ORDER : (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) : By an order dated 14th July 2022, the writ Court quashed the punishment order contained in Memo No. 2173 dated 19th June 2019 passed against Sanjay Kumar and sent back the matter for a fresh consideration “from the stage of issuance of charge memo” by the Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department of the Government of Jharkhand. 2. This order of the writ Court passed in WP(S) No. 4795 of 2019 has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand. 3. Briefly stated, the respondent who was the writ petitioner entered in service as Executive Engineer on 12th June 1997 in the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department at Giridih (Division-I). By a letter bearing No. 5505 dated 31st November 2017, he was issued a show-cause notice on the allegations of (i) delay in filing of appeal which caused additional financial liability (ii) misuse of official power and depositing money in the bank account of his son and wife (iii) lack of modesty and devotion to duty (iv) taking loan of Rs. 50,000/- from one individual and (v) retaining the government house illegally. The reply submitted by the respondent on 19th December 2017 was not accepted by the Department and vide Notification No. 1283 dated 21st March 2018 a departmental proceeding for major penalty was proposed against him. This is the case set-up by the respondent that alongwith Notification dated 21st March 2018 a charge memo in Prapatra “Ka” was also appended which was issued on the same date under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha. Later on, supplementary charge memos were also issued under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha. 4. By a Notification dated 19th June 2019, the following punishments were awarded to the respondent: (i) reversion to the original post of Assistant Engineer for five years with a further stipulation that no promotion shall be given to him during that period, (ii) increment for the said period of five years shall be postponed, (iii) he shall not be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and regain his seniority, and (iv) during the period of suspension he shall be entitled only for the subsistence allowance. 5. 5. The appeal preferred by the respondent has been dismissed by an order dated 5th July 2019 and, thereafter, by virtue of the Notification dated 16th June 2019 he was posted in the basic rank of Assistant Engineer. 6. The orders dated 19th June 2019 and 5th July 2019 were challenged by the respondent before the writ Court in WP(S) No. 4795 of 2019. The prayers made therein indicate that the respondent also challenged the charge memos dated 21st March 2018 and 4th May 2018 as also the show-cause notice along with the enquiry report. On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the charge memo vide Notification dated 21st March 2018 was issued under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha; supplementary charge memo was issued without the approval of the Governor and; second show cause notice was also issued by the same authority. The respondent further pleaded that the punishment order vide Notification dated 19th June 2019 was also issued under the signature of Mr. Abhay Nandan Ambastha. And, 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. In these facts, the respondent put forth a plea that the entire departmental proceedings were vitiated and therefore the punishment order was liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the State of Jharkhand supported the punishment order dated 19th June 2019 on the ground that sufficient evidence was produced in the departmental enquiry to support the charges which were held proved by the inquiring officer, and the findings recorded in the report dated 12th December 2018 accepted by the disciplinary and appellate authorities do not warrant any interference by the Court. 7. The respondent has relied on (i) “Union of India and Others v. B. V. Gopinath” (2014) 1 SCC 351 , (ii) “Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department and Others” 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 743, (iii) “Manoj Kishore Rukhaiyar v. State of Jharkhand and Others” 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 41 and (iv) “Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others” (2009) 2 SCC 570 , to support the challenge laid to the order of punishment. However, the issue raised by the respondent, that the departmental proceeding started against him on the basis of an invalid charge memo was vitiated on that ground, does not require a discussion on these judgments or any elaborate examination of facts. The respondent’s main plank emerges from the provisions under Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Rules which provides under sub-rule (3) that the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up definite and distinct articles of charges. According to the respondent, the disciplinary authority is required to apply his independent mind to the framing of charge, after he grants approval for initiation a departmental proceeding against the delinquent government employee. 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 law on the issue has been authoritatively pronounced in “B.V. Gopinath” wherein Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [in short, CCS (CCA) Rules] was under consideration. It is pertinent to mention that Rule 17(3) of the Jharkhand Rules is pari materia to and identically worded as Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules also provides that the disciplinary authority shall “draw up” or “cause to be drawn up” the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charges. 10. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules also provides that the disciplinary authority shall “draw up” or “cause to be drawn up” the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charges. 10. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules reads as under: “(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour 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 documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.” 11. In “B.V. Gopinath” the delinquent officer was served a charge memo on the allegation that he failed to maintain integrity; and exhibited a conduct which is unbecoming of a government servant. The said charge memo was challenged by him before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai on the ground that the same was not approved by the Finance Minister, who was the competent authority under the Rules. The Tribunal accepted this ground of challenge and quashed the charge memo issued to him. This is also clear on a glance at the judgment in “B.V. Gopinath” that the Finance Minister had approved the proposal for initiation of the proceeding for major penalty against him but there was no separate approval accorded to the charge memo by the Finance Minister. 12. In “B.V. Gopinath” the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated upon the procedure under Rule 14 as under : “41. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 14(3) clearly lays down that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a government servant under Rule 14 or Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge-sheet. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 14(3) clearly lays down that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a government servant under Rule 14 or Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge-sheet. Rule 14(4) again mandates that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the government servant, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and the supporting documents including a list of witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be proved. We are unable to interpret this provision as suggested by the Additional Solicitor General, that once the disciplinary authority approves the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the charge-sheet can be drawn up by an authority other than the disciplinary authority. This would destroy the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. Such procedure would also do violence to the protective provisions contained under Article 311(2) which ensures that no public servant is dismissed, removed or suspended without following a fair procedure in which he/she has been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. Such a charge-sheet can only be issued upon approval by the appointing authority i.e., Finance Minister.” 13. The State of Jharkhand has tried to justify the charge memo in Prapatra “Ka” on the ground that approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was taken on 28th March 2018 in File No. 1024/2017 for six charges and the charges at serial Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were approved by the Secretary of the Department. However, there is nothing on record to even indicate that the competent authority after granting approval for initiation of a departmental proceeding against the respondent approved the charge memo which has been annexed at page no.85 of the supplementary affidavit dated 3rd January 2023. The Notification No.1283 and the charge memo in Prapatra “Ka” both are dated 21st March 2018 and therefore it can be safely inferred that there was no independent application of mind by the competent authority at the second stage which pertains to approval of charge memo. Apparently, the charge-memo was rendered incompetent and therefore the subsequent proceedings taken in the departmental enquiry were also rendered illegal. Apparently, the charge-memo was rendered incompetent and therefore the subsequent proceedings taken in the departmental enquiry were also rendered illegal. In view of this procedural error which is not a curable irregularity the writ Court rightly interfered with the punishment order dated 19th June 2019 and remitted the matter to the Secretary, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand for a fresh consideration from the stage of issuance of charge memo. 14. Having thus considered the writ Court’s order, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, LPA No. 481 of 2022 is dismissed.