Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar, was a Scientist/Engineer in the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), a unit of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). He was initially appointed on 15.01.1992 and promoted on 01.07.1999. In 2002, he was invited by a South Korean university for a post-doctoral research position. He applied for sabbatical leave, which was not recommended due to service exigencies. He then applied for earned leave and went to South Korea. While there, he applied for additional leave, which was not sanctioned, and he was asked to report back. He did not return, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Ultimately, the President of India, acting under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution and Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, dismissed him from service without holding an inquiry, on the ground that it was not expedient to hold such inquiry in the interest of the security of the State. The appellant challenged the dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his application. He then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala, which also dismissed it. The Supreme Court, in this appeal, examined the validity of the dismissal. The court considered the scope of judicial review under Article 311(2)(c) and held that the satisfaction of the President is justiciable only to the extent of examining whether there was any material on record to form such satisfaction and whether the procedural requirements were complied with. The court found that the President had applied his mind to the material placed before him, including the report of the Director of ISRO, and had recorded reasons for dispensing with the inquiry. The court also held that consultation with the Union Public Service Commission is not mandatory. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The appellant, a scientist in ISRO, was dismissed from service without holding an inquiry on the ground that it was not expedient to hold such inquiry in the interest of the security of the State. The court held that the satisfaction of the President as to the interest of the security of the State is justiciable only to the extent of examining whether there was any material on record to form such satisfaction and whether the procedural requirements under Article 311(2)(c) were complied with. The court found that the President had applied his mind to the material placed before him and the procedural requirements were satisfied. (Paras 1-46) B) Service Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court held that the requirement of recording reasons for dispensing with the inquiry is mandatory and the reasons must be recorded in writing. In the present case, the reasons were recorded in the order of dismissal itself, which stated that it was not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State. The court found that this was sufficient compliance with the requirement. (Paras 30-35) C) Service Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court held that the power under Article 311(2)(c) can be exercised only when the President is satisfied that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State. The satisfaction must be based on material and must be genuine. The court found that the President had considered the report of the Director of ISRO and other materials and had formed the requisite satisfaction. (Paras 36-40) D) Service Law - Dismissal Without Inquiry - Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India - Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - The court held that the requirement of consultation with the Union Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution is not mandatory and non-consultation does not vitiate the order of dismissal. The court relied on the decision in Union of India v. T.V. Patel, (2007) 4 SCC 785. (Paras 41-43)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of the appellant from service without holding an inquiry under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India and Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, on the ground that it is not expedient to hold such inquiry in the interest of the security of the State, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of dismissal from service without inquiry under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Law Points
- Dismissal without inquiry in interest of security of state
- Article 311(2)(c) of Constitution
- Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules
- 1965
- Judicial review limited to procedural compliance
- No requirement of prior consultation with Union Public Service Commission
