A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The appeal concerns the validity of disciplinary proceedings culminating in dismissal of a State civil servant on the ground that the charge-sheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister at or about the time of its issuance.
The respondent faced nine articles of charge for alleged dishonesty, financial irregularities and forgery; a proposal containing a draft charge-sheet and ancillary proposals (suspension; names of inquiry and presenting officers) was placed before the Chief Minister who approved the proposal on 21 March 2014; the formal charge-sheet was issued thereafter and inquiry followed, culminating in dismissal by the Government on 16 June 2017.
The High Court quashed the dismissal holding that the charge-sheet lacked requisite approval, relying on Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar. The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal. The Court analysed the interplay of Article 311(1), the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (Rule 55), and the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (notably Rules 16 and 17).
It reaffirmed that absent a statutory rule requiring that the appointing authority must itself draw up or approve the charge-sheet, initiation by a competent controlling authority or by delegation is permissible; that the phrases “draw up” and “cause to be drawn up” have distinct meanings allowing delegated preparation; and that where the draft charge-sheet formed part of the file placed before and approved by the Chief Minister, such approval must be read as inclusive of the draft charge-sheet and related proposals.
The High Court’s reliance on B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar was held misplaced on the facts and by reason of differing rules; orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench were set aside while preserving the respondent’s right to pursue statutory appeal or revision.
Keywords: dismissal; charge-sheet; Article 311; draw up / cause to be drawn up; disciplinary proceedings; Jharkhand Rules; B.V. Gopinath; delegation; approval of Chief Minister.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2025
iii) Judgement Date: 28 March 2025
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India (Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ.)
v) Quorum: Two-Judge Bench
vi) Author: Dipankar Datta, J.
vii) Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254 : 2025 INSC 412.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Article 311(1) Constitution of India; Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (Rule 55); Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (Rules 16, 17, 32); Right to Information Act, 2005.
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None directly overruled; decisions in B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar distinguished and their application confined.
x) Related Law Subjects: Administrative Law; Service Law; Constitutional Law (Protection of civil servants); Procedural law governing disciplinary inquiries.
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The respondent, a State civil servant, was alleged to have committed serious misconduct. The Deputy Commissioner initiated a proposal dated 13 January 2014 which included a draft charge-sheet (Form ‘K’ with nine articles) and recommendations for suspension and appointment of inquiry/presenting officers. The Chief Minister gave approval to the entire proposal on 21 March 2014.
A formal suspension followed on 31 March 2014 and a charge-sheet was issued on 4 April 2014 under Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules. An inquiry officer reported findings in July 2015, leading to departmental proceedings, Cabinet approval for dismissal on 13 June 2017 and a dismissal order issued on 16 June 2017 with reference to Rule 14(xi) of the 2016 Rules and consent of the State Public Service Commission under Rule 18(7).
The respondent, having learned by RTI that the Chief Minister’s separate approval of the charge-sheet at the time of issuance was not recorded, filed a writ petition challenging dismissal on the ground that the charge-sheet lacked approval. The High Court (Single Judge) allowed the writ, relying on this Court’s rulings in B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar; the Division Bench affirmed.
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether absence of separate approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister invalidated the proceedings and dismissal. The Court examined statutory texts, prior precedents construing Article 311 and related service rules, and the factual record showing that the draft charge-sheet was part of the file before the Chief Minister at the time of approval.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The Deputy Commissioner (appellant no.3) submitted a proposal on 13 January 2014 comprising a draft charge-sheet (nine charges), recommendation for immediate suspension, and nomination of inquiry and presenting officers. The Chief Minister approved the proposal on 21 March 2014. Suspension was effected on 31 March 2014. A formal charge-sheet dated 4 April 2014 was issued under Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules.
The departmental inquiry, with the named Inquiry-cum-Conducting Officer, concluded with a report on 31 July 2015 finding the respondent guilty on the majority of charges. After show cause proceedings and departmental processing, the Cabinet approved dismissal on 13 June 2017 and the Governor’s order dismissing the respondent was issued on 16 June 2017 (invoking Rule 14(xi) of the 2016 Rules and PJSC consent under Rule 18(7)).
The respondent discovered via RTI that there was no record of the Chief Minister’s separate approval at the time of issuance of the charge-sheet and challenged the dismissal before the High Court, arguing that the charge-sheet required the Chief Minister’s specific approval at issuance. The High Court accepted that the proposal to initiate proceedings had approval but held the charge-sheet itself lacked approval and quashed the dismissal; this judgment formed the basis of the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether absence of the Chief Minister’s separate approval of the charge-sheet at the moment of issuance vitiates the disciplinary proceedings and consequent dismissal?
ii. Whether Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 or the corresponding provisions in the 2016 Rules require that the appointing/disciplinary authority must itself draw up or approve the charge-sheet?
iii. Whether precedents such as Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar automatically invalidate charge-sheets prepared by delegated officers where approval to initiate proceedings had been given?
iv. What is the legal import of the phrases “draw up” and “cause to be drawn up” in the rules governing disciplinary proceedings?
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The State contended that the draft charge-sheet formed part of the proposal placed before the Chief Minister and his approval on 21 March 2014 included approval of the draft charge-sheet, suspension and appointment of inquiry/presenting officers; therefore there was no jurisdictional defect.
ii. Reliance was placed on a line of precedents (e.g. Shardul Singh; P.V. Srinivasa Sastry; Thavasippan; A. Radhakrishna Moorthy) establishing that disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by authorities other than the appointing authority unless a rule prescribes otherwise.
iii. The appellants argued that Rule 55 (1930 Rules) did not mandate who must issue the charge-sheet and permitted initiation by a controlling or delegated authority; the High Court erred in mechanically applying B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar which concerned different rules.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The respondent submitted that jurisprudence in B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar requires that the charge-sheet be approved by the competent disciplinary/appointing authority before issuance and that issuance without such approval violates Article 311(1).*
ii. It was contended that the absence of express approval of the charge-sheet at the time of signing rendered the charge memo incompetent and the subsequent dismissal illegal; reliance was placed on procedural sanctity and protective purpose of Article 311.
H) JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal. The Court first acknowledged that writ jurisdiction could be entertained since the challenge related to a jurisdictional question arising after final dismissal. It then undertook a careful doctrinal and factual analysis. The Court reviewed prior authorities beginning with State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh and P.V. Srinivasa Sastry which held that Article 311(1) does not, by itself, require that the appointing authority must initiate disciplinary proceedings; initiation by subordinate or other controlling authorities is permissible unless rules provide otherwise.
The Court contrasted those precedents with B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar which invalidated charge-sheets for lack of ministerial approval under rules that expressly required the disciplinary authority to “draw up” the charge memo. The Court observed that in the present case the governing statutory instrument at the time of initiation was the 1930 Rules (Rule 55), which did not prescribe a specific authority to issue the charge-sheet.
The Court further noticed that the draft charge-sheet was part of the file before the Chief Minister and that his approval of the proposal on 21 March 2014 must be read as including approval of the draft charge-sheet, suspension and nominations. The Court thus concluded there was no jurisdictional defect; the High Court’s interference was founded on misplaced reliance on B.V. Gopinath/Promod Kumar and on an erroneous approach to the rule-scheme and precedent.
The Court clarified the meaning of “draw up” (direct preparation by the disciplinary authority) and “cause to be drawn up” (delegation to a superior officer) and held that delegated preparation by officers superior to the charged officer is permissible and attracts judicial restraint. The Court set aside the High Court orders but granted the respondent liberty to pursue statutory appeal/revision within one month and waived limitation, keeping other points open.
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The decisive ratio is that absent a rule mandating that the appointing/disciplinary authority itself must draw up and approve the charge-sheet, initiation and issue by a competent controlling or delegated authority is valid; where a draft charge-sheet is part of the file placed before and approved by the competent political authority (here the Chief Minister), such approval embraces the draft charge-sheet and allied proposals. Consequently, mere absence of a contemporaneous separate signature approving the charge-sheet does not, in these facts, invalidate the inquiry or dismissal.
b. OBITER DICTA
The Court observed that while B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar remain binding to the extent of their ratios under their respective rules and facts, their scope must be confined and applied with sensitivity to differing rule regimes; stare decisis must not be mechanically applied without attention to factual and statutory differences.
The Court also emphasized judicial restraint where delegation is to an officer superior in rank to the delinquent and stressed that Article 311’s protection lies chiefly in preventing dismissal by subordinate authorities, not in proscribing delegated initiation per se.
c. GUIDELINES
1. Where a draft charge-sheet is placed before the competent political/appointing authority for approval as part of a proposal, approval should be read to include the draft charge memo unless the rule or file history indicates otherwise.
2. Courts should not invalidate disciplinary proceedings on formalistic grounds where the governing rules do not require the appointing authority personally to draw up or issue the charge-sheet.
3. The phrases “draw up” and “cause to be drawn up” must be read distinctly: the latter permits delegation; courts ought to exercise restraint where delegation is to an officer superior to the charged officer.
4. Precedents that interpret different rules must be applied with caution and distinguished on their facts; stare decisis requires respect but not blind application.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
On a careful appraisal of statutory text, precedent and the factual file, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the dismissal solely because the charge-sheet lacked a separate recorded approval at the precise moment of its signing. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards for civil servants under Article 311(1) must be read with reference to the applicable rules; where rules are silent on the identity of the issuing authority, initiation by a competent controlling or delegated officer is permissible.
The decision draws a pragmatic line against over-formalistic invalidation of disciplinary outcomes when executive approvals (here the Chief Minister’s approval of the proposal containing the draft charge-sheet) demonstrate substantive compliance. Practitioners should note the Court’s emphasis on reading file histories and rule-text holistically; service jurisprudence will require litigants and courts to distinguish B.V. Gopinath style authorities where the underlying rules expressly allocate the responsibility to the disciplinary authority to “draw up” the charge memo.
The judgment also preserves statutory appellate remedies by granting the respondent liberty to file appeal/revision with waiver of limitation, a balanced approach that protects both rule-based procedure and substantive accountability.
J) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
- Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) Supp. 9 SCR 257 : (2006) 12 SCC 28.
- Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, 2014 (1) SCC 351.
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS, (2018) 17 SCC 677.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh, (1970) 1 SCC 108.
- P. V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General, 1993 (1) SCC 419.
- Transport Commissioner v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332.
- Inspector General of Police v. Thavasippan, (1996) 2 SCC 145.
- Government of Tamil Nadu v. S. Vel Raj, (1997) 2 SCC 708.
- Commissioner of Police v. Jayasurian, (1997) 6 SCC 75.
- Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, (1976) 3 SCR 540 : (1976) 3 SCC 334.
- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254 : 2025 INSC 412.
b. Important Statutes Referred
- Constitution of India, Article 311(1).
- Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (Rule 55).
- Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (Rules 16, 17, 32, 18).
- Right to Information Act, 2005.
