"Art 311: Disciplinary Action Not Limited to Appointing Authority - Supreme Court"

The Supreme Court clarified that it is not necessary for the appointing authority (like the Chief Minister) to be the one to start disciplinary action against a state employee. According to Article 311(1) of the Constitution, while the appointing authority’s approval is needed to dismiss an employee, it is not required to begin disciplinary proceedings. In this case, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand. They overturned the High Court's decision, which had previously canceled the dismissal of a state employee just because there was no prior separate approval from the Chief Minister for issuing the charge sheet. The Respondent was accused of financial irregularities, forgery, and dishonesty. In 2014, disciplinary proceedings were started by the Deputy Commissioner of Koderma. A draft charge sheet containing 9 charges was prepared and approved by the Chief Minister, along with proposals for suspension and appointing inquiry officers. In 2015, the Respondent was found guilty of 6 charges. Later, in 2017, the State Cabinet, after getting approval from the State Public Service Commission (the appointing authority), approved the dismissal, which was then confirmed by the Governor. The Respondent argued that the charge sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister at issuance, violating procedural safeguards. Placing reliance on the cases of Union of India v B.V. Gopinath, 2014 (1) SCC 351 and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS, 2018 (17) SCC 677, the Single and Division Bench of the High Court quashed his dismissal noting that the charge-sheet was not approved separately by the competent authority (Chief Minister). The State challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court. Issue: The main question was whether the High Court was right in canceling the respondent’s dismissal from service just because the charge sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand. Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision. Justice Datta stated that the High Court had wrongly applied rulings from the BV Gopinath and Promod Kumar, IAS cases, which were based on central laws and did not apply to Jharkhand’s Civil Service Rules. The Court clarified that Jharkhand’s rules do not require the Chief Minister’s separate approval of the charge sheet. Any superior authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings. Additionally, since the Chief Minister had already approved the draft charge sheet (submitted with the proposal), it was considered valid, and no separate approval was needed. “As noted above, in the present case, the draft charge-sheet was there on record when the Chief Minister accorded his approval and there appears to be no valid reason as to why approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent would not be regarded as grant of approval to the draft charge-sheet too. We are unhesitatingly of the view that according approval to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, in this case, did amount to approval of the draft charge-sheet.”, the court said. Since the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Commissioner (superior authority), and the dismissal was upheld by the State Cabinet being approved by the Governor, therefore the Court found no reason for the High Court to interfere with the dismissal just because the charge sheet was issued without the Chief Minister's approval. “We repeat, the entire proposal of initiating disciplinary proceedings inclusive of the draft charge-sheet, to suspend the respondent pending such proceedings and the names of the officers who would conduct the inquiry and present the case of the department in such inquiry having been approved by the Chief Minister, the Single Judge seems to have occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice in interfering with the order of dismissal on the wholly untenable ground of lack of approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister; and the Division Bench, by failing to right the wrong, equally contributed to the failure of justice.”, the court observed. Constitutional Safeguard Under Article 311(1) Does Not Mandate Issuance Of Charge-sheet By Appointing Authority The Court noted that an argument was made by the Respondent claiming protection under Article 311(1) stating that the safeguards enshrined in Article 311 of the Constitution be scrupulously followed prior to ordering his dismissal including drawing up a charge-sheet in the manner required by the relevant law. However, the Court noted that the constitutional safeguard under Article 311(1) only ensures that dismissal is by an appointing authority, not that charge sheets must be issued by the appointing authority or the disciplinary proceedings be initiated by them. "If one looks at Article 311(1), the sole safeguard that it provides to any member, inter alia, of a civil service of a State or the holder of a civil post under the State is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed (emphasis supplied). Clause (1) does not on its own terms require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority." The Court clarified that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by any superior authority, not solely by the appointing authority unless explicitly required by the rules. The Court ruled that the lack of the Chief Minister's approval for the charge sheet does not invalidate the dismissal if the rules do not mandate such approval, especially when the competent authority—the state cabinet led by the CM—has confirmed the dismissal. “unless the relevant discipline and appeal rules applicable to an officer/employee of an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that either the Appointing Authority or the Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same or approved it.”, the court observed. The Court referred to the decision in P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General, 1993 (1) SCC 419 where it was reiterated that a departmental proceeding need not be initiated only by the appointing authority and that initiation by a subordinate authority, in the absence of rules, is not vitiated. “Article 311(1) guarantees that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority.”, the court said in PV Srinivasa Sastry. In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the Appeal and restored the dismissal, but allowed him to file an appeal/revision within 1 month on other grounds. Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. VS. RUKMA KESH MISHRA