Disciplinary proceedings against a public servant must comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including proper approval of charge memos; failure to do so renders the proceedings illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

I.A. No. 9534 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 147 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 147 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

3. I.A. No. 9534 of 2023 is, accordingly, allowed.

L.P.A. No. 572 of 2023

4. The writ Court’s decision to interfere with the order of termination of Rukma Kesh Mishra who at the relevant time was posted as Block Development Officer with the additional charge of Circle Officer has been questioned by the State of Jharkhand in this Letters Patent Appeal.

5. In the order dated 20th April 2023, the writ Court referred to the “Union of India and Others v. B.V. Gopinath” (2014) 1 SCC 351 to reject the plea put forth on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, that there is no requirement in law for a separate approval of the competent authority for issuance of the charge memo. The writ Court recorded a finding that though initiation of a department proceeding against the delinquent government officer was duly approved by the competent authority but the charge memo was never approved by the competent authority.

6. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent who was the writ petitioner joined the post of Block Development Officer after being declared successful by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment as Deputy Collector. He was posted at Khunti from July 2009 to 13th February 2013 and then transferred to Domchanch within the district of Koderma to hold the post of Block Development Officer. He was simultaneously given the additional charge of Circle Officer and continued there till 22nd February 2014, when Koderma PS Case No. 11 of 2014 was lodged against him for committing the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 466, 474, 477-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 82(d) of the Indian Registration Act. He approached the High Court to challenge the warrant of arrest issued against him and an interim order was granted in his favor. Later on, the order of his suspension dated 31st March 2014 was issued and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In the departmental proceeding, a report was submitted on 31st July 2015 by the inquiring officer who exonerated him from the charges framed against him. However, on 11th April 2016, second show cause notice was issued to him which was duly replied by him on 24th September 2016. Finally, the respondent was terminated from service by an order dated 16th June 2017 passed by the disciplinary authority.

7. As noticed above, the punishment order was challenged by the respondent in WP(S) No. 4781 of 2017 which has been allowed on 20th April 2023 and the punishment order dated 16th June 2017 was quashed but the writ Court granted a liberty to the State of Jharkhand to take appropriate action, if required, in accordance with law. Before the writ Court, the respondent took a specific ground that non-compliance of the mandatory provisions under rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (in short, Jharkhand Rules) rendered the charge memo in Prapatra “Ka” illegal and invalid.

8. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Rules reads as under :

“(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this rule, the Disciplinary Authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up:-

(i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct article of charge.

(ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge, which shall contain:-

(a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant;

(b) A list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.”

9. The issue rais