IMPORTANT POINT
Spying – When such acts/conduct occur/occurs from a scientist in a sensitive and strategic organization, decision to impose dismissal from service cannot be said to be illegal.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.33421 of 2008, who is unsuccessful in his challenge against the order of his dismissal from service without inquiry in the interest of the security of the State, filed this appeal by Special Leave against the judgment dated 16.01.2012 passed thereon, by the High Court of Kerala. As per the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the challenge against the order dated 30.09.2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 653 of 2007.

2. Compendiously stated, the case that culminated in the impugned judgment is as follows:

The appellant was initially appointed as Scientist/Engineer ‘SC’ in Group-A in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (‘VSSC’ for brevity), Thiruvananthapuram of the Indian Space Research Organisation (‘ISRO’ for brevity), on 15.01.1992. On 01.07.1999, he was promoted as Scientist/Engineer ‘SD’. While so, on 28.08.2002, the appellant was invited by Prof. H.D. Kim, Head of School of Mechanical Engineering, Andong National University, South Korea, to join as a post-doctoral trainee and to assist him for one year, recognizing the appellant as a well-known expert on the starting and transient flows in the Solid Rocket Motors. On 18.07.2003, the appellant applied for sabbatical leave for one year. The competent Authority decided not to recommend the leave in the exigency of service and in public interest. The appellant applied for 9 days Earned Leave from 21.08.2003 to 29.08.2003 on personal grounds and soon went to South Korea. Through e-mail dated 01.09.2003, he intimated his Divisional Head in VSSC that due to the delay in processing his request for leave, he reached South Korea to carry out his post-doctoral research at Andong National University in South Korea. The appellant sent another leave application, through e-mail, for 89 days from 01.09.2003 to 28.11.2003. As per e-mail dated 05.09.2003, the appellant was informed that his leave was not sanctioned and he was required to report for duty not later than 11.09.2003. Meanwhile, the respondent organization came to know that the appellant had published a technical paper as first author with a foreigner as one of the co-authors in the 39th American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Joint Propulsion Conference, USA held during July, 2003, without obtaining specific approval of the Competent Authority. Thereupon, disciplinary action was initiated against the appellant and he was charge-sheeted on 19.12.2003 for unauthorized absence and publication of papers without following due procedure or obtaining approval of the Competent Authority.

3. The appellant re-joined duty on 23.01.2004 and again left for South Korea in March, 2004 without any information to the Organization or its permission. Though he attended the preliminary hearing in the departmental inquiry, he had chosen not to take part in further proceedings. Ergo, the inquiry was conducted ex-parte and the copy of the Inquiry Report holding the charges as proved submitted by the Inquiry Officer, was sent to him.

4. Meanwhile, the appellant unsuccessfully preferred two Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal viz., O.A. Nos. 150/2004 and 529/2004. Later, he came back to India and re-joined duty on 18.05.2004. Again, the appellant went back to South Korea on 28.05.2004 without obtaining permission from the authorities. Consequently, as per Order dated 13.07.2004 he was suspended from service pending disciplinary action. Ultimately, as per Order dated 11.08.2007, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 01.09.2003 under clause (iii) of Rule 16 of Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976, hereinafter referred for short ‘the CCA Rules’. Vide Order dated 13.08.2007, the appellant was asked to refund the subsistence allowance drawn after 01.09.2003, as he was dismissed w.e.f. 01.09.2003. The appellant filed O.A. No. 653 of 2007 seeking quashment o