Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the dismissal of P.N. Malhotra, a civilian employee in the defence services, who was drawing his salary from the Defence Estimates. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) in respect of certain charges. Based on that enquiry, the competent authority dismissed him from service on 22 March 1990. His appeal to the appellate authority was dismissed. He then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which allowed his Original Application and declared the dismissal order void, further declaring that he should be deemed to have continued in service. The Tribunal also declined to award back wages but directed that the subsistence allowance paid to him shall not be recovered, and it permitted the appellants to take fresh proceedings against him in accordance with law and in the light of Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court in the appeal by the Director General of Ordnance Services and others was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 had no application to a civilian employee in defence services drawing salary from Defence Estimates, and consequently whether the dismissal was void. The Supreme Court examined the earlier decision in Union of India & Anr. v. K.S. Subramanian (1989 Supp (1) SCC 331), where a three-Judge Bench held that a civilian employee in military service drawing salary from the Defence Estimates could not claim the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, and that the 1965 Rules also had no application. The Court also referred to a Constitution Bench decision in Lekh Raj Khurana v. Union of India (1971 (3) SCR 908) which had held the same. The Court noted that the Tribunal had misunderstood K.S. Subramanian, as that decision actually militated against the respondent because it denied him the protection of Article 311(2) and the 1965 Rules. The Court further observed that the rule-making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 311, and when Article 311(2) is excluded, the 1965 Rules cannot independently play any part. The appellants argued that the respondent could not have suffered any prejudice by following the procedure prescribed by the 1965 Rules, as those Rules were nothing but a codification of the principles of natural justice, and were more specific, elaborate, and beneficial to the employee than the broad principles of natural justice. The Court accepted this submission, noting that neither the Tribunal nor the respondent had pointed to any other rules applicable to disciplinary enquiries against such civilian employees that had not been followed, nor had it been stated that any such rules were qualitatively different or more beneficial. The Court also noted that the only point urged before the Tribunal by the respondent's counsel was the inapplicability of the 1965 Rules, and no other contention was raised. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's order could not be sustained. The Court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and restored the order dismissing the respondent as confirmed by the appellate authority. No costs were awarded. The judgment clarified that a civilian employee in defence services drawing salary from Defence Estimates is not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, and the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not apply to such an employee, but following those rules does not vitiate a dismissal for want of prejudice. The Supreme Court thus allowed the appeal and upheld the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Civilian Employees in Defence Services - Constitutional Protection Under Article 311(2) - Constitution of India, Article 311(2) - The respondent, a civilian employee in defence services drawing salary from Defence Estimates, could not claim protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court followed K.S. Subramanian (1989 Supp (1) SCC 331) and Lekh Raj Khurana v. Union of India (1971 (3) SCR 908) to hold that Article 311(2) stands excluded for such employees. Held that the Tribunal erred in using K.S. Subramanian to declare dismissal void, as the decision in fact militated against the respondent. (Paras 7-8) B) Service Law - Applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule-Making Power Under Article 309 Subject to Article 311 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 3(1); Constitution of India, Article 309 - The 1965 Rules cannot independently apply where Article 311(2) itself stands excluded because rule-making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 311. The Court held that the 1965 Rules have no application to civilian employees in defence services drawing salary from Defence Estimates. Even if Rule 3(1) suggested applicability, the Tribunal's order could not be sustained. Held that the 1965 Rules do not provide protection to such employee. (Para 7) C) Service Law - Prejudice and Compliance with Non-Applicable Rules - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as Codification of Natural Justice - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Assuming the respondent was entitled to an enquiry before dismissal, following the procedure prescribed by the 1965 Rules caused no prejudice because those Rules are a codification of principles of natural justice, more specific, elaborate, and beneficial to the employee than the broad principles. The Court noted no other applicable rules were suggested, and the only ground urged before the Tribunal was inapplicability of 1965 Rules. Held that dismissal cannot be declared void on that ground, dismissal restored. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in declaring the dismissal of a civilian employee in defence services void on the ground that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were inapplicable; whether such employee drawing salary from Defence Estimates is entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution; whether following the procedure under the 1965 Rules caused any prejudice to the employee and rendered the dismissal void.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; order dismissing the respondent as confirmed by the appellate order restored; no costs.
Law Points
- Civilian employee in defence services drawing salary from Defence Estimates is not entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution
- CCS (CCA) Rules
- 1965 have no independent application to such employee because rule-making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 311
- even if the 1965 Rules were inapplicable
- following their procedure caused no prejudice as they codify and elaborate principles of natural justice and are more beneficial than broad principles
- doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 empowers termination without following the inapplicable rules
