2025 Supreme(SC) 554

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and Others - Appellants
Versus
Rukma Kesh Mishra - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 19223 of 2024]
Decided On : 28-03-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet – In some very rare and exceptional cases High Court can quash a show cause notice or charge-sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal.
(2) Departmental proceeding need not be initiated only by appointing authority and initiation by a subordinate authority, in absence of rules, is not vitiated.
(3) Dismissal from service – Disciplinary Authority itself may not prepare document but rather delegate the task to someone else – If delegation is proved to have been made in favour of an authority holding an office superior to that of officer/employee proposed to be proceeded against, nothing much is required to be done and courts ought to exercise restraint.
(4) Precedent – Stare Decisis – Courts are free not to place blind reliance on whatever precedent is cited by parties since facts of two cases are not seldom alike.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – Rule 55 – Dismissal from service – Reversal by High Court – Indulgence in diverse activities of dishonesty, financial irregularities, forgery of documents, constituting misconduct – It was open to High Court to examine question of jurisdiction to issue charge-sheet to respondent since he had invoked writ jurisdiction after suffering order of dismissal from service and not at initial stage of inquiry – Writ petition could not have been thrown out at threshold – Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction – Such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet – In some very rare and exceptional cases High Court can quash a show cause notice or charge-sheet if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal – However, ordinarily High Court should not interfere in such a matter. (Paras 11 and 12)

(B) Constitution of India – Article 311 – Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – Rule 55 – Dismissal from service – Reversal by High Court – Rule 55 reveals that it does not expressly specify the authority, who is competent to issue the charge-sheet – Respondent was a member of civil service of State – He could legitimately claim that safeguards enshrined in Article 311 of Constitution be scrupulously followed prior to ordering his dismissal including drawing up a charge-sheet in the manner required by relevant law – However, departmental proceeding need not be initiated only by appointing authority and initiation by a subordinate authority, in absence of rules, is not vitiated – Unless relevant discipline and appeal rules applicable to an officer/employee of an authority within meaning of Article 12 of Constitution so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that either Appointing Authority or Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same or approved it – Impugned order is manifestly flawed and unsustainable – No issue could have legitimately been urged in relation to departmental officers entrusted with work of preparing papers for seeking approval to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an officer prima facie found to be delinquent and in drafting charge-sheet to be issued to him as part of requisite groundwork for Chief Minister to signify his approval to such proposal. (Paras 18, 19, 26, 27 and 31)

(C) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – Rule 55 – Constitution of India – Article 311 – Dismissal from service – Reversal by High Court – Disciplinary Authority itself may not prepare document but rather delegate the task to someone else – If delegation is proved to have been made in favour of an authority holding an office superior to that of officer/employee proposed to be proceeded against, nothing much is required to be done and courts ought to exercise restraint – It was Cabinet which approved proposal to dismiss respondent – Respondent’s service having been terminated based on such approval, Single Judge as well as Division Bench should have been loath to hold dismissal illegal on acceptance of specious plea raised by respondent – Judgments of High Court under challenge, cannot be sustained in law – Respondent given liberty to appeal against impugned order of dismissal or to seek revision thereof by filing appeal/memorial. (Paras 36, 38, 40, 43 and 44)

(D) Precedent – Stare Decisis – 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 – However, courts are free not to place blind reliance on whatever precedent is cited by parties since facts of two cases are not seldom alike – It is duty of court, if it considers precedent not to be applicable, to refer to factual dissimilarities that are found and thereafter to distinguish precedent cited before it by assigning brief but cogent reasons. (Paras 26 and 35)

Facts of the case:

Solitary legal question is whether order by which respondent was dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should have been interdicted by High Court on specious ground that charge-sheet had not been approved by the Chief Minister of Jharkhand?

Findings of Court:

Impugned order of Division Bench as well as judgment and order of Single Judge are set aside, resulting in the respondent’s writ petition on the file of the High Court being dismissed.

Result : Appeal allowed.