Article 311(2) protection denied to a Defence civilian employee, but the decree was left undisturbed on equity.

A civilian Defence employee paid from Defence estimates was held outside Article 311(2) protection, so the constitutional safeguard against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank after inquiry was unavailable. The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, being subordinate to Articles 309, 310 and 311, could not independently confer protection where Article 311(2) did not apply. Although the appellants succeeded on these legal questions, the existing decree was left undisturbed on equitable grounds because the respondent had litigated as an indigent person, faced long delay, and proceeded when the law was unsettled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India applied to a civilian Defence employee whose salary was drawn from Defence estimates; (ii) Whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 applied independently notwithstanding the exclusion of Article 311(2); and (iii) Whether the decree in favour of the respondent should be disturbed in view of the appellants' success on the legal issues.

Issue (i): Whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India applied to a civilian Defence employee whose salary was drawn from Defence estimates.

Analysis: The respondent held a post connected with Defence and was paid from Defence estimates. On that footing, he did not fall within the protection of Article 311(2). The constitutional protection against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank after inquiry was therefore not available to him.

Conclusion: Article 311(2) did not apply to the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 applied independently notwithstanding the exclusion of Article 311(2).

Analysis: Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 are subject to Article 310 and also to Article 311. The pleasure doctrine in Article 310(1) remains operative except to the extent expressly limited by the Constitution. Since Article 311(2) was excluded on the nature of the respondent's post, the disciplinary procedure under the 1965 Rules could not independently confer protection. The rules could not override the constitutional position or operate beyond the limits imposed by Articles 309, 310 and 311.

Conclusion: The 1965 Rules did not independently apply so as to protect the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the decree in favour of the respondent should be disturbed in view of the appellants' success on the legal issues.

Analysis: Although the appellants succeeded on the law, the respondent had litigated as an indigent person, had suffered long delay, and had pursued the matter when the legal position was unsettled. The Court treated these circumstances as warranting equitable relief and declined to disturb the decree.

Conclusion: The decree in favour of the respondent was retained on compassionate grounds.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the legal questions, but the respondent's decree was left undisturbed in equity, so the substantive relief in the litigation remained with the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 are subordinate to Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution, and where Article 311(2) is inapplicable, such rules cannot independently supply disciplinary protection; however, equitable considerations may justify leaving an existing decree undisturbed despite the appellant's legal success.

---