1985 (9) TMI 350 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Civil Servants sans Inquiry

SATYAVIR SINGH AND OTHERS Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.

The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of civil servants from the Research and Analysis Wing without an inquiry, citing the second proviso to Article ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Dismissal Orders without Inquiry.2. Applicability of Clause (b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.3. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions and Practicality of Holding Inquiry.4. Departmental and Judicial Remedies Available to Civil Servants.Summary:1. Validity of Dismissal Orders without Inquiry:The appellants, employed in the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, were dismissed from service without serving any charge-sheet or holding an inquiry, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Delhi High Court dismissed their writ petition challenging the dismissal orders, leading to the present appeals.2. Applicability of Clause (b) of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2) and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965:The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [1985] 3 S.C.C. 398, which interpreted Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Constitution, particularly the second proviso to Article 311(2). The Court noted that the second proviso to Article 311(2) becomes applicable in cases where it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry. The conditions precedent for applying clause (b) are the existence of a situation making the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable and the disciplinary authority recording its reasons in writing.3. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions and Practicality of Holding Inquiry:The appellants contended that the dismissal orders were mala fide and that an inquiry was reasonably practicable. They argued that the suspension orders indicated a contemplated disciplinary inquiry and that nothing had changed to make the inquiry impracticable. However, the Court found that the situation had deteriorated after the suspension orders, with an all-India pen-down strike spreading, leading to complete insubordination and a breakdown of discipline. The affidavits filed showed that the atmosphere was so tense that no witness would cooperate with any proceedings. The Court held that the disciplinary authority was justified in concluding that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable.4. Departmental and Judicial Remedies Available to Civil Servants:The Court emphasized that civil servants dismissed under the second proviso to Article 311(2) have the right to a full and complete inquiry in a departmental appeal or revision unless a situation envisaged by the proviso is prevailing at the time of the hearing. The Court directed the appellants to file departmental appeals by October 31, 1985, and instructed the appellate authority to condone the delay and dispose of the appeals expeditiously.Final Orders:The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, vacated the interim orders, and allowed the appellants to retain any payments made under interim orders. The appellants were granted time to file departmental appeals, with directions for the appellate authority to condone the delay and dispose of the appeals in accordance with the principles laid down in Tulsiram Patel's case. No order as to costs was made.