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...

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers