Virender Singh, J.

The writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as “petitioner”) is aggrieved of order dated 23.09.2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 317 of 2015 whereby, his challenge to initiation of the departmental proceeding and the prayer seeking quashing of chargesheet have been declined.

2. At the outset, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would confine his arguments only to the legality of the chargesheet issued to the petitioner and such challenge is primarily based on the erroneous finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 9 of the impugned order. The contention, in short, is that the chargesheet which was served upon the petitioner which is required to be approved by the competent authority was never approved by him however, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said plea on the ground that the Minister of Rural Development Department approved the proposal relating to the initiation of departmental proceeding on 23.11.2011, based on the chargesheet.

3. The protection guaranteed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is of overwhelming importance and any infraction of the said constitutional guarantee would render the penalty order illegal. The precise issue involved in the present appeal is, whether a departmental proceeding can commence to enquire into the charges contained in a chargememo which was not approved by the competent authority. Taking leaf from the decision in “Union of India & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath” (2014) 1 SCC 351, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the competent authority approves the chargememo, the departmental proceeding to enquire into the charges framed against the delinquent officer cannot commence.

4. In “B.V. Gopinath Case”, the Hon'ble Supreme Court repelled the contention raised on behalf of the Union of India that once the disciplinary authority approves the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, the chargesheet can be drawn by any authority other than the disciplinary authority. The Supreme Court further held that the provision seeking approval of the chargememo subsequent to the decision taken by the competent authority for initiation of the departmental proceedings is in consonance with the mandate contained under Article 311(1) & (2) of the Constitution of India.

5. Vide order dated 07.12.2015, original file was called for and today, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has produced the original record of the case. On a perusal of the original records, both by the counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand as well as the counsel for the petitioner, they agree that after the approval for initiation of departmental proceeding was taken on 11.11.2011 from the Minister of Rural Development Department, the file was not placed before the competent authority i.e., the Minister seeking his approval of the charges contained in the chargememo. A photocopy of the relevant extract of the record which was obtained by the petitioner through RTI has also been placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit. We, for our satisfaction, have also perused the original records and we find that the chargememo served upon the petitioner was not approved by the competent authority, though required under the Rules.

6. Now, in view of the decision in “B.V. Gopinath Case”, the chargesheet is rendered illegal and incompetent and consequently, it is quashed. The proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of such chargesheet stands quashed. However, a liberty is reserved with the respondent-State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh chargesheet to the petitioner, in accordance with law and continue with the departmental proceeding.

7. The instant Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.