Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=4613
Timestamp: 2019-11-20 14:26:55
Document Index: 583369001

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.\t311', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 77', 'Art.\n311', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 309', 'Art. 310', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 309', 'Art. 311', 'Art.\t311', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 352', 'Art. 356', 'Art. 360', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 77', 'Art. 123', 'Art. 356', 'Art.\t360', 'Art. 309', 'Art. 258', 'Art. 258', 'Art. 258', 'Art. 344', 'Art.\t340', 'Art. 338', 'Art. 310', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 258', 'Art. 311', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 77', 'Art.\n468']

SARDARI LAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS
1971 AIR 1547	1971 SCR (3) 461 1970 SCC (1) 411
SARDARI LAL V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [1971] RD-SC 21 (21 January 1971)
CITATION: 1971 AIR 1547	1971 SCR (3) 461 1970 SCC (1) 411
O	1974 SC2192	(152) O	1977 SC 451	(6) RF	1982 SC 149	(709) O	1984 SC 684	(55) E	1985 SC1416	(49,58) RF	1987 SC2106	(6)
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.	311(2)(c)-Power	to dispense with inquiry under Article cannot be delegated to the Joint Secretary under (Government of India Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 made	under Art. 77(3) of	the Constitution-Article 77(2) does not prevent the court	from examining validity of order passed by Joint Secretary under s. 311(2) (c) in the name of the President.
The appellant and 17 others were dismissed from Delhi Police Force.	The order in the case of the appellant recited	that he was unfit	to be retained in Civil Service. It	also recited that the President was satisfied under Art. 311(2) (c) of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it was not expedient to hold an inquiry.	The order	was made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India,	Ministry of Home Affairs under authority granted to him by the Government of India (Allocation	of Business) Rules,	1961 made under Art. 77(3) of the Constitution. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that authority	could not be exercised on behalf of the President by the	Joint Secretary. The High Court rejected this contention. In appeal by certificate,
HELD : On the principles enunciated by this Court in earlier decisions the functions in cl. (c) of the proviso to	Art.
311(2)	cannot be delegated by the President to anyone	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 an inquiry prescribed by cl. (2).	In	the first place the general consensus in the decisions of this Court has	been that executive function of the nature entrusted by certain articles, such as Arts. 309, 352, 356, 360 and in particular those	articles in which the President has to	be satisfied himself about the existence of certain 'facts or state of affairs cannot be delegated by him to anyone else. Secondly even with regard to cl. (c) of the proviso there is specific observation in Jayantilal's case 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	cl. (b) and the President mentioned in	cl. (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 has to be considered should receive personal	attention of the President or the Head of the State and he should himself be satisfied that an inquiry under the substantive part di cl. (2), Art. 31 1 was not expedient for the reasons stated in cl. (c) of the proviso in the case of	a particular servant. [467 D-G] The order impugned in the	present	case was therefore illegal, ultra vires, and void. If the	functions or functions exercisable	under cl. (c) of the proviso	under consideration could not be delegated or allocated to anyone else by the President, Art. 77(2) could not stand in the way of the Court in the matter of examining the validity of the order. [467 H468 B] Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railway, Maligaon, Pandu, [1964] 5	S.C.R.	683, 731, 732	and Javantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan 462
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1969.
Appeal	from the judgment and order dated December 11,	1968 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 1440 of 1967.
A. S. R. Chari, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R.
Nagaraja, for the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a common judgment of the Delhi High Court which disposed of a	batch of 14	petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution.	The question involved is	of importance and relates to the exercise of powers expressly conferred on the President by clause	(c)	of the	proviso to Art. 311(2) of	the Constitution.
On 14th April, 1967, the appellant and 17 other members of the Delhi Police Force were dismissed from service.	The order dismissing the appellant is reproduced below ORDER "Whereas, you Shri Sardari Lal, Sub-Inspector, Delhi Police No. 331/D, Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi hold	your office during the pleasure of thePresident, and Whereas the President	is satisfied that you are unfit to be retained in the public serviceand ought to be dismissed from service, and Whereas the President is further satisfied under sub-clause (c) of proviso to clause (2) of article 31 1 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry, Now, therefore, the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the President of India Sd/- (B. Venkataraman) Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs." 463 It was common ground before the High Court and has not	been disputed before us that the President had no	occasion to deal .with the case of the appellant himself and the	order was made by	Shri Venkataraman, Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was claimed by him that he was competent to make the order by virtue	of the authority which he	derived under	the Government of	India (Allocation of Business)	Rules, 1961 made under Art. 77(3) of the Constitution. Before the	High Court,	the controversy was confined to the	narrow	point whether the function	which	is to be performed by the President under clause (c) of the proviso to	Art. 311(2) could be performed by the authority to whom such function had been allocated under the aforesaid Rules. The	High Court	negatived the	contention raised on behalf of the appellant that such a function could not have been delegated by the President to any other authority. The High	Court also relied on the provisions of Art. 77(2) which provides for the authentication of orders made in the name of the President.
Under	Art. 53(1) the Executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or	through	officers subordinate	to him in accordance with the Constitution. Art. 77(1) lays down that all executive	action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. Clause (3) of that Article enables the President to make rules for the more convenient	transaction of the business of the Government of India.	Chapter I of Part XIV contains	inter alia the three main provision relating to the Services.
Articles 309,	310 and 311 may be set out to the extent necessary.
" 309.	Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and	posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State :
"Provided that it shall be competent for the	President or such person as he may direct in the case of	services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in	connection with the affairs of the State, to	make rules regulating	the recruitment and the conditions of	service, of persons appointed, to	such services and posts until	provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made	shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act." 464 "310.	(1) Except as expressly provided by this	Con- stitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of	a civil service, of the Union or of an all	India service	or holds any posit connected	with defence	or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of	the President, and every person who is a member of a civil service of, a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.
(2).............................." "31 1. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service	of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to	that by which he was appointed.
(2) No such	person	as aforesaid shall be	dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in	which he has been informed of the charge against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of	those charges and where it is proposed, after such	inquiry, to impose	on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed. but only on the basis of	the evidence adduced during such inquiry (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the	ground	of conduct which has	led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or "(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or ,remove a person	or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for	some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.
(3) If, in respect	of any such person as	aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." 465 These	Articles have come up for consideration	before	this Court	in several cases and in connection	with diverse points' The view that has been taken with regard to	their true content, scope and inter connection and the nature of the power exercisable under them is that while Art. 3	1 0 provides for the tenure at the pleasure of the President or the Governor,	Art. 309 enables the	Legislature or the Executive as	the case may be to make any law	or rule in regard inter alia to conditions of service without impinging upon the overriding power recognised under Art. 310	read with Art. 3 1 1. The power to dismiss a public servant at pleasure is outside the scope of Articles 53 and 154 of the Constitution and cannot be delegated by the President or the Governor, to a subordinate officer and can be exercised by him only in the manner prescribed, by the	Constitution.
This, however, does not mean that a law cannot be made under Art. 309 or a rule cannot be framed under the proviso to the said Article	prescribing the procedure by whcih and the authority by whom the said pleasure can be exercised.	Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways, Maligaon, Pandu,	_etc.(1) Art. 311 contains the main safeguards for civil	servants in the matter of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank-while the procedure provided in clause (2) must be followed before the dismissal or	removal or reduction in rank of a civil servant can be ordered,	there are certain exceptions which have been made where it is not necessary to comply with the requirements of the substantive part of clause (2) of Art.	311. These exceptions are contained in	the three clauses-(a), (b) and	(c) of the proviso to clause (2).
As in the cases mentioned in the proviso, the procedure laid down in clause (2) has not to be followed and the	only protection which is conferred on a civil servant cannot be availed of by him, we must look at	them carefully. A dichotomy has been introduced in clause (b) and, (c)	with regard	to the authority or the functionary who has to be satisfied about the matters stated therein. In clause	(b), it is only the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank who has to be satisfied that it is	not reasonably practicable to hold	the inquiry provided by clause (2) and his decision in terms of clause (3) of the Article shall be final. But in clause (c) it is.
Now the argument on behalf of the appellant has proceeded on these	lines.	Art. 53(1) vests the Executive power of the Union in the President but Art. 77 deals only with executive action of (1) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 683 at pp. 731 & 732).
466 the Government of India. There are several Articles	under which	the President is required to be satisfied before an action is taken. Clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 is one, of Such provisions.	The other provision which also deals with the question of satisfaction about the security of India being threatened etc. is the one contained in Art. 352 which relates to	Proclamation of emergency.
Art. 356 says that if the President on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the	State cannot	be carried on in accordance with the provisions; of the Constitution, he may make a Proclamation as provided in the Article. Art. 360 which contains provisions relating to financial emergency also employs the language "if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen whereby the financial stability or credit of India or of any part of the territory thereof is	threatened, he	may by a Proclamation make a	declaration to	that effect."	The enumeration of the aforesaid Articles is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. In such cases, it is the President who has to be personally satisfied on the material placed before him about the various matters on which action has to be taken.	Such functions may pertain to the executive power of the Union which is vested in him under Art. 53(1) but	these cannot fall within Art. 77(1) which is confined to executive action of the Government of India. Apart from the Articles mentioned above, there are several other Articles which may also be considered in this connection.	It would be han v. F. N. Rana and Others(2).
"The power to promulgate Ordinances under Art. 123; to suspend the 'provisions of Arts. 268 to 279 during an emergency; to declare failure of	the Constitutional machinery in States under Art. 356; to declare a financial emergency under Art.	360; to make	rules regarding the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to posts and services in connection with the affairs of the Union	under Art. 309-to enumerate a few out of the various powers-are not powers of the Union Government; these are powers	vested in the President by the Constitution and are incapable of being delegated or entrusted to any other	body or authority	under Art. 258(1). The plea that the	very nature	of these powers is such that	they could not be intended to be entrusted under Art. 258(1) to the, State or officer of the State, and, therefore, that clause must	have a limited content, proceeds upon an obvious fallacy.	Those powers	cannot be delegated under Art. 258(1)	because	they are not (2) 1964] 5 S.C.R. 294 at pp. 307 to 308.
the powers of the Union, and not because of their special character. There is a vast array of other powers exercisable by the President-to mention only a few-ap- pointment of	Judges:	Arts.	124 &	217, appointment of Committees of Official Languages Act; Art. 344, appointment of Commissions to investigate conditions	of backward classes; Art.	340, appointment of	Special	Officer for Scheduled Castes and Tribes : Art. 338, exercise of his pleasure to terminate employment: Art. 310, declaration that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give to a public servant sought to be dismissed an opportunity contemplated	by Art. 311(2)-these	are executive powers of the President and may not be delegated or entrusted to another body or officer because they do not fall within Art. 258." It seems to us that there is a good deal of substance in the argument raised on behalf of the	appellant. On	the principles which have been enunciated by this Court, the function in clause (c) of the proviso to Art. 311(2) cannot be delegated 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 prescribed 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 himself 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 Shodhan 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 President or the head of the State and he should be himself satisfied that an inquiry under the	substantive part of clause	(2) of Art. 3 1 1 was not expedient for the reasons stated	in clause (c) of the proviso in the case	of a particular servant.
We are not impressed with the reasoning of the High	Court with reference to Art. 77(2).	If the function or the	power exercisable under clause (c) of	the proviso	under consideration could not be delegated or allocated to any one else by the President. Art.
468 77(2)	will not stand in the way of the Court in the matter of examining the validity of the order.
For all the above reasons this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The impugned order by which the appellant was dismissed	from service	shall stand quashed on the ground that it was illegal, ultra vires and void. The appellant shall be entitled to costs in	this court and the High Court.