Fresh Approval Not Needed When CVC Concurs With Unaltered Charge Memo: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Vijay Bishnoi, Deputy Director (Law) at the Competition Commission of India, against the Memorandum of Charge issued to him in disciplinary proceedings, holding that the charge memo bore the approval of the CCI as Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14(3) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and that no fresh approval was needed after the Central Vigilance Commission's first-stage advice concurred without suggesting any change. The court directed that the inquiry be completed within six months.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing the appeal against the judgment dated 01.07.2026 of the single judge in W.P.(C) 15601/2024, which had rejected the appellant's challenge to the Memo of Charge dated 03.10.2023 and vacated the interim order that had stalled the inquiry.

The appellant joined the CCI as Deputy Director (Law) on 04.06.2018. During search and seizure operations in December 2022 in the ONGC bid rigging case relating to Oil Well Cement tenders, statements of officials of India Cement Limited were recorded by other teams. In April 2023, it was reported to the CCI that the appellant had allegedly admitted to tampering with those statements. A preliminary enquiry followed, and he was placed under suspension on 19.05.2023.

The CCI, as Disciplinary Authority, approved initiation of major penalty proceedings at a special meeting on 27.06.2023 and approved the Draft Chargesheet on 04.08.2023. The draft was sent to the CVC, which on 25.09.2023 concurred. An internal note dated 29.09.2023 placed the matter solely before the Chairperson, who directed issuance of the Memo of Charge on 03.10.2023. The Statement of Imputations was later amended by a corrigendum dated 17.11.2023.

Senior Advocates Harin P. Raval and Gautam Narayan argued for the appellant that the Memo of Charge was issued without the express and recorded approval of the CCI under Rule 14(3). They submitted that approval of a draft for seeking CVC advice was not approval of the final charge, that the CVC advice was never placed before the CCI, and that the single judge had read a "no-change" exception into the Rule, contrary to Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and A.M. Kulshrestha v. Union of India. They also contended that the List of Witnesses at Annexure IV had not been forwarded to the CVC, that the Chairperson's powers under Section 13 of the Competition Act, 2002 are only administrative, and that the CCI itself had relied on the same witness statements in its investigation report, undermining the tampering charge.

Senior Advocate Vinay Kumar Garg, for the CCI, submitted that the CCI had approved both the initiation of proceedings and the Draft Chargesheet, that the departmental record now produced showed the draft to be the same as the Memo of Charge, and that the Chairperson's direction was merely administrative and gave effect to an approved charge. He relied on Sunny Abraham v. Union of India and distinguished the precedents cited by the appellant, and added that the appellant had twice withdrawn writ petitions and had obtained an interim order that kept the inquiry stalled since mid-2023.

The Bench noted that the CCI had produced the departmental file during the hearing, and held that the minutes of the meeting of 04.08.2023 showed approval of the Draft Chargesheet. It held that a draft placed before a statutory body is not ordinarily signed or dated by it, that approval is evidenced by the minutes, and that no provision requires every Member to sign the communication forwarding the draft. The appellant had not shown any difference between the draft and the Memo of Charge, or any dissent, lack of quorum or other defect. The court also held that the principle requiring an employer to produce records in its custody had been satisfied, since the record was now before the court at the appellant's own instance, and that the shortcomings in the single judge's decision in not calling for it stood cured.

On the List of Witnesses, the court found that it formed part of the Draft Chargesheet approved on 04.08.2023 and could not be attributed to the Chairperson. Although it was not forwarded to the CVC, it was a procedural annexure that did not alter the imputation, the Articles of Charge or the evidentiary foundation, and the appellant could object to any witness and cross-examine in the inquiry. The corrigendum was held to be clerical, correcting an error in expression without altering the substance of the imputation, and needed no separate approval.

The court agreed that the Chairperson's direction of 03.10.2023 was administrative in form, since Section 13 of the Act does not confer disciplinary jurisdiction but allows the Chairperson to direct issuance of a memorandum already approved by the CCI. It held that the words "for consideration and approval" in the internal note had to be read in the context of the earlier approval, and that Rule 14(4) allows the CCI to cause the articles of charge to be delivered through its Chairperson.

The court held that the DoPT Office Memorandum of 29.11.2012 requiring first-stage advice to be placed before the Disciplinary Authority is an executive instruction, not a rule under Article 309, and that its breach without prejudice does not render a charge memo non est. Observing that the object is to let the authority reconsider its proposal, it held that where the CVC concurs and suggests no change, a second formal approval of an unaltered document "would be an empty formality." A.M. Kulshrestha was distinguished because the CVC advice there never reached the disciplinary authority, and B.V. Gopinath did not help the appellant because the approval here related to the charge as finally issued.

The Bench agreed with the single judge that grievances over the supply of only 37 of 132 defence documents sought and the closure of the defence should be raised before the Inquiring and Disciplinary Authorities, which must decide them by reasoned orders. It expressed no opinion on the investigation report and the additional documents, leaving the appellant free to place them before the Inquiring Authority, and disposed of the application accordingly.

Noting that the appellant had been under suspension since 19.05.2023 and that the proceedings had remained stalled, the Bench directed that the inquiry resume from the stage at which it stood, that the Inquiring Authority conclude it, and that the Disciplinary Authority pass its final order, within six months of the judgment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Mr. Harin P. Raval and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocates, along with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Ramneek Mishra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Urmi H. Raval, Ms. Shreya Bansal, Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Mr. Mukul Yadav and Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Shlok Chandra, Mr. Parikshit Singh Bhati, Mr. K.S. Rekhi and Ms. Lolita Crasta, Advocates, for the CCI.

Case Title: Vijay Bishnoi vs. Competition Commission of India & Ors., LPA 616/2026

[Read Judgment]