Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal has held that an appointing authority's approval is required for dismissal but not for initiating disciplinary action. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025). 

What was the Background of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra (2025 Case ? 

• Rukma Kesh Mishra was a civil service officer in the State of Jharkhand who faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct including dishonesty, financial irregularities, and forgery of documents. 
• On 13th January 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Koderma initiated a proposal seeking approval to start disciplinary proceedings against Mishra, which included a draft charge-sheet containing nine charges. 
• The Chief Minister of Jharkhand approved the proposal on 21st March 2014, including the suspension of Mishra and appointment of inquiry and presenting officers. 
• Mishra was suspended from service on 31st March 2014, and a formal charge-sheet was issued on 4th April 2014, under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. 
• After Mishra denied the allegations, an inquiry was conducted in which he participated, and the inquiry officer found him guilty of most charges in a report submitted on 31st July 2015. 
• A second show cause notice was issued to Mishra on 11th April 2016, to which he responded on 24th September 2016. 
• The State Cabinet approved a proposal to dismiss Mishra on 13th June 2017, after which the Governor issued a dismissal order on 16th June 2017. 
• Mishra challenged his dismissal in the High Court of Jharkhand, primarily arguing that the charge-sheet had not been properly approved by the Chief Minister, who was the competent authority. 
• Through RTI information, Mishra claimed that the Chief Minister's approval had not been "accorded at the time of issuing/signing of the memo of charge," which became the central issue in his legal challenge. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) does not on its own terms require that disciplinary proceedings be initiated by the appointing authority; the sole safeguard it provides is that a civil servant shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. 
• The Court affirmed that a charge-sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority; any controlling authority superior to the charged officer can initiate disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge-sheet, unless specific rules provide otherwise. 
• The Court observed that when the Chief Minister approved the proposal to initiate disciplinary proceedings, which included the draft charge-sheet, it amounted to approval of the charge-sheet itself; no separate approval was required. 
• The Court noted that mechanical reliance on precedents as if they were statutes is improper; courts must distinguish precedents based on factual dissimilarities when appropriate. 
• The Court clarified that the phrases "draw up" and "cause to be drawn up" in disciplinary rules have different meanings - the former means the Disciplinary Authority itself prepares the charge-sheet, while the latter allows delegation of this task. 
• The Court relied on established precedents including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shardul Singh (1970), P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor General (1993), Transport Commissioner v. A. Radhakrishna Moorthy (1995), and Inspector General of Police v. Thavasippan (1996), which consistently held that a charge-sheet need not be issued by the appointing authority. 
• The Court distinguished B.V. Gopinath v. Union of India (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar, IAS (2018), noting that these decisions were based on different disciplinary rules that expressly specified who could issue charge-sheets. 
• The Court found that the High Court's reliance on B.V. Gopinath and Promod Kumar was misplaced, as those decisions dealt with different rules that expressly specified who could issue charge sheets, unlike Rule 55 of the 1930 Rules applicable in this case. 
• The Court observed that an officer's charge of committing offences including dishonesty, financial irregularities, and forgery must be properly adjudicated according to established legal principles governing disciplinary proceedings. 

What is Article 311 of the Constitution of India? 

• Article 311 of Constitution of India deals with Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. 
• No civil servant can be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the one that appointed them. 
• No civil servant can be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without an inquiry where they are informed of charges and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 
• Once the inquiry is completed, penalties can be imposed based on evidence without further opportunity for representation. 
• The requirement for inquiry does not apply if the person is dismissed based on conduct that led to criminal conviction. 
• The inquiry requirement is also waived if the dismissing authority finds it's not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry and records this in writing. 
• The inquiry can be bypassed if the President or Governor determines that national security interests make it inexpedient to hold an inquiry. 
• If a question arises about whether holding an inquiry is reasonably practicable, the decision of the dismissing authority is final. 
• These provisions are designed to provide procedural safeguards for civil servants while allowing exceptions in specific circumstances.