The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
Introduction:
The Supreme Court held that Article 311(1) of the Indian Constitution does not mandate that only the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings against a government servant. The Court clarified that while the appointing authority must approve dismissal, the initiation of disciplinary action can be done by any superior authority unless explicitly restricted by relevant service rules. The ruling overturned a High Court decision that had quashed the respondent’s dismissal based on procedural technicalities.
Facts of the Case:
The respondent, a government employee in Jharkhand, was charged with financial irregularities, forgery, and dishonesty. In 2014, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, who also prepared a draft charge sheet containing nine charges. The draft charge sheet, along with proposals for suspension and inquiry officers, was approved by the Chief Minister. In 2015, the respondent was found guilty of six charges. In 2017, the State Cabinet, with the consent of the State Public Service Commission (appointing authority), approved the dismissal, which was then ratified by the Governor. The respondent challenged the dismissal, arguing that the charge sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister, violating procedural requirements. The High Court quashed the dismissal, leading the State to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court:
- Whether the respondent’s dismissal was invalid due to the lack of separate approval of the charge sheet by the Chief Minister.
- Whether Article 311(1) of the Constitution mandates that only the appointing authority can initiate disciplinary proceedings against a government servant.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The approval of disciplinary proceedings by the Chief Minister, including the charge sheet, was sufficient, and no separate approval was required. The High Court erroneously applied precedents from cases involving central government employees, whereas Jharkhand’s civil service rules govern state employees differently. The charge sheet was issued by a superior officer, and the final dismissal was approved by the competent authority (State Cabinet and Governor), making the dismissal legally valid.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The charge sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister, violating procedural safeguards under Article 311. Relying on precedents from Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS (2018), the respondent argued that the absence of approval from the appointing authority invalidated the disciplinary action. The High Court correctly quashed the dismissal, as it was based on a procedurally defective charge sheet.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court held that the High Court misapplied precedents from central government cases that did not apply to Jharkhand’s civil service rules. The Supreme Court noted that Jharkhand’s service rules do not mandate charge sheet approval by the Chief Minister, allowing disciplinary action to be initiated by any superior authority. Since the Chief Minister had approved the overall disciplinary proceedings (including the charge sheet), a separate approval was unnecessary. The Court emphasized that Article 311(1) does not require the appointing authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings; it only mandates that dismissal must be approved by the appointing authority. The Court cited P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General (1993), reiterating that a departmental inquiry need not be initiated solely by the appointing authority.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Jharkhand, overturning the High Court’s decision. The Court reinstated the respondent’s dismissal, holding that disciplinary proceedings were validly initiated by a superior authority and lawfully concluded by the appointing authority. The ruling reinforced that Article 311(1) only safeguards against dismissal by a subordinate authority and does not dictate who must initiate disciplinary proceedings. However, the respondent was granted the liberty to file an appeal or revision on other grounds within one month.
