Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that unless the applicable discipline and appeal rules governing an officer or employee of an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution specifically mandate it, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings through a charge-sheet cannot be invalidated merely because it was not issued or approved by the Appointing or Disciplinary Authority.

The court emphasized that well-established precedents, having full application to the case at hand, could not have been lightly disregarded

"We are reminded of the Latin phrase 'stare decisis et non quieta movere' meaning, stand by what has been decided and do not disturb what has been settled. While it is true that 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," a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said.

Relying on its earlier rulings in Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS (2018), the single judge of the Jharkhand High Court held in a writ petition that "it is the requirement of law that charge has to be approved by the competent authority, and the same was not done here, which is dehorse (sic, dehors) the Rule."

Subsequently, on April 20, 2023, the single judge quashed the dismissal of respondent Rukma Kesh Mishra from the Jharkhand Civil Services and ordered his reinstatement. The division bench, on November 24, 2023, upheld the single judge’s ruling, finding no fault in the writ court’s interference and dismissing the intra-court appeal.

Mishra was accused of indulging in diverse acts of dishonesty, financial irregularities, and forgery of documents, constituting misconduct. A proposal seeking approval for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, along with a draft charge-sheet, was placed before the Chief Minister. Upon approval, he was suspended on March 31, 2014, and later dismissed on June 16, 2017, after the charges against him were proved. His dismissal was in accordance with Rule 14(xi) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, and Rule 18(7) thereof, with due consent from the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

Hearing the Jharkhand government’s appeal, the Supreme Court bench reiterated that judicial decisions serve as authorities only for what they decide, not for what can be logically inferred from them.

"Mechanical reliance on precedents, as if they are statutes, has been deprecated. Whenever a precedent is cited, laying down a principle of law applicable to the facts of the case at hand and having binding effect, it is customary and expected of courts to be bound by the law declared by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution," the bench said.

However, the bench clarified that courts are not obligated to accept precedents blindly. Since no two cases are identical, it is the court’s duty to examine factual distinctions before rejecting a precedent, providing cogent reasoning for doing so.

Mishra, as a member of the civil service of the State, was entitled to the safeguards under Article 311 of the Constitution. This included scrupulous adherence to legal procedures before ordering his dismissal, including the proper issuance of a charge-sheet.

The Supreme Court referred to its 1970 ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh, which held that Article 311(1) does not mandate that the authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer must also initiate or conduct the inquiry.

However, "An erroneous conclusion was arrived at contrary to the settled position of law and we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order is manifestly flawed and hence, unsustainable," the bench said.

It clarified that since the Chief Minister had already approved the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Mishra, the absence of separate approval for the charge-sheet was a non-issue.

The court noted that the facts established that disciplinary proceedings against Mishra had been approved by the Chief Minister on March 21, 2014. The draft charge-sheet was part of a proposal dated January 13, 2014. Since the draft charge-sheet was already on record when the Chief Minister approved the proposal, his assent should be understood as encompassing not just the initiation of disciplinary proceedings but also the charge-sheet, the respondent’s suspension, and the appointment of an inquiry officer and presenting officer. The court, therefore, found the division bench’s reliance on Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules to be misplaced, as the charge-sheet was not issued under that provision.

In India’s parliamentary democracy, where both the Central and State governments have their respective Rules of Business, the court noted that it was incumbent upon Mishra to prove that the prescribed procedure for placing the file before the Chief Minister had been breached. However, no such violation was established.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had adopted an erroneous approach in both the writ petition and the intra-court appeal, warranting intervention.

It further held that the division bench’s ruling was flawed because it failed to properly consider Article 311(1) of the Constitution.

"If one looks at Article 311(1), the sole safeguard that it provides to any member, inter alia, of a civil service of a State or the holder of a civil post under the State is that he shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed (emphasis supplied). Clause (1) does not on its own terms require that the disciplinary proceedings should also be initiated by the appointing authority," the bench said.

Since the draft charge-sheet was already on record when the Chief Minister granted his approval, the court found no valid reason why this approval should not be deemed to cover the charge-sheet as well.

"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 bench said.

The court explained that while it need not declare B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar as bad law, their application must be confined to their respective factual and legal contexts.

"Nonetheless, we are of the undoubted view that whatever be the ratio decidendi of B V Gopinath and Promod Kumar for its application in future cases, the same have to be read and understood as confined to interpretation of the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings in each of the two cases, the facts and law presented before the coordinate benches, and the exposition of law by this court for over half a century till this date," the bench said.

The Supreme Court concluded that both the single judge and the division bench erred in declaring Mishra’s dismissal illegal based on misplaced reliance on B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar.

"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," court held.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments, ruling that the writ petition filed by Mishra must be dismissed.

However, it granted Mishra the liberty to appeal against his dismissal or seek a revision thereof by filing an appeal or memorial under the relevant rules within one month.

Case Title: State of Jharkhand & Ors Vs Rukma Kesh Mishra