Art 311 Doesn't Mean Only Appointing Authority Can Initiate Disciplinary Action Against Govt Servant : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the appointing authority is not required to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a state employee. Referring to Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the Court clarified that while the appointing authority's approval is necessary for dismissal, it is not required for initiating disciplinary action.

Holding so, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan allowed the State of Jharkhand's appeal, overturning the High Court's decision that had quashed the dismissal of the respondent-state employee solely due to the lack of prior separate approval from the Chief Minister for the charge sheet.

The Case

The Respondent faced charges of financial irregularities, forgery, and dishonesty. Therefore, in 2014, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and a draft charge sheet (with 9 charges) was prepared and approved by the Chief Minister alongside proposals for suspension and inquiry officers.

In 2015, the Respondent was found guilty of 6 charges. Thereafter, the State Cabinet after obtaining the due consent from the State Public Service Commission (appointing authority) in 2017 approved the dismissal, ratified 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).

Challenging the High Court's decision, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the order by which the respondent was dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should have been interdicted by the High Court on the specious ground that the charge-sheet had not been approved by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand?

Decision

Overturning the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Datta noted that the court erred in applying the rulings in BV Gopinath and Promod Kumar, IAS. It clarified that these judgments were based on central laws, which differ from Jharkhand's Civil Service Rules governing the state.

The Court found that the Jharkhand's Rules didn't mandate charge-sheet approval by the Chief Minister, and only states that the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by any superior authority. Moreover, the Chief Minister's approval of the draft charge-sheet (submitted alongside the proposal) sufficed as compliance, hence the court noted that no separate approval of CM 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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 368

Click here to read/download the judgment

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