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 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 Appeal) Rules, 2016 prescribes the procedure for instituting the proceeding by the authorities and the procedure for imposing major penalties and hence, the impugned orders are not sustainable and this writ petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit. It is submitted that reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit. It is submitted that reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory. It is submitted that the petitioner was not even obeying the order of the Superior Officers and he had not completed the work assigned to him in the Indira Awas Project and MANREGA Project and as such, show cause was issued upon him vide letter dated 01.07.2016 by the Department. Thereafter the Department under approval of the Departmental Minister vide letter dated 13.06.2016, as contained in Annexure-B had recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding and petitioner was suspended. It is further submitted that a decision was taken to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner as per Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and the same was duly approved by the Hon’ble Departmental (Chief) Minister, which is evident from Annexure-E enclosed to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that post of Block Development Officer comes under the Class-II Officer and as such, the approval of charge sheet from the Hon’ble the Chief Minister is not required. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble the Chief Minister was not the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner as per Rule 22 (2) of the Rules of Executive Business, which is enclosed as Annexure-A to the Specific Counter Affidavit dated 17.05.2023. It is further submitted that in practice, the signature of the Departmental (Chief) Minister is not taken on the charge sheet and when the Disciplinary Authority in the present case, Hon’ble Departmental (Chief) Minister grants approval of conduction/initiation of disciplinary proceeding on charge sheet then it is deemed that the said charge sheet has been duly approved by the Disciplinary Authority and in view of the above, this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. Petitioner has joined the service to the post of Deputy Collector on 11.02.2013 and he continued to discharge his duty and had joined as Block Development Officer, Churchu on 20.03.2014. 6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. Petitioner has joined the service to the post of Deputy Collector on 11.02.2013 and he continued to discharge his duty and had joined as Block Development Officer, Churchu on 20.03.2014. However, he had 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 i.e. Annexure-2. Thereafter, on submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer, 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. 8. 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 framed against the petitioner have not been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and as such, Memo of Charge dated 24.08.2016 as Annexure-2. 9. It transpires from the letter dated 13.06.2016, as contained in Annexure-B of the specific counter affidavit that the petitioner was suspended and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him with the approval of the Departmental Minister. 10. It transpires that vide order dated 05.04.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the State to file specific counter affidavit, as to whether the charge sheet was ever signed/approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister or not ? and the Co-ordinate Bench had directed the respondent-State to file specific counter affidavit. 11. Thereafter, the respondent-State has filed the evasive reply that the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister is not required and charge sheet has been duly approved by the Disciplinary Authority. Even it has been stated that it is deemed that the charge sheet has been duly approved by the Disciplinary Authority. 12. 11. Thereafter, the respondent-State has filed the evasive reply that the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister is not required and charge sheet has been duly approved by the Disciplinary Authority. Even it has been stated that it is deemed that the charge sheet has been duly approved by the Disciplinary Authority. 12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer, Rule 16 and 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, which reads as under:- “Rules-16:-Authority to institute proceedings :- (1) The Government or Appointing Authority or any authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered by general or special order of the Government may – a) Institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant; b) Direct a Disciplinary Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant on whom that Disciplinary Authority is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 14 under these Rules. 2) A Disciplinary Authority, competent under these Rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 14, may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government Servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (xi) of the rule 14 notwithstanding that such Disciplinary Authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the penalties under clauses (v) to (xi) of Rule 14. Rule-17:- Procedure for imposing major penalties : 1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (xi) of rule 14 shall be made without holding an inquiry, as far as may be, in the manner provided in these Rules. 2) Wherever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring about the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government Servant, he may himself inquire into it, or appoint under these Rules, an authority to inquire about the truth thereof. EXPLANATION :-Where the Disciplinary Authority himself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub rule (7) to sub rule (20) and in sub rule (22) of this rule to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the Disciplinary Authority. EXPLANATION :-Where the Disciplinary Authority himself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub rule (7) to sub rule (20) and in sub rule (22) of this rule to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the Disciplinary Authority. 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 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 such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. EXPLANATION :-Where Criminal case is pending against a Government Servant the Departmental Proceeding and Criminal Proceeding may be conducted simultaneously, but the set of evidence of Departmental Proceeding shall be different from the Criminal Proceeding. In such case the article of charges shall be based on administrative lapses and misconduct committed by the Government Servant. 4) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles of charge, such statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government Servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. 5) a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority may himself inquire into such of the articles of charge which are not admitted, or, if it thinks necessary, to appoint, under sub rule (2) of this rule, an inquiry authority for the purpose, where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the Government Servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record his finding on each charge, after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall take action in the manner laid down in rule 18. b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government Servant, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it thinks necessary, to appoint, under sub rule (2) of this rule an inquiry authority for the purpose. c) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry about such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on his behalf the case in support of the articles of charge. 6) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward the following records to the inquiring authority : i) A copy of the articles of charge with the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour. ii) A copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government Servant. iii) A copy of the statement of witnesses, if any, specified in sub rule (3) of this rule. iv) Evidence proving the delivery of the documents specified to in sub rule (3) to the Government Servant; and v) A copy of order appointing the "Presenting Officer". 7) The Government Servant shall appear in person before the inquiring authority on such day and at such time within ten working days from the date of receipt by him of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, as the inquiring authority may, by a notice in writing, specify in this behalf or within such further time, not exceeding ten days, as may be specified by the inquiring authority. 8) a) The Government Servant may take the assistance of other Government Servant posted in any office, either at his headquarter or at the place where the inquiry is to be held, to present the case on his behalf. Provided that he may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner, or, the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. Provided also that the Government Servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits. Provided also that the Government Servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits. Provided further that the Government Servant shall not take the assistance of any such other Government Servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. b) The Government Servant may take the assistance of a retired Government Servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Government from time to time by general or special order in this behalf. 9) If the Government Servant, who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has to say anything in his defence. If he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government Servant thereon. 10) The inquiring authority shall record a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government Servant pleads guilty. 11) The inquiring authority shall, if the Government Servant fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charge and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding thirty days, after recording an order that the Government Servant may, for the purpose of preparing his defence i) Inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow, the documents specified in the list in sub rule (3). ii) Submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf. NOTE -If the Government Servant applies in writing for the supply of copies of the statements of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub rule (3), the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies, as early as possible. ii) Submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf. NOTE -If the Government Servant applies in writing for the supply of copies of the statements of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in sub rule (3), the inquiring authority shall furnish him with such copies, as early as possible. iii) Give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time as the inquiring authority may allow, for the discovery or production of any documents which are in the possession of Government but not mentioned in the list specified in sub rule (3) of this rule. Provided that the Government Servant shall indicate the relevance of the documents required by him to be discovered or produced by the Government. 12) The inquiring authority shall on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the document by such date as may be specified in such requisition. Provided that the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, refuse to requisition such of the documents as are, in its opinion, not relevant to the case. 13) On receipt of the requisition specified in sub rule (12) of this rule, every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the inquiring authority. Provided that if the authority, having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents, is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, that the production of all or any of such documents will be against public interest or security of the State, he shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly and the inquiring authority shall, on being so informed, communicate the information to the Government Servant and withdraw the requisition made by it for the production or discovery of such documents. 14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. 14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to re-examine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses, as it thinks fit. 15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the inquiring authority may, in his discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government Servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the Government Servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournment of the inquiry for three clear days before the production of such new evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The inquiring authority shall give the Government Servant an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record. The inquiring authority may also allow the Government Servant to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interests of justice. Provided that new evidence shall not be permitted or called for nor any witness shall be recalled to supplement the evidence. Such evidence may be called for if there is any inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence, produced originally. 16) When the case for the Disciplinary Authority is closed, the Government Servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. 17) The evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shall then be produced. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. 17) The evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shall then be produced. The Government Servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government Servant shall then be examined and they shall be liable to examination, cross-examination and re-examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the Disciplinary Authority. 18) The inquiring authority may, after the Government Servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government Servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government Servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 19) The inquiring authority may, after the completion of the production of evidence, hear the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed and the Government Servant, or permit them to file written statement of their respective case, if they so desire. 20) If the Government Servant to whom a copy of the articles of charge has been delivered, does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the inquiring authority may proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. 21) a) Where a Disciplinary Authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 14 [but not competent to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (xi) of rule 14], has himself inquired into or caused to be inquired into the article of any charge and that authority having regard to his own findings or having regard to its decision on any of the findings of any inquiring authority appointed by it, is of the opinion that the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (xi) of rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, that authority shall forward the record of the inquiry to such Disciplinary Authority as is competent to impose the penalties mentioned in clause (v) to (xi) of rule 14. b) The Disciplinary Authority to which the record are so forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may, if he is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses is necessary in the interests of justice, recall the witnesses and examine, cross-examine and re-examine the witnesses and may impose on the Government Servant such penalties as it may deem fit in accordance with these rules. 22) Whenever any inquiring authority, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another inquiring authority which has and which exercises, such jurisdiction, the inquiring authority so succeeding may act on the basis of evidence so recorded by its predecessor, or partly recorded by its predecessor and partly recorded by itself; Provided that if the succeeding inquiring authority is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, is necessary in the interest of justice, it may recall, examine, cross-examine and re-examine any such witnesses as hereinbefore provided. 23) i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a record shall be prepared and it shall contain : a) the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour. b) the defence of the Government Servant in respect of each article of charge. c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge. d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons thereof. EXPLANATION :-If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry may establish any article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, he may record his findings on such article of charge : Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government Servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the Disciplinary Authority, shall forward to the Disciplinary Authority the records of inquiry which shall include a) the report prepared by it under clause (i) of this sub rule; b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government Servant; c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the Government Servant or both during the course of the inquiry; and e) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry. 13. From perusal of Rule 16 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016, it would appear that Disciplinary Authority can institute disciplinary proceeding against any Government Servant whereas the Rule 17 of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 prescribes for imposing major penalties in respect of Jharkhand Government Servants. 14. Rule 32 (a) (vii) of the Rules of Executive Business is as follows:- “Rules 32 (a):-The following cases shall be submitted to the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary by the Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department concerned after consideration by the Minister-in-charge but before the issue of orders:- “(i)................................................................................... (ii)................................................................................... (iii)................................................................................... (iv).................................................................................. (v).................................................................................. (vi).................................................................................. (vii) In exclusion of the cases involving rule 22(2) (i), to suspend other officers of State Services, or, to impose on such officers the penalty of censure, stoppage at efficiency bar, withholding of increments or promotion or reduction in rank. ........................................................................................” 15. It appears from that Memo of Charges was communicated by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag to the Departmental Secretary (Principal Secretary) to the concerned Department in prescribed Form-“K’ by framing the charges. 16. Thus, it is evident that the Departmental Minister has merely approved the initiation of departmental proceeding and has not approved the Memo of Charges. 17. It is well settled law that Authority has power to do certain act and this cannot delegate its power unless prescribed to do so. 18. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India and Others Versus B. V. Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351 , para-26, 27 and 41 as follows:- “Para-26:-Mr. 18. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India and Others Versus B. V. Gopinath reported in 2014 (1) SCC 351 , para-26, 27 and 41 as follows:- “Para-26:-Mr. Patwalia countered the submission of the learned ASG that it will not be in the interest of good administration to drop the inquiries which are already going on if the charge-sheets issued in such inquiries are required to be approved by the Finance Minister. In this context, it was submitted that such a contention has already been rejected by this court in Coal India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra.[14] Our attention was also drawn to the following excerpt from the said case: (SCC p. 632, para 19) “19. the floodgate argument also does not appeal to us. The same appears to be an argument of desperation. Only because, there is a possibility of floodgate litigation, a valuable right of a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. This court is bound to determine the respective rights of the parties.” Thus, it was submitted that the Civil Appeals are required to be dismissed. Para-27:-Similar submissions were also reiterated by Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior advocate. Besides, learned senior counsel submitted that the fact that respondent in SLP (Civil) No. 26939 of 2011 belongs to Indian Revenue Service would concomitantly mean that the President of India is the appointing authority and thereby, Disciplinary Authority in his case. However, the said power of the President has been delegated under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution and by the order of the President dated 14th January, 1961 under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, to the Finance Minister. Thus, the Finance Minister acts as the Disciplinary authority for the purposes of Article 311 of the Constitution and Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, the Finance Minister, himself, has to apply his mind and give approval inter alia to the charge sheet. It was further submitted that matters pertaining to any such disciplinary action cannot be further delegated or sub-delegated to any other authority as the President has delegated this authority only to the Finance Minister. Para-41:-Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules. It was further submitted that matters pertaining to any such disciplinary action cannot be further delegated or sub-delegated to any other authority as the President has delegated this authority only to the Finance Minister. Para-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 misbehaviour 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.” 19. The Division Bench of this Court has also quashed the charge sheet as it was found not duly approved by the Competent Authority as required under said Rules, in the case of Abhay Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2016 (3) JBCJ 506, at Para-5 and 6, which read as follows:- “Para-5:-Vide order dated 07.12.2015, original file was called for and today, the learned counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand has produced the original record of the case. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2016 (3) JBCJ 506, at Para-5 and 6, which read as follows:- “Para-5:-Vide order dated 07.12.2015, original file was called for and today, the learned counsel for the respondent -State of Jharkhand has produced the original record of the case. On perusal of the of the original records, both by the counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand as well as the counsel for the petitioner, they agree that after the approval for initiation of departmental proceeding was taken on 11.11.2011 from the Minister of Rural Development Department, the file was not placed before the competent authority i.e., the Minister seeking his approval of the charges contained in the charge memo. A photocopy of the relevant extract of the record which was obtained by the petitioner through RTI has also been placed on placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit. We. For our satisfaction, have also perused the original records and we find that the chargememo served upon the petitioner was not approved by the competent authority, though required under the Rules. Para-6:- Now, in view of the decision in “B.V. Gopinath Case”, the charge-sheet is rendered illegal and incompetent and consequently, it is quashed. The proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of such charge-sheet stands quashed. However, a liberty is reserved with the respondent-State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner, in accordance with law and continue with the departmental proceeding.” 20. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed in W. P. (S) No. 6507 of 2016 has held at para6 (i) and (v) as follows:- “Para-6:-Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears :- (i). that although the departmental proceeding has been initiated with the approval of the State Government, but the Memo of charge has never been approved by the council of the Minister or by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as noted above, is clear on this point. Further, Rule 17(3) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, which covers the field, also clarifies the position that the Memo of charge has to be issued by the appointing authority. Non-approval of the Memo of charge by the appointing authority makes it unauthorized and nullity in the eyes of law. Further, Rule 17(3) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, which covers the field, also clarifies the position that the Memo of charge has to be issued by the appointing authority. Non-approval of the Memo of charge by the appointing authority makes it unauthorized and nullity in the eyes of law. It is settled principle of law that an action can only be taken by an authorized person, who is authorized in law, otherwise, the action itself is without jurisdiction and void ab-initio. Since the present Memo of charge has been issued without the approval of the State Government and as such this Court finds that the Memo of charge-sheet dated 08.07.2015 is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is hereby, quashed and set aside. (ii). So far as the second issue regarding the cancellation of caste certificate by the Sub-Divisional Officer is concerned, this Court finds that the Circular relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as because the said Circular covers only for the members belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has been constituted, has not been authorized to look into the caste certificate, issued to the members of the other backward class. In the absence of authorization by the circular itself, the reliance upon the said circular by the petitioner is of no use and accordingly, this Court finds no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, the same is, hereby, rejected. (iii) Since in the present case, the issue involved is the ouster of Sub-Divisional Officer on the strength of Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted vide Circular dated 08.07.2004, has not been accepted by this Court and on this score the challenge to the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the caste certificate, has been rejected by this Court. However, it is clarified that the issue of the caste has not been decided by this Court on merit and it is, hereby, kept open to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. The liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the order of cancellation of the caste certificate in the appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. (iv). The liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the order of cancellation of the caste certificate in the appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. (iv). So far as the second show cause is concerned, the evidence has been discussed and the reasons have been assigned by the authority while issuing the second show cause and the same has been supplied along with the second show cause itself. It is settled principle of law that the format has not to be seen rather substance has to be seen. Since in substance the reasons have been shown for differing with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer by referring to the evidence available on record and as such this Court finds no illegality in issuance of second show cause notice on the ground of non-assignment of reasons. Accordingly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score is also not tenable. (v) Since this Court finds that the issuance of Memo of charge itself is unauthorized and as such the entire proceedings from the stage of issuance of the charge-sheet is bad in law and unauthorized and as such the same is hereby, quashed and set aside. Since the charge-sheet has been quashed and as such the suspension order contained in Memo No.924 dated 05.07.2018 also stands quashed.” 21. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court again vide order dated 06.01.2022 passed in W. P. (S) No. 1561 of 2016 has quashed the departmental proceeding and held at para-9, 10, 11 and 12 as follows:- “Para-9:-Under the Rule it is requirement of law that charge has to be approved by the competent authority and the same was not done here, which is dehorse the Rule. The same view was reiterated in the case of State of Tamilnadu Vs. Premchand Kumar IPS and others reported in (2018) 17 SCC 679. Paragraph-21 of the said Judgment reads 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. Paragraph-21 of the said Judgment reads 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. 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 Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath [ (2014) 1 SCC 351 . In that case the charge memo issued to Mr. Gopinath under Ruler 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.” Para-10:-This Court in the case of Abhay Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No. 627 of 2015 reported in (2016) 3 JBCJ reiterated the same view and quashed the proceeding initiated against the petitioner taking into consideration that the chargesheet was never approved by the competent authority. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 704. Paragraph-18 of the said Judgment reads as under: “18. The expression “approval” presupposes an existing order. “Acceptance” means communicated acceptance. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 704. Paragraph-18 of the said Judgment reads as under: “18. The expression “approval” presupposes an existing order. “Acceptance” means communicated acceptance. A distinction exists between the expression “approval” and “acceptance”. Whereas in the latter, an application of mind on the part of competent authority is sine qua non, approval of an order only envisages statutory entitlement. Approval of an order is required as directed by the statute. It can be given a retrospective effect. Even valid contract comes into being only after the offer is accepted and communicated. Where services of an employee are dispensed with, the order takes effect from the date when it is communicated and not from the date of passing of the order.” Para-11:-The said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable to this Court since from perusal of counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit (Annexures-A and B) it appears that the punishment as well as the proceeding was approved and not the charge memo. The said Judgment does not come to the rescue of the respondents. However, since counsel for the petitioner has not found any folly with the procedures in the departmental proceeding and has raised the technical flaw of approval of the chargesheet, this Court is of the view that on that ground the entire proceeding does not vitiate. The liberty is reserved with the respondents – State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh chargesheet in accordance with law and march ahead with the departmental proceeding and conclude the same within a stipulated period, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.” 22. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by also the High Court of Jharkhand and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, 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 are set aside. However, liberty is given to the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner, in accordance with law and continue with the departmental proceeding. 23. However, liberty is given to the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to issue a fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner, in accordance with law and continue with the departmental proceeding. 23. Accordingly, this W. P. (S) No. 5914 of 2017 is allowed.