Dr. Vandana Bagga vs National Capital Civil Services Authority & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):

The matter has been listed with an Office Objection vide Dy. No. 10791/2026, wherein it has been stated that Respondent No. 1, i.e. the National Capital Civil Services Authority, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the matter has been taken up for adjudication of the said objection.

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, while working as Director General of Health Services (Link-I), Government of NCT of Delhi, was placed under suspension by the respondents vide order dated 07.01.2025. The period of her suspension was thereafter extended for a further period of 180 days vide order dated 27.03.2025 and was subsequently further extended vide order dated 24.09.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 1271/2025, assailing, inter alia, the order dated 27.03.2025 whereby the Suspension Review Committee had extended the period of her suspension for a further period of 180 days.

The Tribunal, vide order dated 04.11.2025 passed in O.A. No. 1271/2025, set aside the orders dated 27.03.2025 and 24.09.2025 extending the period of suspension. The respondents thereafter, in compliance with the order of the Tribunal, reinstated the applicant vide order dated 04.06.2026.

Meanwhile, the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA), a statutory authority constituted under Section 45E of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, made recommendations to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in relation to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The applicant is aggrieved by the recommendations of the NCCSA made in the month of October, 2025, which ultimately resulted in issuance of a charge memorandum containing three Articles of Charge against her.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid recommendations of the NCCSA to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor for initiation of disciplinary action against her, the applicant has filed the present Original Application, alleging that the said recommendations have been made in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the principle of audi alteram partem (i.e. that no person should be condemned unheard). According to the applicant, the said recommendations of NCCSA have been made on the basis of false, frivolous and concocted facts and are unreasoned, biased, malicious, arbitrary and non est in the eyes of law. The applicant has, accordingly, sought quashing and setting aside of the recommendations of the NCCSA made under the provisions of Section 45H(2) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991.

At the outset, while hearing the matter, the Bench raised a query regarding the maintainability of the present Original Application on the ground that this Tribunal may lack jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the recommendations made by the NCCSA.

In response to the query raised by the Bench, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the NCCSA, comprising the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Delhi as the Chairperson of the Authority, the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, as an ex-officio Member, and the Principal Home Secretary to the Government of NCT of Delhi as the ex-officio Member-Secretary, has been duly constituted and officers and other staff of the said Authority have been appointed as contemplated under Section 45G of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991. It was further submitted that the said Authority has its own separate office and has been conferred with powers under Section 45H(2) of the said Act to make recommendations in respect of matters relating to vigilance and non-vigilance for the purpose of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Group ‘A’ officers. Section 45H(2) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 reads as under:

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the subject matter of the order against which the applicant seeks redressal falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and, therefore, the present Original Application is maintainable. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for the applicant urged that the Tribunal may entertain and adjudicate the present Original Application.

We have considered the aforesaid submissions. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is governed by the provisions of the Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 14(2) of the said Act reads as under:

It is, therefore, evident from the aforesaid provision that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in respect of a local or other authority covered by Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 would arise only upon the Central Government applying the relevant provisions of the said Act to such authority by way of a notification.

In the present case, although the NCCSA is a statutory authority constituted under Section 45E of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, we have not found any notification issued by the Central Government under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereby the provisions of the said Act have been applied to the NCCSA. The mere fact that the NCCSA has been constituted as a statutory authority under the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction upon this Tribunal to adjudicate a challenge directed specifically against a recommendation made by the NCCSA.

The main relief sought by the applicant in the present Original Application is to quash and set aside the recommendations made by the NCCSA under Section 45H(2) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991, whereby recommendations were made for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. Thus, the very subject matter sought to be adjudicated upon in the present Original Application is the legality and validity of the recommendation made by the NCCSA.

At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi, (2004) 3 SCC 172, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a proceeding in which the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought, held that there was no justification for allowing such a proceeding to continue and to go for trial on merits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that such a proceeding should be “thrown out at the threshold”, and further observed:

The aforesaid principle makes it clear that where a Court or Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, there is no occasion to proceed further and examine the matter on its merits.

Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we find that the main relief sought by the applicant is against the recommendations made by the NCCSA, and the applicant wants this Tribunal to examine the legality and validity of those recommendations. Since there is no notification under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 extending the provisions of the said Act to the NCCSA, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Application.

Consequently, the question of examining the merits of the allegations raised by the applicant against the recommendations of the NCCSA does not arise. In view of the lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to examine the other grounds raised by the applicant, including the allegations of violation of the principles of natural justice, bias, arbitrariness, mala fides or non-application of mind.

Accordingly, following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi (supra), the present Original Application is dismissed at the threshold for want of jurisdiction, without entering into the merits of the challenge raised by the applicant against the recommendations of the NCCSA.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Registry is directed to assign an appropriate number to the Original Application.