The President's power to dismiss a civil servant under Article 310 of the Constitution is subject only to the express provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 311, and not to any rules or regulations.

Headnote:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 310 - ARTICLE 311 - ARTICLE 320 - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES - PRESIDENT'S POWER TO DISMISS A CIVIL SERVANT - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - SATISFACTION OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 311(2) (C) - CONSULTATION WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - ARTICLE 14 - EQUALITY BEFORE LAW.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Accountant-General of Madhya Pradesh, was dismissed from service by an order of the President of India on the ground that his retention in service was prejudicial to national security. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it was in breach of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, that the President was not satisfied that it was not expedient to give the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, that the order was passed without consulting the Public Service Commission, and that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the President's power to dismiss a civil servant under Article 310 of the Constitution is subject only to the express provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 311, and not to any rules or regulations. The Court further held that the President's satisfaction under Article 311(2) (c) is subjective and cannot be challenged by the Court. The Court also held that it was not necessary for the President to consult the Public Service Commission before passing the order of dismissal, as the President had made regulations under Article 320(3) (c) exempting such cases from the requirement of consultation. Finally, the Court held that the order of dismissal did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was not discriminatory or capricious.
Issues: 1. Whether the President's power to dismiss a civil servant under Article 310 of the Constitution is subject to the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 2. Whether the President's satisfaction under Article 311(2) (c) is justiciable. 3. Whether it is necessary for the President to consult the Public Service Commission before passing an order of dismissal under Article 311(2) (c). 4. Whether the order of dismissal violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The President's power to dismiss a civil servant under Article 310 of the Constitution is subject only to the express provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 311, and not to any rules or regulations. 2. The President's satisfaction under Article 311(2) (c) is subjective and cannot be challenged by the Court. 3. It is not necessary for the President to consult the Public Service Commission before passing an order of dismissal under Article 311(2) (c), as the President has made regulations under Article 320(3) (c) exempting such cases from the requirement of consultation. 4. The order of dismissal does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is not discriminatory or capricious.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

Judment -

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ or order or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to ignore the order of the President dismissing the petitioner from service and to take him back in service.

2. The petitioner was employed in the Office of the Accountant-General of Madhya Pradesh at Nagpur as Upper Division Clerk. The appointing authority of the petitioner was the Accountant-General, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner belonged to the civil service of the Union of India, class III, and was holding a permanent civil post under the Union of India. Consequent on the coming into force of the States Reorganization Act (No. XXXVII of 1957), the petitioners services were allotted to the Account ant-General of Bombay, the respondent No. 1, and since 1-11-1956 the petitioner had been working under the said authority, who thereupon became the authority equal in rank with the petitioners appointing authority. The respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Accountant-General, Bombay, (Nagpur Branch) while the respondent No. 3 is the Executive Engineer of the Division in which the petitioner was working at the relevant time.

3. The petitioner was served by the respondent No. 3 with an order dated 23-1-1957 passed by the President of India, dismissing the petitioner from service. The order passed by the President is reproduced below :-

"The President is satisfied that the retention of Shri J. D. Sarmukaddam an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the former Accountant-General, Madhya Pradesh, now working as unqualified Divisional Accountant under the Accountant General, Bombay, in service is prejudicial to national security and that the said Shri J.D. Sarmukaddam ought to be dismissed from service.

2. The President is further satisfied under Sub-clause (c) of the proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the Security of the State it is "not expedient to give the said Shri Sarmukaddam an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him as stated above.

3. Accordingly, the President hereby dismisses the said Shri J.D. Sarmukaddam from service with immediate effect."

The President is, however, not a party to these proceedings. This order of the President was communicated to the petitioner through the respondent No. 3, by the Deputy Accountant General, Bombay, (Nagpur Branch) by his letter dated 1-2-1957 enclosing herewith the abovementioned order of the President. The respondent No. 3 thereupon informed the petitioner by his letter dated 11-2-1957 that he should hand over the charge to his successor immediately in view of the order of the President.

4. The petitioner has now come before us under Article 226 of the Constitution raising the following objections to the order of dismissal passed by the President. The objections have been reproduced as far as possible as mentioned in the petition.

(a) That the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, hereinafter called the Rules, gave statutory right of appeal to the petitioner against the order of dismissal, that the order having been passed by the President himself the provisions of appeal to the President and the provisions of getting redress from the President have been rendered nugatory, that the Rules are saved by Article 313 of the Constitution and that as such the order passed in breach of the Rules is illegal and void;

(b) That there was no material or permissible material or information on which the President could be satisfied that it was not expedient to give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in terms of Article 311(2) (c), that therefore the order passed by the President is in contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, that there is no law which makes the satisfaction of the President contemplated under Article 311(2)(c), proviso (c) conclusive, that as such the petitioner was entitled to know the material or information

Click Here to Read the rest of this document