IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, JJ.
Rupraj Nandy - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7120 of 2020
Decided On : 13-08-2025
ORDER :
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Rupraj Nandy challenging the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Government of India in dismissing him from service as well as the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter “Tribunal”) in dismissing the Original Application which was filed challenging the dismissal order.
3. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner seeking for following relief:-
“8.1. Rule Nisi may be issued Calling upon the respondents to show-cause as to why the reliefs sought for herein shall not be granted in favour of the applicant and upon showing their no cause and/or insufficient cause, the said rule may be made absolute;
8.2. The impugned order vide Annexure-A/12 may be quashed;
8.3. The Applicant may be reinstated in his service With effect from the date of his dismissal i.e. from dated 15.02.2018 and may be paid with all his service benefits including full back wages;
8.4. Any other consequential relief(s) as would be deemed just and proper may be granted in the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It is the case of the petitioner that he was holding the post as Asst. Director in the ARC establishment at Charbatia of Odisha in the Aviation Research Centre (ARC) under the Government of India. One first information report was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station on 16.12.2016 against the petitioner alleging his involvement for commission of offences under sections 370/370A(2)/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3/4/5/5A/5B/ 5C/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Pursuant to such first information report, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody and since the judicial remand period was beyond 48 hours, he was placed under orders of suspension by the competent authority. After being released on bail on 23.12.2016, the petitioner stated to have resumed his service being stationed at ARC, Charbatia, Choudwar, Cuttack. It is the further case of the petitioner that no departmental proceeding was initiated against him and no enquiry report was communicated to him at any point of time. But all of a sudden, he received an order dated 31.10.2017 to explain his conduct in relation to the first information report lodged against him as aforesaid. After receiving such order, the petitioner submitted his reply and then the petitioner was asked to furnish some documents with reference to his explanation, which also the petitioner complied with. Then on 15.02.2018, the petitioner was dismissed from the service in exercise of extra-ordinary powers conferred upon the President of India under article 311(2) proviso (i) r/w Rule 19 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 without holding any enquiry or Disciplinary Proceeding and permanently withholding all pensionary benefits and compassionate allowances. The order of the President of India is quoted hereinbelow:-
ORDER
“To,
Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director,
Through SS (ARC)
Hqrs. New Delhi
WHEREAS the President is satisfied under clause (c) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the case of Shi Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC.
WHEREAS the President is satisfied that, on the basis of the information available, the activities of Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC, are such as to warrant his dismissal from service.
Accordingly, the President hereby dismisses Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC, from service with immediate effect.
The President further orders that the said Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC, will not be paid any
Dismissal under Article 311(2)(c) requires no inquiry when national security is at risk; the court upheld the dismissal without procedural inquiry as lawful.
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.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) without conducting a regular departmental enquiry and without proper justification viola....
Dismissal without a proper inquiry under Article 311 (2) (b) deemed arbitrary and illegal, requiring substantial justification beyond mere allegations.
Dispensation of departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) demands cogent reasons proving impracticability due to witness intimidation or threats; mere allegation gravity or criminal pendency insuf....
The decision to dismiss an individual from service without a departmental inquiry must be based on reasonable grounds, especially when national security implications are involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that mere registration of a FIR is not a sufficient ground to dispense with holding a regular inquiry before dismissing an employee, and adequate r....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.