Citation: Mahesh Hooda v. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University & Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1734 of 2026 (with Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak v. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University & Ors., CWJC No. 1797 of 2026), Patna High Court (Justice Harish Kumar), decided on 01.10.2026
The Patna High Court has set aside the departmental proceedings against two Deputy Registrars of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, because the charge memos were issued without the fresh approval that the disciplinary authority must give before the memo goes out.
The petitioners, Mahesh Hooda and Dr. Ramesh Kumar Pathak, were appointed Deputy Registrars by direct recruitment in September 2020. After a complaint about irregularities, the Visitor (the President of India) ordered an inquiry, and a committee later found that the petitioners were not eligible for the post and should not have been screened in. The university’s Board of Management, which is the disciplinary authority, resolved on 6 December 2023 to start proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It authorised the Vice-Chancellor to issue the charge sheets and appoint the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The Chief Vigilance Officer then issued the memos on 2 April 2025 on behalf of the disciplinary authority, and the Enquiry Officer found the charges established in February 2026. Justice Harish Kumar narrowed the dispute to a single question, whether the Board’s approval to start proceedings also covered the charge memo, or whether it had to approve the memo itself. He held, relying on the Supreme Court’s B.V. Gopinath ruling and the later Pramod Kumar and Sunny Abraham rulings, that approval to start proceedings and approval of the charge memo are two separate acts, each needing the disciplinary authority’s independent application of mind. The university admitted that the Board’s approval was not taken when the memo was issued. A memo without such approval is “non est” (treated as if it never existed), and cannot be validated afterwards, since the defect also goes against the protection of Article 311. The court set aside the charge memos, all later proceedings and the Enquiry Officer’s report of 2 February 2026. However, it allowed the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh charge memo after getting the Board’s approval, in accordance with law, and each side bears its own costs.