Disciplinary proceedings against government servants must be initiated with proper authorization from the competent authority, failing which the proceedings are rendered void.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate and Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, learned AC to GP-VI.

2. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the entire departmental proceeding including Memo of charge dated 05.05.2016 contained in Annexure-1 and 2nd show cause notice dated 18.09.2017 as contained in Annexure-3 by which the petitioner has been directed to file reply as to why the petitioner be not removed from the service under Rule 14 (x) of he Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and for other ancillary reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has joined the service to the post of Deputy Collector on 11.02.2013 and he continued to his discharge his duty and has joined as Block Development Officer, Churchu on 20.03.2014. However, he has been served with show cause notice dated 01.06.2016 regarding certain alleged irregularities for defying orders of superior, not taking interest in work and loosely handling the execution of works of Indira Awas Project and MANREGA and along with various other allegations, vide Annexure-1 series. Thereafter, he was issued show cause notice and he was served with Memo of Charge dated 24.08.2016 as Annexure-2. It is further submitted that after submission of the Enquiry Report, he was served with 2nd show cause notice dated 18.09.2017 i.e. Annexure-3, by which the Department has proposed to remove him from services. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Memo of Charge dated 24.08.2016 and 2nd show cause notice dated 18.09.2017 i.e. Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 are illegal and arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that respondents cannot issue charge sheet without approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minster, who is the competent authority in the case of the petitioner and as such, 2nd show cause notice is also misconceived and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that under provision of Rule 14 (x) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 punishment for removal from the service can be inflicted only upon the Appointing Authority. It is further submitted that vide order dated 05.04.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the State to file specific counter affidavit on the point that as to whether the charge sheet was ever signed/approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister or not ? Thereafter, the respondent-State has filed specific counter affidavit dated 17.05.2023 by stating therein that the charges have not been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and as such, Memo of Charge dated 24.08.2016 as Annexure-2 and initiation of departmental proceeding and issuance of 2nd show cause notice dated 18.09.2017 i.e. Annexure-3 are bad in law. It is submitted that as per Rule 22 (2) (i) of the Rules of Executive Business only power to suspend other officers of State Services or, to impose punishment of censure, stoppage at efficiency bar, withholding of increments or promotion or reduction in rank, is placed before the Departmental Minister and for higher punishment, it should be sent before Hon’ble the Chief Minister, but the same has not been done in this case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India and Others Versus B. V. Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351 and in the case of Abhay Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2016 (3) JBCJ 506 and order dated 15.09.2023 passed in W. P. (S) No. 6507 of 2016 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (i.e. Justice Rajesh Kumar) and order dated 06.01.2022 passed in W. P. (S) No. 1561 of 2016 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court [Justice (Dr.) S.N. Pathak]. It is submitted that Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Ap