THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus RUKMA KESH MISHRA

Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254 · Decided: 28-03-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1254 : 2025 INSC 412
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.  
v. 
Rukma Kesh Mishra
(Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2025)
28 March 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the order by which the respondent-civil servant was 
dismissed from service, following disciplinary proceedings, should 
have been interdicted by the High Court on the ground that the 
charge-sheet had not been approved by the Chief Minister of 
Jharkhand.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.311 – Dismissal, removal or 
reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities 
under the Union or a State – Authority to issue chargesheet 
or initiate disciplinary proceedings against the government 
servant – Respondent-civil service officer, indulged in diverse 
activities constituting misconduct – Deputy Commissioner 
seeking approval of initiation of disciplinary proceedings 
along with draft charge-sheet, placed the proposals before 
the Chief Minister – Proposals approved by the Chief Minister 
and suspension of the respondent – Issuance of charge-sheet 
and conduct of the departmental inquiry, and thereafter, the 
respondent dismissed from service – Respondent then filed 
writ petition challenging the order of dismissal on the ground 
of absence of approval by the Chief Minister at or about the 
time of issuance of the charge-sheet, allowed by the High 
Court-Division Bench upheld the same – Sustainability:
Held: Unless the relevant rules applicable to an officer/employee 
of an authority so require, disciplinary proceedings by issuance 
of a charge-sheet cannot be faulted solely on the ground that 
Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority has not issued the same 
or approved it – On facts, no infirmity in initiation of disciplinary 
* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 
1255
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Rukma Kesh Mishra
proceedings – Chief Minister himself having approved initiation 
of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, question of 
absence of approval of the charge-sheet by the Chief Minister 
separately was a non-issue – Any officer holding a rank subordinate 
to the respondent’s appointing authority but superior in rank than 
the respondent could have issued the charge-sheet – Disciplinary 
proceedings was initiated against the respondent having the 
approval of the Chief Minister – Draft charge-sheet was part of 
the proposal – Once the draft charge-sheet was on record before 
the Chief Minister, approval of the proposal to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings should have been read as including the Chief Minister’s 
assent not only to the draft charge-sheet, as drawn up, but also to the 
other proposals to suspend the respondent as well as appointment 
of an inquiry officer and presenting officer – Also, no procedure 
of placing the matter before the Chief Minister is shown to have 
been breached – According approval to initiate the disciplinary 
proceedings against the respondent did amount to approval of the 
draft charge-sheet – Single Judge committed grave miscarriage 
of justice in interfering with the order of dismissal and the Division 
Bench, by failing to right the wrong, equally contributed to same 
justice – Orders by the courts below fundamentally incorrect and 
patently illegal and are set aside – Civil Services (Classification, 
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 – r.55 – Jharkhand Government 
Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 2016 – rr. 16, 17. 
[Paras 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39, 40, 43]
Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – ‘Draw up’ and 
‘cause to draw up’ the charge sheet signifying initiation of 
disciplinary proceedings against an officer/employee found 
to be delinquent – Meaning:
Held: Disciplinary Authority is mandated by the law to ‘draw up’ 
or ‘cause to be drawn up’ the substance of the imputations of 
misconduct or misbehavior as a definite and distinct article of 
charge together with the statement of such imputations – Phrases 
‘draw up’ and ‘cause to be drawn up’ do have different meanings 
in the context of disciplinary proceedings, though both relate to 
drawing up of a charge-sheet – By ‘draw up’, what is express is 
that the Disciplinary Authority itself is responsible for preparing the 
substance of imputation and the statement of allegations, whereas 
‘cause to be drawn up’ would enable the Disciplinary Authority 
1256
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to instruct or direct someone else to prepare the substance and 
statement – Effect is th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.