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. 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 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 any elaborate examination of facts. 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 any elaborate examination of facts. The law on this 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. Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules provide 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 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. 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. 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.” 12. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Resolution dated 4th April 2014 by which a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding against the respondent was duly approved by the competent authority and a separate approval has been accorded to the charge memo. However, on scrutiny of the materials on record, we find that before a decision was taken to start a departmental proceeding against the respondent and Resolution dated 4th April 2014 was issued thereof, charge memo was already prepared on 13th January 2014. Not only that, the competent authority had accorded his approval to the charge memo on 21st March 2014. That is, before a decision was taken to start the departmental proceeding against the respondent and approval thereon of the competent authority was taken. Apparently, the charge memo was incompetent and therefore the subsequent proceedings taken in the departmental inquiry against the respondent were also rendered illegal. 13. In view of this procedural error which is not a curable irregularity, the writ Court rightly interfered with the termination order dated 16th June 2017. 14. In “State of T.N. v. Promod Kumar” (2018) 17 SCC 677 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “21. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when the charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when the charge memo was issued to the delinquent officer. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that approval of the disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings was sufficient and there was no need for another approval for issuance of charge memo. The basis for such submission is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage. We are unable to agree with the submission in view of the judgment of this Court in B.V. Gopinath. In that case the charge memo issued to Mr. Gopinath under Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Finance Minister did not approve it. The judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court. The Union of India, the appellant therein submitted before this Court that the approval for initiation of the departmental proceedings includes the approval of the charge memo. Such submission was not accepted by this Court on an interpretation of Rule 14(3) which provides that the disciplinary authority shall “draw up or cause to be drawn up” the charge memo. It was held that if any authority other than the disciplinary authority is permitted to draw the charge memo, the same would result in destroying the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.” 15. Having considered the writ Court’s order in the light of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 20th April 2023 passed in WP(S) No. 4781 of 2017 and, accordingly, L.P.A. No.572 of 2023 is dismissed.