Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Article 311 in Disciplinary Proceedings

Introduction:

The Supreme Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Rukma Kesh Mishraaddressed the legal dispute that arose over the process of initiating disciplinary proceedings for a state employee in Jharkhand. The dispute centres on whether the charge-sheet, which forms part of the disciplinary process, requires separate approval by the Chief Minister. The Court was to decide if the dismissal of an employee was valid when the charge-sheet was not approved separately, even though the overall proposal to begin disciplinary proceedings was approved by the appropriate authority. The case relates to issues set out in Article 311(1) of the Constitution and a number of state and central service rules.

Facts:

The case involves an employee of a state service who faced disciplinary proceedings following charges of financial misconduct, forgery, and acts of dishonesty. The process began in 2014 when the Deputy Commissioner at Koderma submitted a proposal and a draft charge-sheet with nine charges to the Chief Minister. On March 21, 2014, the Chief Minister approved initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Shortly after, on March 31, 2014, the government officer suspended the employee. On April 4, 2014, a charge-sheet was issued under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which led to an inquiry.

The employee did not accept the charges, and an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report, submitted on July 31, 2015, found the employee responsible for six charges. A second notice was issued on April 11, 2016, to which the employee responded on September 24, 2016. The state government discussed both the inquiry report and the employee’s response in a Cabinet meeting on June 13, 2017. The Cabinet approved a proposal that resulted in the employee’s dismissal, and the Governor confirmed the decision on June 16, 2017, under the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, with the necessary consent from the state public service commission.

The employee later used the Right to Information Act, 2005, to learn that the charge-sheet was issued without separate approval from the Chief Minister. The employee took the issue to the High Court, arguing that proper procedure was not followed. The High Court ruled in favor of the employee by quashing the dismissal and ordering reinstatement. The State of Jharkhand has since appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Question:

In this case, the main legal question concerns whether the rules governing disciplinary proceedings require the charge-sheet to be approved separately from the proposal used to start the inquiry. The employee argued that the rules require that the charge-sheet be approved on its own before an inquiry can proceed, and that failing to do so makes the process invalid. In contrast, the State argued that while the appointing authority must provide the final consent for dismissal, it is not necessary for that authority to issue or approve the charge-sheet at the drafting stage. The State maintained that because the charge-sheet was part of the overall proposal that was approved by the Chief Minister, that approval covered all associated documents. Both sides presented their views on requirements.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court reviewed the entire administrative process that led to the disciplinary proceedings. The process began when a superior officer submitted a proposal along with a draft charge-sheet that listed nine charges. The package of documents was presented to the Chief Minister, who approved the proposal to initiate the disciplinary inquiry. No state rule requires a separate approval for the charge-sheet itself beyond the overall proposal. The review began with a clear examination of the sequence of events and the role of each document in the process.

The Court distinguished between the start of the inquiry and the final act of dismissal. Under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the safeguard is that only the authority that appointed an employee may dismiss that employee. There is no requirement that every step of the disciplinary process, such as issuing a charge-sheet, must be handled by the appointing authority. Instead, the disciplinary process may begin with the action taken by any authorized superior officer. The Court noted that the charge-sheet was included in the initial proposal that received the Chief Minister’s approval and that the process did not require a standalone approval for the charge-sheet.

The analysis compared the rules in force in the state with central service rules that were applied in earlier cases, such as in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath[1]and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS[2]. Those prior decisions were based on central rules that demanded a separate charge-sheet approval. However, in this case, the state rules, found in the Civil Service Rules, provide that the disciplinary process is initiated by any officer who has been given the required authority by the state government. The Court examined the transition from the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, to the new rules that later came into force.

The Court explained that the article guarantees that an employee is not dismissed by an authority lower than the one that appointed him. The article does not require every step of the disciplinary inquiry to be controlled by the same authority. Past cases have supported the view that the inquiry can be initiated by any designated superior officer, while the final dismissal must be carried out by the appointing authority. The charge-sheet, as part of the overall inquiry documents, did not need a separate stamp of approval from the Chief Minister when it was included in the approved proposal.

Judgement:

The Supreme Court held that the rules governing disciplinary proceedings in Jharkhand do not require that the charge-sheet be approved separately by the Chief Minister. The approval on record for the proposal to begin the disciplinary process was read as including the charge-sheet.The Court stated that under Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the protection provided to the employee is that a dismissal may only be carried out by the authority that appointed him. The article does not require that each step of the disciplinary process be undertaken by the appointing authority. The approval for the dismissal was in fact given by the State Cabinet after receiving consent from the Public Service Commission, and then confirmed by the Governor.

Conclusion:

This case serves to clarify the process by which disciplinary proceedings for state employees are managed. The key point is that the constitutional safeguard under Article 311(1) ensures that only the authority that appointed an employee can carry out the final step of dismissal. The process of starting the disciplinary inquiry may be conducted by any officer who has been given the power to do so under the state rules.

[1]2014 (1) SCC 351.

[2]2018 (17) SCC 677.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com