Case: Union Of India Vs. S. K. Rao

2. This is an appeal by the Union of India by way of special leave3. On April 9, 1959, the Central Government directed removal from service of Capt. S. K. Rao under R.14 of the Army Rules, 1954. The facts leading to his removal are as follows :4. Rao was a commissioned officer in the Indian Army and was attached to the Army Ordnance Corps Training Centre, Secunderabad. It was alleged that on April 4, 1958, he committed acts of gross misconduct. The allegations were as follows :"Knowing Kumari Prakash as the daughter of a brother Officer, Rao assisted her in going away from her parents protection and planning to run away with a sepoy""Rao, by threatening to cause harm to Kumari Prakashs parents, intimidated her to visit his house where he took her in his scooter to the unit lines of 5/11 Gurkha Rifles where he arranged her meeting with a sepoy of the unit""He (i.e. Rao) acquiesced in the girl being met by the sepoy later at a tea shop nearby where she received a present of a sari and blouse from the sepoy in his presence.""Rao thus actively abetted in the attempt of brother officers daughter elope with a sepoy""Rao then took Kumari Prakash to a hotel "Saidya Lodge in Hyderabad and got a room to themselves by impersonating and giving a false identity as "Mr. & Mrs. Prakash"5. An inquiry into the matter was made by Court of Inquiry. The Chief of the Army Staff, after going through the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, considered that the conduct of Capt. Rao was not unbecoming of an officer. As he was of opinion that trial of the officer by a General Court Martial was inexpedient, he ordered administrative action to be taken under R.14 of the Army Rules, 1954. By memorandum dated September 4, 1958, Rao was called upon to submit his explanation by way of defence regarding the allegations against him. The explanation of Rao was placed before the Central Government. The Central Government found it to be unsatisfactory, and on April 9, 1959, an order was passed removing the respondent from service6. Capt. Rao thereupon filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of removal from service on the ground, inter alia, that R.14 of the Army Rules, 1954, was ultra viresthe Army Act, 1950, and that the action taken thereunder was without any authority7. In the petition Rao gave a somewhat different version of what had happened. According to him he did not assist Kumari Prakash to go away from her parents house8. At the hearing of the petition the only point which was urged was the validity of R.14 of the Army Rules, 1954. If this rule was intra vires the Army Act, Rao has no. case.

Reasoning:
This argument is not correct14. Section 19 itself suggests that there should be rules, and subject to the provisions of the Act and such rules, the Central Government may dismiss or remove from the service any person subject to the Army Act. Section 191 (2) (a) specifically gives power to make a rule providing for the removal from the service of persons subject to the Act. It follows that there may be a valid rule whereunder, subject to the other provisions of the Act, the Central Government may remove a person from the service. Rule 14 is such a rule; it is, therefore, not ultra viresBut the power under Section 19 is an independent power. Although Section 19 uses the words "subject to the provisions of this Act", it speaks of removal of a person from the service. Section 45 provides that on conviction byl an officer is liable to be cashiered or to suffer such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned. For removal from service under Section 19 of the Army Act read with Rule 14 of the Army Rules, 1954, al is not necessary. The two Sections 19 and 45 of the Act are, therefore, mutually exclusive.