In a significant judgment clarifying the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan has held that High Courts can interfere with a chargesheet or show cause notice only in cases involving lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality. The ruling came in State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Rukma Kesh Mishra [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19223 of 2024], where the Court set aside a Jharkhand High Court judgment that had quashed the dismissal of a senior state civil servant.
Facts of the Case:
- Respondent Rukma Kesh Mishra, a Jharkhand state civil service officer, was accused of multiple acts of misconduct, including financial irregularities, forgery, and dishonesty.
- A proposal dated January 13, 2014, to initiate disciplinary proceedings — including a draft chargesheet — was submitted to the Chief Minister, who approved it on March 21, 2014.
- The chargesheet was formally issued on April 4, 2014, and the respondent participated in the enquiry. He was found guilty of most charges and was dismissed from service on June 16, 2017, after Cabinet approval.
- The respondent later filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court, alleging that the chargesheet was not separately approved by the Chief Minister at the time of issuance and was therefore illegal.
The Legal Issue:
The central question before the Supreme Court was:
Whether a chargesheet issued during disciplinary proceedings is invalid merely because it was not separately approved by the competent authority at the time of issuance—despite earlier approval of the entire disciplinary proposal, including the draft chargesheet?
What the High Court Held:
- A Single Judge and subsequently a Division Bench of the High Court accepted the argument.
- Relying on precedents like Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath (2014) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Promod Kumar (2018), the Court held that approval of the chargesheet by the competent authority was mandatory, and its absence rendered the dismissal invalid.
- It quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement of the officer with all benefits.
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, ruling that:
“The proposal approved by the Chief Minister included the draft chargesheet. There is no legal requirement for separate or subsequent approval unless expressly mandated by the rules.”
- The Court held that Rule 55 of the Jharkhand Civil Services Rules, 1930 (applicable when proceedings began) did not specify any authority for issuing the chargesheet, and thus, any superior officer could have issued it.
- It observed that the High Court had misapplied the rulings in Gopinath and Promod Kumar, which were based on different service rules requiring express approval.
- The doctrine of “stare decisis” was emphasized, with the Court holding that it must not be applied mechanically without reference to factual and legal differences.
Clarification on Judicial Interference with Chargesheets:
Citing its earlier ruling in Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006), the Court clarified:
“A mere chargesheet or show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action unless it is issued by an authority having no jurisdiction or the action is wholly illegal. High Courts should refrain from interference at such preliminary stages unless there is clear lack of authority or flagrant illegality.”
Observations on Article 311 of the Constitution:
The Court reiterated that:
“Article 311(1) does not require that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority; it only requires that dismissal not be by a subordinate authority.”
Earlier decisions like Shardul Singh (1970), P.V. Srinivasa Sastry (1993), and Thavasippan (1996) were cited to uphold this interpretation.
Quote from the Bench:
“Had the High Court looked into the longstanding precedents, its conclusion would have certainly been otherwise. The interference caused a grave miscarriage of justice.”
Final Outcome:
- The Supreme Court set aside both the Single Judge and Division Bench decisions of the Jharkhand High Court.
- It dismissed Mishra’s writ petition.
- However, the Court allowed Mishra to file an appeal or revision under service rules within one month, waiving limitation, except on the issue of chargesheet validity.
Key Takeaways:
- High Courts should not interfere with chargesheets unless there is lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality.
- Approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings, including a draft chargesheet, suffices unless rules specify otherwise.
- Article 311(1) does not mandate that only the appointing authority can initiate proceedings.
- Precedents must be contextually applied, not blindly followed.
