The Supreme Court of India clarified that Article 311(1) of the Constitution does not mandate that disciplinary proceedings against a government servant must be initiated only by the appointing authority. The Court emphasized that while the appointing authority's approval is necessary for dismissal or removal, the initiation of disciplinary action can be undertaken by any superior authority unless specified otherwise under service rules.
The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s decision that had quashed the dismissal of a state employee solely because the charge-sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister.
"The constitutional safeguard under Article 311(1) only ensures that dismissal is by an appointing authority, not that charge sheets must be issued by them."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Arrest and Remand: Emphasizes Compliance with Section 50 of CrPC
Case Background: Disciplinary Action Against Jharkhand Officer
The case involved Rukma Kesh Mishra, a civil service officer in Jharkhand, who was accused of financial irregularities, forgery, and dishonesty. The disciplinary process unfolded as follows:
- 2014: The Deputy Commissioner of Koderma proposed disciplinary action, including a draft charge-sheet with nine charges, suspension, and appointment of inquiry officers.
- The Chief Minister approved the proposal, including the draft charge-sheet.
- 2015: After an inquiry, Mishra was found guilty of six charges.
- 2017: The State Cabinet, after obtaining consent from the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, approved his dismissal, which was ratified by the Governor.
Mishra challenged his dismissal in the High Court, arguing that the charge-sheet lacked separate approval from the Chief Minister at the time of issuance.
High Court’s Decision and Supreme Court’s Intervention
The Single Judge and Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court quashed Mishra’s dismissal, relying on two key judgments:
- Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014)
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS (2018)
These rulings held that charge-sheets must be approved by the competent authority (in this case, the Chief Minister).
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Judgment on Invocation of Section 9 & Section 11 of Arbitration Act
However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that the High Court misapplied these precedents because:
- The Jharkhand Civil Services Rules did not mandate separate approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister.
- The Chief Minister’s approval of the disciplinary proposal, which included the draft charge-sheet, was sufficient compliance.
"Approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent did amount to approval of the draft charge-sheet."
Article 311(1) Does Not Require Charge-Sheet Issuance by Appointing Authority
The Court clarified that Article 311(1) only ensures that:
- Dismissal or removal must be by the appointing authority or a higher authority.
- It does not require that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority.
"Clause (1) does not on its own terms require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority."
Read Also:- Deception in Marriage Without Proven Customary Divorce Amounts to Rape: Telangana HC
Disciplinary Proceedings Can Be Initiated by Any Superior Authority
Unless service rules explicitly require the appointing authority’s involvement, any superior officer can initiate action. The Court cited:
- P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General (1993)
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh (1970)
These rulings held that disciplinary proceedings need not be started by the appointing authority unless specified.
No Separate Approval Needed if Draft Charge-Sheet Was Part of Proposal
The Supreme Court noted that since the Chief Minister had approved the entire disciplinary proposal, including the draft charge-sheet, no separate approval was required at the time of issuance.
"The entire proposal, including the draft charge-sheet, was approved by the Chief Minister. Hence, the High Court erred in quashing the dismissal."
Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. VS. RUKMA KESH MISHRA
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Addl. Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Pandey, Adv. Mrs. Sandhya Pandey, Adv. Dr. Kishor Shankar Dere, Adv. Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Madan Lal Daga, Adv. Mr. Man Singh Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Amarjeet Sahani, Adv. Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, AOR
