Union Of India & Anr vs Balbir Singh & Anr, 1998

Advertisements

OVERVIEW

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In this case, the respondent was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police in the year 1967. In 1984 the respondent was a Sub-Inspector in Special Security and was appointed as one of the security personnel at the residence of the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
2. The then, Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her own security staff, namely, Sub-Inspector Beant Singh and Constable Satwant Singh on 31st October, 1984.
3. In connection with the murder the respondent was arrested in connection with the said criminal case. In view of his arrest, the respondent was placed under suspension, which stated that a Departmental Enquiry will be conducted against the respondent.
4. Later, in the criminal trial, the respondent was convicted along with two others and was sentenced to death. However, the appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the High Court and it held that the conviction as valid. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court has ordered for the acquittal of accused.
5. Meanwhile, the Committee of Advisors recommended that the respondent should be dismissed from service under proviso (c) to Article 311(2) in view of the material which was placed before it. On the basis of this recommendation, the President of India issued an order under proviso (c) to Article 311(2) by dismissing the respondent with effect from dated 16 March 1985.
6. Later, the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging his order of dismissal dated 16th of March, 1985.

ISSUE RAISED

• Whether the dismissal order of the Respondent on Dated 16.3.1985 is valid?
• Whether the decision made by tribunal is valid or invalid.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Learned council on the behalf of respondent has contended that order of dismissal is not valid. Petitioner rayed for quashing the order and for a direction to the appellant herein to reinstate him in service with retrospective effect, with all consequential benefits.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

Petitioner contended that decision of tribunal is invalid

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

1. Supreme referred the case of Kaul and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.[i]in
2. which the Court has examined the extent of judicial review permissible in respect of an order of dismissal mentioned below 2nd proviso Clause (c) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
3. In this case, Court observed that that the satisfaction of the President can be examined within the limits laid down in S.R. Bommai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors[ii]. The order of the President may be tested to examine whether or not it’s far vitiated both with the aid of using mala fides or is primarily based totally on absolutely extraneous and/or inappropriate grounds. And the Court, however, cannot sit in appeal over the order, or substitute its own satisfaction for the satisfaction of the President as long as there is material before the President which is relevant for arriving at his satisfaction as to action being taken under Clause (c) to the second proviso to Article 311(2).
4. This Court has enumerated the scope of judicial review of the President’s satisfaction for passing an order under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) on the ground of:-
5. mala fides or  based on extraneous and/or irrelevant grounds;
6. Even if some of the material is relevant some is irrelevant the Court would still not interfere so long as there is some relevant material sustaining the action;
7. The correctness or adequacy of the material cannot be questioned by the Court it will also not change its opinion for that of the President;
8. the ground of mala fides takes in where it is found to be a case of abuse of power or called fraud on  power;
9. The Court will not lightly presume abuse or misuse of power and will make allowance that the President and the Council of Ministers are the best judge of the situation and as they are in possession of information
10. It also does not mean that the President and the Council of Ministers are the final arbiters and that their opinion is conclusive.
11. After referring the above mentioned case, court opined that in the present case, that there is no material by which we can infer any mala fides. To bring it within the ambit it must be seen is whether the order is based on material which is wholly extraneous or irrelevant, having no bearing on the security of the State’s security. The Tribunal had called upon the appellants to produce the entire confidential material on which the order is based.  And it has held that at least two of the files placed before it is highly confidential it is related to the activities of the respondent which concerns the security of the State.
12. While examining the procedure of dismissal, Court said that this is not a case where there is no material which is related to the activities of the respondent affecting the security of the State. There are few circumstances which are related to security of the state. Later, the entire material gathered by the Intelligence Bureau was placed before a very high level Committee of Advisors according to procedure prescribed by the Government Memorandum. The material was examined by the Advisory Committee and they advise the dismissal of respondent. Following this, the President has issued an order under proviso (c) Article 311(2) of Constitution of India.
13. Court observed that in their view, this case has some material facts related to security of state and it was not a case where there was no relevant material. And The Tribunal could not have substituted its own judgment it was under a misapprehension when it holds that if the respondent could be criminally prosecuted a Departmental Enquiry could have been held on the basis of this same material.  
14. Court referred the case of B. Bhaskara Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[iii] which was referred by respondent and held that the Tribunal has not noted that the material which was placed by the Intelligence Bureau before the Advisory Committee and the President did not relate merely to the assassination of the Prime Minister. It is also related to 4 other activities of the respondent, which the authorities considered as prejudicial to the security of the State. The fact that the respondent was subsequently acquitted by this Court in the criminal trial will not make any difference to the order which was passed by the President on the totality of material which was before the authorities concerned. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.  Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Thus after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it can said that for the security of state a government does not get the opportunity to be heard and to have an enquiry. Enquiry by advisory board and its recommendation by and satisfaction of president can be held as sufficient.

This is written by Vartika Singh, an Intern under Legal Vidhiya

[i] 1995 (4) SCC page 73.

[ii]( 1994 (3) SCC 1).

[iii] (1981 (1) SLR 249

Admin