Article 311(1) does not require that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority - Disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by a superior or controlling authority under relevant rules.

Supreme Court upholds dismissal of Jharkhand Civil Servant in misconduct case. The charge-sheet approval not required separately, rules Apex Court

The Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra upheld the dismissal of Rukma Kesh Mishra, a civil service officer from Jharkhand, following disciplinary proceedings initiated due to allegations of misconduct including financial irregularities and forgery. The decision, delivered by the bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, revolved around the legal question of whether the charge-sheet issued against Mishra required separate approval from the Chief Minister of Jharkhand.

The case originated from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mishra in 2014, when a proposal along with a draft charge-sheet was submitted to the Chief Minister for approval. The Chief Minister approved the initiation of proceedings, which included the draft charge-sheet, suspension of Mishra, and appointment of inquiry officers. Following a detailed inquiry, Mishra was found guilty on several charges and was subsequently dismissed from service.

Mishra challenged his dismissal in the High Court of Jharkhand, arguing that the charge-sheet was invalid due to lack of separate approval from the Chief Minister at the time of issuance. The High Court ruled in his favor, leading to an appeal by the State of Jharkhand to the Supreme Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that once the proposal for disciplinary proceedings, inclusive of a draft charge-sheet, is approved by the competent authority, separate approval of the charge-sheet is not necessary. The court underscored that the approval of the initiation of proceedings inherently includes approval of the draft charge-sheet. The ruling also emphasized that Article 311 of the Constitution does not mandate that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority, but can be initiated by a superior or controlling authority under relevant rules.

The judgment also addressed the reliance on precedents, clarifying that mechanical reliance without accounting for factual differences is impermissible. It distinguished the present case from previous judgments, such as the B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar cases, which were cited by the High Court.

While the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, it granted Mishra the liberty to file an appeal or revision under the relevant rules within a month, waiving the limitation period. The appellate or revisional authority is directed to decide on merits, excluding the point of charge-sheet validity, which the Supreme Court has settled.

This decision is seen as pivotal in clarifying the procedural aspects concerning disciplinary actions against civil servants, reaffirming the discretionary powers of competent authorities in the approval process of disciplinary proceedings.

Statutory provisions:

- Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016, Rule 14(xi)

- Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311

State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2711748