Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. R. DAS, C. J. I. , T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
P.BALAKOTAIAH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil 48 Of 1956
Decided On : 12/03/1957
RAILWAY SERVICES (SAFEGUARDING OF NATIONAL SECURITY) RULES, 1949 - VALIDITY - ARTICLES 14, 19 (1) (C) AND 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - PROCEDURE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, railway employees, were terminated from their services under the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 (Security Rules). They challenged the validity of the Security Rules and the termination orders, arguing that the rules were unconstitutional and that the orders were not passed by the competent authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Security Rules were not unconstitutional and that the termination orders were valid. It found that the classification of persons on the basis of subversive activities was reasonable and that the rules did not infringe the appellants' rights under Articles 19 (1) (c) and 311 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the termination orders were not passed by way of punishment and, therefore, did not fall within the ambit of Article 311. The Court further held that the orders were not retrospective and that they were passed by the competent authorities.
Issues: 1. Whether the Security Rules were unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 19 (1) (c), and 311 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the termination orders were passed by the competent authorities? 3. Whether the termination orders were retrospective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Security Rules were not unconstitutional and did not violate Articles 14, 19 (1) (c), and 311 of the Constitution. It found that the classification of persons on the basis of subversive activities was reasonable and that the rules did not infringe the appellants' rights under Articles 19 (1) (c) and 311 of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the termination orders were passed by the competent authorities. It found that the orders had been actually passed by the General Manager, who was the competent authority under the Security Rules. 3. The Court held that the termination orders were not retrospective. It found that the rules were prospective in that action thereunder was to be taken in respect of subversive activities which either now exist or are likely to be indulged in, in future.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court of Nagpur dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein, and as they arise out of the same facts and raise the same points for determination, they were heard together, and will be disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THE facts in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1956- the facts in the connected appeals are similar and do nor require to be stated - are that the appellant was employed in 1939 in the Bengal Nagpur Railway as a clerk in the workshop at Nagpur. In 1946 when the State took over the administration of the Railway, it have option to the employees to continue in service on the terms set out in a document 5-7-1946. The appellant accepted those terms and continued in service on the conditions mentioned in that document. Acting in exercise of the powers conferred by Ss. 241 (2), 247 and 266 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Governor-General promulgated certain rules called the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Security Rules, and they came into force on 14-5-1949.
( 3 ) IT will be convenient at this stage to set out the Security Rules, in so far as they are material for the purpose of these appeals, as it is the validity of these rules that is the main point for determination by us. Rules 3, 4, 5 and 7 are as follows:3. "a member of the Railway Service who, in the opinion of the competent authority is engaged in or is reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, or is associated with others in subversive activities in such manner as to raise doubts about his reliability, may be compulsorily retired from Service, or have his service terminated by the competent authority after he has been given due notice or pay in lieu of such notice in accordance with the terms of his service agreement;provided that a member of the Railway Service shall not be so retired or have his service so terminated unless the competent authority is satisfied that his retention in public service is prejudicial to national security, and unless, where the competent authority is the Head of a Department, the prior approval of the Governor-General has been obtained.
( 4 ) WHERE in the opinion of the competent authority; there are reasonable grounds for believing that a member of the Railway Service is liable to compulsory retirement from service or to have his service terminated under R. 3, it shall- (A) by an order in writing, require the said member of Railway service to proceed on such leave as may be admissible to him and from such date as may be specified in the order; (B) by a notice in writing inform him of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him under R. 3; (C) give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action; and (D) before passing a final order under R. 3, take into consideration any representation made by him in this behalf.
( 5 ) NOTHING contained in the Rules in Chapter XVII of the State Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, shall apply to or in respect of, any action taken or proposed to be taken under these rules. 7. Any person compulsorily retired from service or shoes service is terminated under Rule 3 shall be entitled to such compensation, pension, gratuity and /or Provident Fund benefits as would have been admissible to him under the Rules applicable to his service or post on the date of such retirement or termination of service if he had been discharged from service due to the abolition of his post without any alternative suitable employment being provided. "4. On 6-7-1950, the General Manager of the Bengal Nagpur Railway issued a notice to the appellant under R. 3 of the Security Rules stating that in view of the facts recited therein, there was reason to believe that the appellant was engaged in subversive activities and calling upon him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. He was also placed under
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
