came to the conclusion that there is nothing in law which inhibits the authority subordinate to the appointing authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or issue charge memo and it is certainly not necessary that charges should be framed by the authority competent to award the punishment or that the inquiry should be conducted by such an authority. Similar view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Steel Authority of India & Anr. v. Dr. R.K. Diwakar & Ors. , AIR 1998 SC 2210; and State of U.P. & Anr. v. Chandrapal Singh & Anr. , AIR 2003 SC 4119. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transport Commissioner, Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 23 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024 Madras -Vs- A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332, also held that "Insofar as initiation of enquiry by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority is concerned, it is well settled now that it is unobjectionable. The initiation can be by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Only the dismissal/removal shall not be by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Accordingly it is held that this was not a permissible ground for quashing the charges by the Tribunal. Ref. Director General, ESI & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak etc., AIR 1996 SC 2292; and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Ors. v. Ananta Saha & Ors. , (2011) 5 SCC 142).".

13. It is seen from Schedule II of Gazette of India that the Governing Body is the competent authority to impose punishment in a Disciplinary Proceeding and point (i) and (ii) states as under:-

The notice, the charge-sheet and statement of allegations shall be signed by the Director for and on behalf of the Governing Body or the President, as the case may be, and the documents shall also expressly state this fact. Phrases like "By order of the Governing Body" or "the President" or the "approval by the Governing Body" or the President" can be used on such documents.

(ii) Since the Governing Body meeting are fixed at intervals, the Chairman of the Governing Body is authorized to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees of Group A and faculty members and the financial decision on penalty shall be taken in the Governing Body meeting." It is seen from Annexure-A/2 that the Memorandum of Charges are issued by the Executive Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar for and on behalf of Disciplinary Authority by the order of the Governing Body, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar.

14. Therefore, we find that the Charge Memo has been issued as per the AIIMS Act, 1956 Notification dated 18.10.2019 thus, on examination of the facts and grounds taken by the applicant keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions, we see no such justification to get into the matter in exercise of the judicial review at this stage.

Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.10.17 16:41:45 +05'30' 25 OA NO.260/00711 OF 2024

15. In the result, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.