“Approval of Disciplinary Proceedings ‘Did Amount to Approval of Draft Charge-Sheet’: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Orders Invalidating Civil Servant’s Dismissal”
Safiya Malik
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that where a competent authority grants approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings, including the draft charge-sheet, such approval also constitutes approval of the charge-sheet. The Court stated that “approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, in this case, did amount to approval of the draft charge-sheet.” Setting aside the judgment of the High Court which had quashed the dismissal of a state civil servant on the ground of an unapproved charge-sheet.
The matter originated from departmental proceedings initiated by the Government of Jharkhand against a member of the State Civil Services. The State proposed disciplinary action against the respondent for alleged financial irregularities and forgery of official documents, among other charges. The proposal included the draft charge-sheet, a list of witnesses, and suggested names of the inquiry officer and presenting officer. On 21 March 2014, the Chief Minister approved the entire disciplinary proposal.
A charge-sheet was subsequently issued to the respondent on 4 April 2014 under Rule 55 of the Bihar Government Servants’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand. The respondent denied the charges. An inquiry was conducted by the appointed officer, who found the respondent guilty of six out of nine charges. A second show-cause notice was issued, and the matter was considered by the Cabinet, which approved the dismissal. The Governor dismissed the respondent from service by an order dated 16 June 2017 under Rule 14(xi) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, after obtaining the consent of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
The respondent challenged the dismissal order through a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. It was argued that the disciplinary proceedings were invalid as the charge-sheet had not been separately approved by the competent authority prior to its issuance. The Single Judge accepted the contention, relying on judicial precedents, including Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar IPS. The writ petition was allowed. The Division Bench upheld the judgment, leading to the State’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the charge-sheet required separate approval from the competent authority and whether the absence of such approval invalidated the disciplinary proceedings.
The Court stated: “What we have noticed from the approval granted by the Chief Minister on 21st March 2014 is that not only was the proposal to initiate the disciplinary proceedings approved, but the draft charge-sheet, the list of witnesses, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were all specifically mentioned in the said proposal.”
It recorded that the charge-sheet was issued shortly after this approval and noted: “This indicates that the approval of the proposal did include the approval of the charge-sheet itself.”
The Court referred to Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules, under which the proceedings were initiated, and observed: “Rule 55 reveals that it does not expressly specify the authority, who is competent to issue the charge-sheet.” It further noted: “The draft charge-sheet was part of the proposal dated 13th January, 2014. Once the draft charge-sheet was on record before the Chief Minister, approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings should have been read as including the Chief Minister’s assent not only to the draft charge-sheet, as drawn up, but also to the other proposals.”
The bench addressed the applicability of B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar, stating: “Both these decisions were based on statutory rules applicable in the relevant service jurisprudence in those cases which, unlike Rule 55, required the charge-sheet to be approved by the competent authority.” The Court noted that the Jharkhand rules did not impose such a requirement.
The Court also referred to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh, P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General, and Transport Commissioner v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy to clarify the legal position. It quoted: “It has never been doubted that under Article 311(1), the authority which institutes a proceeding or conducts the inquiry need not be the authority competent under that article to dismiss or remove the officer concerned from service.”
On the meaning of drawing up the charge-sheet, the Court recorded: “By ‘draw up’, what is express is that the Disciplinary Authority itself is responsible for preparing the substance of the imputations, whereas ‘cause to be drawn up’ would enable the Disciplinary Authority to instruct or direct someone else to prepare the substance and statement.”
It further stated: “The inference drawn by the High Court that the approval of the proposal for initiating the disciplinary proceedings did not amount to approval of the charge-sheet is erroneous.”
Regarding the reference to Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules by the High Court, the Court recorded: “Reference by the Division Bench to Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules appears to be wholly misplaced.”
The Court concluded that: “We are anchored in a belief that had the High Court looked into these precedents, the conclusion would have certainly been otherwise.”
The Supreme Court issued the following directions: “The impugned order of the Division Bench as well as the judgment and order of the Single Judge are set aside, resulting in the respondent’s writ petition on the file of the High Court being dismissed.”
The Court granted liberty to the respondent to challenge the dismissal order through appropriate means, stating: “We grant him liberty to appeal against the impugned order of dismissal or to seek a revision thereof in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.”
It concluded: “All points except the point of validity of the charge-sheet, decided by us, are kept open.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Tulika Mukherjee
For the Respondents: Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Case Title: The State of Jharkhand and Others v. Rukma Kesh Mishra
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 412
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2744 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19223 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
