Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from orders of dismissal passed against three Deputy Central Intelligence Officers employed in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The employees had formed the Intelligence Bureau Employees Association (IBEA) on July 23, 1979 to ventilate grievances. A Circular Memorandum dated May 3, 1980 declared formation of IBEA as violation of Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and warned of disciplinary action. Writ petitions challenging the circular were filed, and the Supreme Court on July 21, 1980 passed an interim order restraining disciplinary action against IBEA members during pendency. Despite this, on December 26, 1980, the President dismissed the appellants from service by invoking clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, dispensing with inquiry in the interest of security of the State. The appellants challenged the dismissal orders by writ petitions under Article 32, which were later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal after its constitution under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and registered as T.A. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1992. Before the Tribunal, the appellants alleged victimization for their active role in IBEA, citing excellent service records and absence of any act prejudicial to national security. The respondents defended the orders as based on satisfaction that appellants' activities warranted dismissal, and claimed privilege under Article 74(2) and Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act against disclosure of material. The Tribunal, after perusing the records, by judgment dated December 18, 1993 upheld the claim of privilege and dismissed the appellants' applications for inspection and production of documents. It found that the material considered by the President related to activities prejudicially affecting security of the State and had nothing to do with IBEA activities, and that the satisfaction was arrived at after application of mind to relevant materials. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the exercise of power under clause (c) is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides or irrelevant considerations, and that the government must place relevant material before the court unless privilege is justified. They contended that privilege cannot extend to disclosure of the nature of activities, only to underlying material. The Additional Solicitor General submitted that the order is based on subjective satisfaction and material is not required to be disclosed under Article 74(2) and Evidence Act provisions, distinguishing clause (b) which requires recording of reasons from clause (c) which does not. The Supreme Court considered the constitutional scheme under Article 311(2) as amended by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. The provided excerpt of the judgment ends before the final decision, hence the operative holding and directions are not included.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal without Inquiry - Judicial Review of Order under Article 311(2)(c) - Constitution of India, Article 311(2) second proviso clause (c) - The appellants contended that dismissal orders passed by the President dispensing with inquiry in the interest of security of State are subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides or irrelevant considerations; the respondents argued that the satisfaction of the President is subjective and not justiciable; the Supreme Court considered the scope of such review (Paras 6-8). B) Evidence Law - Privilege - Claim of Privilege under Article 74(2) and Sections 123, 124 Evidence Act - Constitution of India, Article 74(2); Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 123, 124 - The respondents claimed privilege over documents and material forming basis of satisfaction, asserting non-disclosure under Article 74(2) and Evidence Act provisions; the appellants argued that privilege cannot extend to the nature of activities and only to underlying material; the Tribunal upheld privilege after perusing records, but the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the extent of privilege (Paras 4-7). C) Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Pleasure - Dispensing with Inquiry under Second Proviso to Article 311(2) - Constitution of India, Article 311(2) second proviso clauses (b) and (c) - The Additional Solicitor General distinguished clause (b) which requires recording reasons, from clause (c) which does not; the Court noted the constitutional text and arguments on requirement of disclosure of reasons for satisfaction (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order of dismissal passed under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fides or irrelevant considerations; whether the claim of privilege under Article 74(2) and Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act bars disclosure of material and the nature of activities on which the satisfaction is based; whether reasons for satisfaction need to be disclosed.
Law Points
- Judicial review of dismissal under Article 311(2)(c)
- subjective satisfaction of President
- privilege under Article 74(2) and Sections 123
- 124 Evidence Act
- disclosure of nature of activities
- dispensing with inquiry in interest of security of State
