1. Review petitions challenging the dismissal of cases involving railway employees' termination, specifically regarding the failure to hear individual merits and compliance with Article 311. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1985 Supreme(SC) 422
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., V.D. Tulzapurkar, R.S. Pathak, D.P. Madon, M.P. Thakkar, JJ.
Shyam Lal Sharma, others - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Review Petn. Nos. 571-586, 586A of 1985 (In Transfer Cases Nos. 52 to 68 of 1982)
Decided On, 08-11-1985, 26-11-1985
The judgment examines whether the power of 'pleasure' under Article 310(1) can be delegated to lower officials and whether a country-wide strike justifies dispensing with an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b), although the majority ultimately dismissed the review petitions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 309, 310(1) and 311(2)(b) - Exercise of pleasure and dispensing with inquiry - Whether the power to dismiss a government servant under the doctrine of pleasure can be exercised by a lower administrative official rather than the President or Governor acting with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers - Whether the existence of a country-wide strike for socio-economic justice automatically renders an inquiry "not reasonably practicable" under Article 311(2)(b). (Paras 4, 6)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Application to quantum of punishment - Whether a workman is entitled to the principles of natural justice regarding the punishment inflicted. (Para 5)
(C) Review Petition - Scope - Whether petitions should be dismissed in limine when factual averments regarding the merits of individual cases, such as medical certification for absence, have not been controverted. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
Review petitions were filed against a judgment dismissing several transferred cases. The petitioners contended that they were not given an opportunity to argue their cases on individual merits and that the judgment was based on an assumption that only general questions of law would be decided. It was further alleged that certain dismissals for unauthorized absence were issued in a mechanical manner as the concerned employees had submitted medical certificates and followed reporting formalities.
Findings of Court:
The majority of the bench found no substance in the grounds urged in the review petitions. However, a dissenting opinion emphasized that the petitions deserved a hearing due to unresolved factual disputes, serious constitutional questions regarding the delegation of the power of pleasure, and the interpretation of the necessity of inquiries during strikes.
Issues: The main issues were whether the review petitions could be dismissed without a hearing, whether the power under Article 310(1) could be exercised by lower functionaries, and whether a general strike justifies the waiver of an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b).
Ratio Decidendi: The majority held that the review petitions lacked substance. The dissenting view argued that the right to strike for socio-economic justice should not automatically preclude the requirement of a reasonably practicable inquiry and that the constitutional power of pleasure cannot be interpreted to be exercisable by lower officials.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- labor law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue that individual merits were not heard and that dismissals based on unauthorized absence were mala fide or lacked evidence. (Para 3 )
3. The court observes that factual disputes regarding medical leave and the legality of delegating constitutional pleasure powers under Article 310(1) justify admitting the review petitions. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Review petitions must be entertained when substantial constitutional questions regarding the exercise of pleasure under Article 310(1) or factual errors vitiating the order are raised. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Majority dismissed the review petitions; dissenting judge directed their admission and issuance of notices to respondents. (Para 1 , 7 )
6. Can the power to terminate government servants under the pleasure of the President or Governor be exercised by a lower official?
The court questioned whether powers invested in the highest executive office under Article 310(1) can be exercised by lower functionaries, such as a Divisional Mechanical Engineer, as this might amount to rewriting the Constitution. (Para 4 )
7. Does a country-wide general strike automatically make it not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry under Article 311(2)(b)?
The court held that a general strike for socio-economic justice does not inherently render it impracticable to hold an inquiry for individual workmen under Article 311(2)(b). (Para 6 )
8. Are principles of natural justice applicable to the determination of the quantum of punishment for workmen?
The court observed that workmen are entitled to the principles of natural justice regarding the quantum of punishment, asserting that they deserve the same treatment as any other citizen. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
We have considered the grounds urged in the Review petitions and since we find no substance in them, the Review Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- (P.N. Bhagwati, CJI.)
Sd/- (R.S. Pathak, J.)
Sd/- (V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.)
Sd/- (D.P. Madon, J.)
Sd/- (M.P. Thakkar, J.)
Thakkar, J. - 2. While it is not agreeable to disagree with the majority, my conscience commands, and my sense of duty demands, that I should disagree. Disagree with the proposed order dismissing the Review Petitions in limine with the remark that "we find no substance in them", without affording to the petitioners any opportunity of hearing in the Court to substantiate the grounds urged by them.
3. One of the grounds urged, ground No. 8 in the petitions, is:-
"8. That during the course of arguments the parties had proceeded on the assumption that the Hon'ble Court would decide only the 7 questions framed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and the individual petitions on merits would be dealt with either by the Division Benches of this Hon'ble Court or by the respective High Courts. It was on this assumption that the parties addressed their arguments and submissions only on those general questions. It is for this reason that written submissions were made only in T.C. No. 55 of 1982 amongst all the railway matters. None of the petitioners had been given any opportunity to argue their cases on merits. The judgment under review dismissed all the Transferred Cases and thus all these petitions stand decided on merits also. It is, therefore, necessary that in the interest of justice, the petitioner should be given another opportunity to argue their petitions on merits. This has caused serious prejudice to their cases is apparent from the facts of a few cases reference whereto is made hereinafter.
It is not possible to say that there is no substance in this ground because no notices have been issued on the Review Petitions and the averments have not been controverted by the other side. So also it is not stated in the majority judgment that the averments are factually untrue. Reference may be made to ground number 9 in Review Petitions Nos. 571 to 586A of 1985 which reads as under:-
"9. That it may be submitted that the petitioner Shri Narpat Singh had been served with the Office Order identical to the one reproduced in para 3 above and was charged with stoppage of work from 3-2-1981 and missing from his place of duty and for intimidating and pressurising the loyal employees for not joining duty.
The fact is that the petitioner, Narpat Singh is a patient of Asthama and was under the treatment of the Railway Medical Authorities between December 1980 to 1-2-1981 as outdoor patient. On 2-2-1981 while on duty as Shed-man is DSL/Shed BGKT in shift 6 hours to 14 hours, he developed breathing difficulties and was unable to perform his duties. He obtained sick memo G/92 on 2-2-1981 from GFC/DSL BGKT and while leaving duty proper charge was handed over by the petitioner. He was advised complete rest and sick certificate No. 62 of 2-2-1981 for 27 days was submitted.
In these circumstances the petitioner could not be treated as on unauthorised absence from work from 3-2-1981 when he had obtained G-92 on 2-2-1981 and had sent in his sick certificate and had observed all due formalities of reporting sick as required under the rules. Had the cases been argued on merits, the petitioner, Narpat Singh would have shown to the Hon'ble Court as to how he could not be treated on unauthorised absence and that the dismissal order has been mala fides fide issued in a mechanical manner and cannot be sustained."
3a. That the matter of Narpat Singh was not argued on its individual merits is correct. Unless the factual averments made in para 9 are shown to be untrue, these may be considered adequate to vitiate the impugned order on the ground that it manifests non-application of mind and is built on 'no evidence'. This is a good ground to entertain the Review Petition and issue notice to the other side for hea
