Constitution of India – Art.311 – Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State – Authority to issue chargesheet or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the government servant – Respondent-civil service officer, indulged in diverse activities constituting misconduct – Deputy Commissioner seeking approval of initiation of disciplinary proceedings along with draft charge-sheet, placed the proposals before the Chief Minister – Proposals approved by the Chief Minister and suspension of the respondent – Issuance of charge-sheet and conduct of the departmental inquiry, and thereafter, the respondent dismissed from service – Respondent then filed writ petition challenging the order of dismissal on the ground of absence of approval by the Chief Minister at or about the time of issuance of the charge-sheet, allowed by the High Court-Division Bench upheld the same – Sustainability: Held: Unless the relevant rules applicable to an officer/employee of an authority so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same or approved it – On facts, no infirmity in initiation of disciplinary proceedings – 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 non-issue – Any officer holding a rank subordinate to the respondent’s appointing authority but superior in rank than the respondent could have issued the charge-sheet – Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the respondent having the approval of the Chief Minister – Draft charge-sheet was part of the proposal – Once the draft charge-sheet was on record before the Chief Minister, approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings should have been read as including the Chief Minister’s assent not only to the draft charge-sheet, as drawn up, but also to the other proposals to suspend the respondent as well as appointment of an inquiry officer and presenting officer – Also, no procedure of placing the matter before the Chief Minister is shown to have been breached – According approval to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent did amount to approval of the draft charge-sheet – Single Judge committed grave miscarriage of justice in interfering with the order of dismissal and the Division Bench, by failing to right the wrong, equally contributed to same justice – Orders by the courts below fundamentally incorrect and patently illegal and are set aside – Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – r.55 – Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016 – rr. 16, 17. [Paras 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 40, 43]
Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – ‘Draw up’ and ‘cause to draw up’ the charge sheet signifying initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an officer/employee found to be delinquent – Meaning:
Held: Disciplinary Authority is mandated by the law to ‘draw up’ or ‘cause to be drawn up’ the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct article of charge together with the statement of such imputations – Phrases ‘draw up’ and ‘cause to be drawn up’ do have different meanings in the context of disciplinary proceedings, though both relate to drawing up of a charge-sheet – By ‘draw up’, what is express is that the Disciplinary Authority itself is responsible for preparing the substance of imputation and the statement of allegations, whereas ‘cause to be drawn up’ would enable the Disciplinary Authority to instruct or direct someone else to prepare the substance and statement – Effect is that the Disciplinary Authority itself may not prepare the document but rather delegate the task to someone else – If the delegation is proved to have been made in favour of an authority holding an office superior to that of the officer/employee proposed to be proceeded against, nothing much is required to be done and the courts ought to exercise restraint. [Para 36] Constitution of India – Art.141 – Precedents – Reliance by the courts:
Held: Whenever a precedent is cited laying down a principle of law having application to the facts of the case in hand and having binding effect, it is customary and expected of courts to be bound by the law declared by this Court u/Art.141 – However, the courts are free not to place blind reliance on whatever precedent is cited by the parties since facts of two cases are not seldom alike – It is the duty of the court, if it considers the precedent not to be applicable, to refer to factual dissimilarities that are found and thereafter to distinguish the precedent cited before it by assigning brief but cogent reasons. [Para 35]
Constitution of India – Art.311 – Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State – Safeguards for civil servants from dismissal: Held: Member of the civil service of the State, can legitimately claim that the safeguards enshrined in Art.311 be scrupulously followed prior to ordering his dismissal including drawing up a charge-sheet in the manner required by the relevant law – Sole safeguard provided by Art.311 to any member of a civil service/holder of a civil post is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed – Clause 1 of Art.311 does not require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority. [Paras 19, 33]
Doctrines/principles – Stare decisis et non queta movere – Meaning:
Held: Means that to stand by what has been decided and do not disturb what has been settled – While courts are not restrained by any principle of law from expressing a different view on a point of law or to distinguish precedents, stare decisis need not be disregarded to unsettle settled positions. [Para 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.