Civil Appeal Nos
149 1 1501 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 21121973 of the High Court of Delhi in CW Nos 95471 211 to 218 and 249 and 251 of 1972
FS Nariman US Prasad SK Mehta MK Dua SM Sarin Aman Vachhar and R Jagannath for the appellants
Anil Dev Singh Miss Halida Khatoon
P Parmeswaran for the Respondents
The judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
These appeals are by certificate under Article 132 and involve the determination of the amplitude contained and nature of the power conferred on the President by clause c of the second proviso of Article 3112 of the Constitution
18 policemen Sardari Lal and two others being Sub Inspectors and the remaining being either Head Constables or Constables of the Delhi Armed Police Force were dismissed from service by separate but similar orders dated 14th April 1967 by way of punishment
They challenged those orders before the Delhi High Court mainly contend 707 ing that the exercise of power under clause c of the second proviso to Article 3112 was not upon President s personal satisfaction and as there had been no inquiry as mandated by Article 3112 the dismissals were bad
The High Court did not accept the contention and rejected the writ petitions
The dismissed policemen carried appeals to this Court and by judgment dated 2 1st January 1971 in Sardari Lal vs Union of India  Ors  a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court in each of the writ petitions and quashed the several orders of dismissal on the ground that each of them was illegal ultra vires and void
This Court held On the principles which have been enunciated by this Court the function in clause c of the proviso to Article 3112 cannot be dele gated by the President to any one else in the case of a civil servant of the Union
In other words he has to be satisfied personally that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold the inquiry pre scribed by clause 2
In the first place the general consensus has been that executive functions of the nature entrusted by the Articles some of which have been mentioned before and in particular those Articles in which the President has to be satisfied him self about the existence of certain fact or state of affairs cannot be delegated by him to any one else
Secondly even with regard to clause c of the proviso there is a specific observation in the passage extracted above from the case of Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodban 1964 5 SCR 294 that the powers of the President under that provision cannot be delegated
Thirdly the dichotomy which has been specifically introduced between the authority mentioned in clause b and the President mentioned in clause c of the proviso cannot be without significance
The Constitution makers apparently felt that a matter in which the interest of the security of the State had to be considered should receive the personal attention of the Presi dent or the head of the State and he should be himself satisfied that an inquiry under the substantive part of clause 2 of Article 311 was not expedient for the reasons stated in clause c of the proviso in the case of a particular servant Following the judgment of this Court the dismissed police men were reinstated in service with effect from 16th April 1971
On 5th of June 1971 fresh orders of dismissal were served on these policemen again 708 invoking the power under clause c of the second proviso to Article 3112 for dispensing with the inquiry
One of the representative orders is extracted below Whereas you Shri Sardari Lal sub Inspector being No D 331 present No D 1177 of Delhi Police held your office during the pleasure of the President And whereas the President after considering all the facts and circumstances of your case is satisfied under sub clause c of the proviso to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold in relation to you such inquiry as is referred to in clause 2 of the said Article 311 of the Constitution Now therefore the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect Several writ applications were again flied before the High Court
It was inter alia contended that the order of dismissal without an inquiry aS envisaged in Article 3112 was vitiated as the power under sub clause c of the second proviso to Article 3112 had not been made upon personal satisfaction of the President
In the returns made to the Rule to two separate affida vits one by the Inspector General of Police and the other by a Joint Secretary to the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs it was maintained that the President had personally considered all the facts and circumstances of each case and after having satisfied himself passed the order that in the interest of the security of the State it was not expedient to hold the inquiry
The original orders of the President along with the connected papers were placed before the High Court and the High Court held The contention therefore that the President himself did not pass the impugned orders is rejected
The question for decision then is whether the court can scrutinize and examine the facts and circumstances that led the President to arrive at the satisfaction that it was not expedient in the interest of the security of the State to hold the inquiry envisaged in Article 3112 against the petitioners and if so to what extent 709 While examining this aspect of the matter the High Court relied on the ratio of the decision of this Court in Sardari Lal s case supra and examining the second aspect of the contention the High Court held The result therefore is that the exercise of power by the President under clause c to the proviso to Article 3112 is fully covered by clause 1 of Article 361 and the President is not answerable to any court for the exer cise and performance of his powers and duties under this clause of the proviso to Article 311 and no court has jurisdiction to examine the facts and circumstances that led to the satisfaction of the President envisaged in clause c except probably on the ground of mala fide
 The plea of mala fides is based upon the alleged factual situation that the respective impugned orders had already been taken by the Government and the President simply en dorsed them was not entertained by the High Court and ulti mately each of the writ petitions was dismissed
Mr Nariman learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has advanced three contentions in support of these appeals 1 the impugned order of dismissal in 1971 which is claimed to have been passed on the personal satisfaction of the President is vitiated in view of the rule in the case of Shamsher Singh  Anr
vs State of Punjab  2 appellants having been reinstated in service in terms of the judgment of this Court without leave of the Court no second order of dismissal on the same material could have been passed and 3 the High Court was wrong in holding that the suffi ciency of satisfaction of the President was not justiciable
The first aspect argued by Mr Nariman is on the basis of the reversal of the view expressed by this Court in Sardari Lal s case supra by a later larger Bench judgment of this Court
The ratio in Sadari Lal s case came to be considered in Shamsher Singh s case supra by a seven Judge Bench
Ray CJ who spoke for five members of the bench and with whom by a separate judgment the remain ing two learned Judges agreed spoke thus 710 The decision in Sardari Lal s case that the President has to be satisfied personally in exercise of executive power or function and that the functions of the President cannot be delegated is with respect not the correct statement of law and is against the estab lished and uniform view of this Court as embodied in several decisions to which refer ence has already been made
These decisions are from the year 1955 up to the years 1971
The decisions are Rai Saheb Ramjawaya Kapur vs State of Punjab  A Sanjeevi Naidu vs State of Madras  and UNR Rao vs Smt
Indira Gandhi These decisions neither re ferred to nor considered in Sardari Lal s case The President as well as the Governor is the Constitutional or formal head
The President as well as the Governor exercises his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion
Whoever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President or the Governor for the exercise by the President or the Governor of any power or function the satisfaction required by the Constitution is not the personal satisfaction of the President or the Governor but the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the Constitution al sense in the cabinet system of Government that is satisfaction of his Council of Minis ters on whose aid and advice the President or the Governor generally exercise all his powers and functions
The decision of any minister or officer under rules of business made under any of these two Articles 773 and 1663 is the decision of the President or the Governor respectively
These Articles did not provide for any delegation
Therefore the decision of Minister or Officer under the rules of busi ness is the decision of the President or the Governor
 In their writ petitions each of the appellants had contend ed before the High Court following the ratio of Sadari Lal s case which was then the law that the President had not been personally satisfied before exercise of the power under the proviso to dispense with the inquiry and the respondents had taken pains to establish by pleading and producing the original records that the President had satis fied himself person 771 ally before be made the order dispensing with the inquiry
To reduce the argument on this aspect and to have an exact impression of how the impugned orders were made we directed learned counsel appearing for the Union of India to produce the original record and the same has been put before this Court
It transpires therefrom that the papers were placed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the consideration of the President by the Joint Secretary of the Union Territory of Delhi on 22nd of March 1971 and were returned with a note of 20th of April 1971 to the effect that the President would like to have the advice of the Council of Ministers in the matter
A draft note for the Cabinet was prepared relat ing to the matter and as the record indicates it got through the Cabinet and the Prime Minister recorded her approval
Thereafter it was again placed before the President along with a note prepared on 25th May 1971
The note clearly indicated President s Secretariat may kindly see their note extracted at pre page 7n
As desired by the President the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers
A copy of the Note submitted to the Cabinet may kindly be seen at flag H 
The Cabinet has approved the propos al contained in paragraph 6 thereof
Minutes of the Cabinet meeting may be seen at flag I  It is requested that the matter may now be placed before the President for consideration
 On 2nd June 1971 the President made the following order I have considered the cases of the eighteen Police officers whose names are given in the list appended to this order
I have also considered all the facts and circumstances of their cases stated in the notes of the Minis try of Home Affairs dated March 22 1971 and May 251971 I am satisfied under paragraph c of the proviso to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry into the case of any one of these Police Officers
I accordingly order that these eighteen Police Officers be dis missed from service with immediate effect
 It is clear from what has been extracted above that the order of the President was not on the basis of his personal satisfaction as required 712 by the Rule in Sardari Lal s case but was upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as required in Shamsher Singh s case
In view of this factual position learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated that there was no force in his first contention
We see no force in the second point canvassed by Mr Nariman
This Court quashed the orders of dismissal on account of noncompliance of the requirements of the law and when the Police Officers returned to service it was open to the employer to deal with them in accordance with law
No leave of this Court was necessary for making a fresh order in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after removing the defects
Now coming to the third contention of Mr Nariman the matter appears to have been concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India  Anr
vs Tulsirara Patel  Ors  Those were also cases of striking railwaymen against whom orders of dismissal had been made after dispensing with the inquiry by exercise of powers under the same proviso
Four learned Judges repre senting the majority spoke through Madon J and this Court held that there was a constitutional obligation to record in writing the reason for the satisfaction that one of the sub clauses was applicable and if such reason was not re corded in writing the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional
The Court further stated that communi cation of the resaon to the aggrieved Government servant was not obligatory but perhaps advisable
The record of the case produced before us clearly indicates that the reason has been recorded though not communicated
That would satisfy the requirements of the law as indicated in Tulsiram Patel s case
The plea of mala fides as had been contended before the High Court and casually reiterated before us arises out of the fact that typed orders dated 3rd of June 1971 were already on record in the file when the papers were placed before the President such a contention is without any substance
The President s order is dated 2nd of June and the typed orders of dismissal bear the date of the following day
In this setting there is no scope to suggest that typed orders representing Government s decision were avail able on the record by the time the matter was placed before the President
All the legal contentions have failed
Ordinarily in such a situation the appeals have to be dismissed
Mr Nariman however has placed before us for consideration a statement made by the Home Minister before the Lok Sabha on 18th of December 1978
Therein he had stated 713     18 persons who have been dismissed by invoking clause c of the provi so to Article 3112 will be considered for grant of compassionate allowances
 This statement was also reiterated in the papers placed before the President
Obviously the Government intended to pay them compassionate allowances
We have no sympathy for indiscipline
In fact in an orderly force like the Police indiscipline is bound to give rise to serious problems of administration
It is however unnecessary to go into that aspect of the matter as the Government had made it known that they intended to treat even these 18 policemen liberal ly by giving them compassionate allowances
The matter has been sufficiently protracted the first order of dismissal was made a little more than 20 years back and in the mean time some of the policemen out of this group of 18 have died
In such circumstances to leave this matter for a future date for fixing compassionate allowance would not be just and proper
We had suggested to the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India to have instructions and give us an indication of what was in view of the Government when compassionate allowance was thought of
There has been no response yet
We are not prepared to detain delivery of the judgment on that ground
In our opinion the situation would be met in a just way if instead of paying a recurring allowance a lump sum amount is paid to the policemen who are alive or their legal representatives in the case of the policemen who are dead
We accordingly direct that in the case of Sub Inspectors who were dismissed a lump sum amount of Rs60000 Rupees Sixty Thousand only in the case of Head Constables who were dismissed a sum of Rs50000 Rupees Fifty Thousand only and in the case of Constables a lump sum of Rs40000 Rupees Forty Thousand only should be paid within one month from today
The appeals are dismissed subject to the direction for payment of the lump sum amounts indicated above in lieu of compassionate allowance
There would be no orders for costs
NPV Appeals dis missed


Summary:
The Supreme Court having quashed in appeal the dismissal orders dated April 14 1967 passed against the appellant policemen they were served fresh orders of dismissal on June 5 1971 In exercise of the power conferred under clause c of second proviso to Article 3112 of the Constitution
The appellants challenged that these orders without an inquiry as envisaged in Ariticle 3112 were vitiated as the power under sub clause c of the second proviso to that Article had not been exercised upon personal satisfaction of the President
On behalf of the respondent Union of India it was contended that the President had personally consid ered all the facts and circumstances of each case and after having satisfied himself passed the order that in the interest of the security of the State it was not expedient to hold the inquiry
The High Court held that the exercise of the power by the President under clause c to the proviso to Article 3112 was fully covered by clause 1 of Article 361 and the President was not answerable to any court for the exer cise and performance of his powers and duties under this clause of the proviso to Article 311 and no court had juris diction to examine the facts and circumstances that led to the satisfaction of the President envisaged in clause c except probably on the ground of mala fide and dismissed the Writ Petitions
705 In the appeals before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order of dismissal in 1971 which was claimed to have been passed on the person al satisfaction of the President was vitiated in view of the rule laid down in the case of Shamsher Singh and Anr
vs State of Punjab that the appellants having been reinstated in service in terms of judgment of this Court without leave of the Court no second order of dismissal on the same material could have been passed and that the High Court was wrong in holding that the sufficiency of satisfaction of the President was not justiciable
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD 11 The order of the President was not on the basis of his personal satisfaction as required by the Rule in Sardari Lal s case but was upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as required in Shamsher Singh s case
The dismissal order was therefore not vitiated
711H 712A 12 This Court quashed the orders of dismissal earlier on account of non compliance of the requirement of law and when the police officers returned to service it was open to the employer to deal with them in accordance with law
No leave of Court was necessary for making a fresh order in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after removing the defects
712B 13 There was a constitutional obligation to record in writing the reason for the satisfaction that one of the sub clauses was applicable and if such reason was not re corded in writing the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional and the communication of the reason to the aggrieved Government servant was not obligatory but perhaps advisable
712D In the instant case the record of the case indicates that the reason has been recorded though not communicated
That would satisfy the requirements of law
712E Union of India  Anr
vs Tulsiram Patel  Ors   followed
14 No malafides could be attributed to the impugned order of dismissal
The President s order is dated 2nd of June and the typed orders of dismissal bear the date of the following day
There is there 706 fore no scope to suggest that typed orders representing Government s decision were available on the record by the time the matter was placed before the President
712F This Court has no sympathy for indiscipline
In an orderly force like police indiscipline is bound to give rise to serious problems of administration
The Government had made it known that they intended to treat even these policemen liberally by giving them compassionate aliowances
The situation would be met in a just way if lump sum amounts are paid to the dismissed policemen who are alive or to their legal representatives in the case of those who are dead at the rate of Rs60000 to Sub Inspectors Rs50000 to Head Constables and Rs40000 to Constables 713B D F Sardari Lal vs Union of India  Ors  and Shamsher Singh  Anr
vs State of Punjab   referred to