What is the position of the cases where the President is the Appointing Authority?

5. What is the position of the cases where the President is the Appointing Authority? Under the Transaction of Business Rules, the cases are required to be approved by the Minister concerned. Clarifications were issued through Govt. of India MHA Memo No. F. 39/1/69/-Ests(A) dated 16 April 1969 that the case need not be put up to the Minister every time an order is to be issued in the name of the President. As per the above OM, once the Minister has approved initiation of disciplinary proceedings, there is no need to show the file to the Minister while issuing orders under Rule 14(2),14(4),14(5), etc. The OM however, mandated that formal orders of the Minister should be obtained at the stage of show cause notice under Rule 15 (4)(i)(b) and at the stage of issuing final orders under Rule 15 (4)(iii). In this context it is significant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision dated 05 Sep 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 7761/2013 [Union of India & Ors Vs B V Gopinath] has set aside the proceedings wherein the Charge sheet was not approved by the Minister. It is for consideration as to 46. Ms. Indira Jaising also submitted that the purpose behind Article 311, Rule 14 and also the Office Order of 2005 is to ensure that only an authority that is not subordinate to the appointing authority takes disciplinary action and that rules of natural justice are complied with. According to the learned Addl. Solicitor General, the respondent is not claiming that rules of natural justice have been violated as the charge memo was not approved by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, according to the Addl. Solicitor General, the CAT as well as the High Court erred in quashing the charge sheet as no prejudice has been caused to the respondent. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Addl. Solicitor General is not factually correct. The primary submission of the respondent was that the charge sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is without authority of law and, therefore, non est in the eye of law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the CAT as 94 also by the High Court. The action has been taken against the respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges. The term “cause to be drawn up” does not mean that the definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The term “cause to be drawn up” merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary authority to a subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up substance of proposed “definite and distinct articles of charge sheet”. These proposed articles of charge would only be finalized upon approval by the disciplinary authority.