1998 Supreme(SC) 579

1998(4) Supreme 425
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Delhi)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Balbir Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4736 of 1996
Decided on 5-5-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B. Dutta, Sr. Advocate, A.K. Srivastava, D.S. Mehra and B.K. Prasad, Advocates.
For the Respondents : L.C. Goyal, Advocate (N.P).

Very Important Point
The order passed by President of India under Art. 311(2) Proviso (c) for dismissal of respondent from Delhi Police Service was based on circum­stances which had a bearing on the security of State which was before the authorities long prior to the conclusion of the criminal trial of Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s assassination. Tribunal was wrong in substituting its own Judgment for the satisfaction of the President of India.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Art. 311 (2) proviso (c)-Dismissal of re­s­pondent under from Delhi Police Service without inquiry-Respon­dent tried for a criminal case connected with assassination of the Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi-Finally acquitted by apex Court-In the course of the said criminal case Intelligence Bureau received certain material for res­pondent being asso­ciated with subversive activities affecting the security of State-Case referred to Committee of Advisors under office Memorandum dated 26.7.1980-Committee recom­mended dismissal from service - President passed order of dismissal-Challenged in Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi-Tribu­nal ordered reinstatement of res­pondent-Appeal to Supreme Court-Court finding relevant material connected with pre­judicial activities affecting security of State long prior to conclusion of said criminal trial-No mala fide alleged-Tribu­nal substituting its own judgment for the satisfaction of President of India viz. if res­pondent could be criminally pro­secuted, a departmental enquiry could have been held on the basis of same material-Whe­ther correct? (No)-Tribunal’s order set aside-Appeal allowed-Extent of judicial review of order indicated-Case law discussed.

       Held : An order under proviso (c) to Article 311(2) is, therefore, issued after a detailed examination of all relevant facts by a committee of very senior and experienced Administrators in var­ious Ministries with the approval of the ministries concerned. (Para 3)

       If an order passed under Article 311(2) Proviso (c) is assailed before a Court of law on the ground that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is not based on circumstances which have a bearing on the security of the State, the Court can examine the cir­cumstances on which the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is based; and if it finds that the said circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on the security of the State, the Court can hold that the Satisfaction of the President or the Governor which is required for passing such an order has been vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrel­evant considerations. (Para 8)

       In the present case, there is no material to infer any mala fides. What is required to be seen is whether the order is based on material which is wholly extraneous or irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the security of the State. The Tribunal had called upon the appellants to produce the entire confidential material on which the order is based. The Tribunal was held that at least two of the files placed before it are highly confidential. They all relate to the activities of the respondent which have a bearing on the security of the State. This is not a case where there is absolutely no material relating to the activities of the respondent prejudicial to the secu­rity of the State. The entire material gathered by the Intelligence Bureau was placed before a very high level Committee of Advisors under the procedure prescribed by the Government Memorandum. This was pre­cisely for the purpose of ensuring that when a Government servant is dismissed without enquiry, there should be cogent material to indi­cate that it is necessary to do so in the interest of the security of the State. The material was examined by the Advisory Committee. Thereafter, it advis­ed the dismissal of the respondent under proviso (c) to Article 311(2). Therefore, the President has issued an order under proviso (c) to Article 311(2). (Para 9)

       In our view, this was not a case where there was no relevant material. The Tribunal could not have substituted its own judgment for the satisfaction of the President of India. The Tribunal is under a misapprehension when it holds that if the respondent could be crimi­nally prosecuted a Departmental Enquiry could have been held on the basis of this same material. The respondent placed reliance on the observations to this effect made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Bhaskara Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1981(1) SLR 249. The Tribunal has not noted that the material which was placed by the Intelligence Bureau before the Advisory Committee and the President did not relate merely to the assassination of the Prime Minister. It related to various other activities of the respondent as well, which the authori­ties considered as prejudicial to the security of the State. The fact that the respondent was subsequently acquitted by this Court in the criminal trial will not make any difference to the order which was passed by the President on the totality of material which was before the authorities long prior to the conclusion of the criminal trial. (Para 10)

       Held finally, the appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (Para 11)