The right conferred by Art.311 of the Constitution on the civil service is a valuable right and cannot be given the go-by like this. The conditions precedent for the exercise of the power under clause (c) of the proviso must exist, and the court has the power to ascertain whether the opinion formed by the authority has any factual basis and the conditions precedent to its formation were there.

1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether a member of the Civil Service of the Union not holding a sensitive post can be dismissed from service under Clause (c) of the 2nd proviso to Art.311(2) of the Constitution of India even if he preaches violence, belongs to a political party which was once banned and is involved in a murder case pending trial. Incidentally the ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with an order passed under Art.311(2) Clause (c) of the 2nd proviso also arises for consideration.

2. The petitioner in the Original Petition (respondent in the appeal) was a Jumadar Watchman (Class IV employee) of the Telegraph Store Depot, Ernakulam. The petitioner was suspended from service under R.18(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as he was arrested and kept under custody for more than 48 hours pending investigation of a criminal offence of murder. The petitioner and others were acquitted in the murder case by the Sessions Court. As the petitioner was not reinstated he made Ext. P2 representation to the authorities. Thereafter he filed O. P. No. 1818 of 1979 before this Court and this Court gave a direction to the authorities to pass orders on Ext. P2 within two weeks. In an appeal this Court set aside the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court in the murder case and remanded the case to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam for fresh trial and the same is still pending. Then on 9-2-1983 the petitioner was dismissed from service under Art.311 (2) Clause (c) of the 2nd proviso by Ext. P3 order. The petitioner challenged Ext. P3 in the Original Petition, contending the dismissal as unconstitutional. It was also contended that the impugned order was vitiated by malafides.

3. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 5. A preliminary objection that the satisfaction of the President of India under the relevant proviso to Art.311(2) of the Constitution is not justiciable was taken in the counter-affidavit. The main contention in the counter-affidavit is: If on the materials before the President there was sufficient material to indicate that in the interest of the security of the State it was expedient not to hold an enquiry nothing else is required and the President's satisfaction is final. The President is satisfied that the petitioner's continuance in service is not in the interest of the security of the State. The allegation of malafides is also denied in the counter-affidavit.

4. The learned judge who heard the Original Petition rejected the contentions of the Union of India, set aside the impugned order of dismissal and allowed the Original Petition. The learned judge held that the relevant files are insufficient to show that anyone had formed an honest opinion that it was inexpedient from the standpoint of the security of the State to hold an enquiry into the petitioner's conduct, that the power under clause (c) of the 2nd proviso to Art.311(2) was exercised not because it was inexpedient to hold an enquiry from the standpoint of security of the State but because the Department wanted to get rid of the petitioner for some reason or other and that this was not a bona fide exercise of power.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned judge went wrong in interfering with the impugned order dismissing the respondent as the same is one passed by the President of India after the President was satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it was not expedient to hold an enquiry. According to the learned counsel the satisfaction of the President under Art.311(2) Clause (c) of the 2nd proviso of the Constitution is not justiciable and this Court cannot, under Art.226 of the Constitution, sit in judgment over the matter. The learned counsel pointed out that at any rate, this Court cannot substitute its own conclusions in the matter. It was contended that the entire p