Article 311(1) Constitution| Departmental Proceeding Against Civil Servant Don’t Have To Be Initiated Only By Appointing Authority: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court set aside the Order reinstateing a civil servant earlier dismissed for financial irregularities and forgery of documents, which constitute misconduct.
The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 311(1) of the Constitution does not say that the departmental proceedings against a civil servant have to be initiated only by the appointing authority.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the State, setting aside the Jharkhand High Court's Order that had reinstated a civil servant (Respondent) dismissed for financial irregularities and forgery of documents constituting misconduct. The Court ruled that the disciplinary proceedings were lawfully conducted and that the absence of separate approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister did not invalidate the process.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that “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. These precedents have stood the test of time and having full application to the case at hand, could not have been lightly overlooked.”
Advocate Anirudh Sharma represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent challenged his dismissal before the High Court, arguing that the charge-sheet was not approved by the Chief Minister, rendering the disciplinary proceedings illegal. The Single Bench ruled in his favour, directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The State’s intra-court Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench, which held that the disciplinary action was illegal due to a procedural irregularity in approving the charge-sheet.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to its decision in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006), wherein it was held that “ordinarily no writ lies against a show cause notice or charge-sheet. The reason is that a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order affecting the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so.”
“No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a show cause notice or charge-sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter,” the Bench remarked.
The Court then referred to its decision in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General (1993), wherein it was clarified that “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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “As per the scheme of the 2016 Rules and in terms of Rule 16(1) thereof, notwithstanding that the Disciplinary Authority could be subordinate to an Appointing Authority in a given case, any authority empowered by general or special order of the Government could have instituted disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. In any event, assuming that Rule 17(3) was applicable, the Chief Minister himself having approved initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, question of absence of approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister separately was a nonissue.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State Of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 412)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Tulika Mukherjee; Advocates Anirudh Sharma, Beenu Sharma and Venkat Narayan
Respondent: Senior Advocate Manish Singhvi; AOR Sunil Kumar Agarwal; Advocates Shiv Ram Pandey, Sandhya Pandey, Kishor Shankar Dere, Apurv Singhvi, Amarjeet Sahani, Amita Agarwal, Sachin Kumar Srivastava and Madan Lal Daga