Case Note & Summary
The case involved a challenge by the Union of India against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondent S.B. Mishra was a lecturer at the College of Military Engineering, Pune, and was compulsorily retired on July 27, 1987 as a measure of punishment following a departmental inquiry. He challenged the compulsory retirement in O.A. No. 616 of 1990 before the Tribunal, contending that he was not supplied with a copy of the inquiry report, making the retirement invalid. The Tribunal, following the ratio in Ramzan Khan v. Union of India, set aside the retirement order on July 23, 1992, granting liberty to the appellant to take appropriate action from the stage of supplying the inquiry report. Subsequently, the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar clarified that the Ramzan Khan ratio had no application to cases concluded by that date, and for cases where it applied, a fresh inquiry could be conducted after supplying the report, with the delinquent officer deemed under suspension pending inquiry. The competent officer then passed an order under Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965, deeming the respondent under suspension until the inquiry was completed. The respondent challenged this order by filing a contempt petition. In the impugned order dated September 1, 1992 in C.P. No. 130 of 1992, the Tribunal held that Rule 10(4) had no application because the respondent was not kept under suspension pending inquiry, and therefore he must be deemed to be in service, directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The respondent was reinstated and continued in service. The Union of India appealed. The respondent's counsel argued that the Rules had no application and the matter became infructuous due to reinstatement. The Supreme Court examined whether CCS (CC&A) Rules applied to defence personnel. It referred to earlier decisions in Jagatrai Mahinchand Ajwani v. Union of India and S.P. Behl v. Union of India, which held that CCS (CC&A) Rules have no application to defence personnel. The Court also considered the doctrine of pleasure under Article 310 of the Constitution, as interpreted in Moti Lal Deka v. Union of India, Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, holding that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 are subject to the doctrine of pleasure under Article 310. The Court noted that Article 310(1) expressly excludes the applicability of the provisions of the Rules to defence personnel. Consequently, it held that CCS (CC&A) Rules have no application to defence personnel, and the respondent was not entitled to supply of the inquiry report as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 read with the Rules. The order of the Tribunal directing supply of the report and reinstatement was therefore illegal and was set aside. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Applicability of CCS (CC&A) Rules to Defence Personnel - CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 - Article 309, 310, 311 of Constitution of India - The respondent, a lecturer in College of Military Engineering, Pune, was compulsorily retired after departmental inquiry; he sought supply of inquiry report. The Supreme Court held that CCS (CC&A) Rules have no application to defence personnel as Article 310(1) expressly excludes applicability of Rules to defence personnel; Rules made under proviso to Article 309 are subject to doctrine of pleasure enshrined in Article 310. Held that respondent not entitled to supply of inquiry report. (Paras not mentioned) B) Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Pleasure - Article 310 of Constitution of India - The doctrine of pleasure, as considered in Moti Lal Deka v. Union of India and others, applies to defence personnel; Rules made under proviso to Article 309 are subject to Article 310, read subject to Article 311. Held that defence personnel hold office during pleasure of President and are excluded from CCS (CC&A) Rules. (Paras not mentioned) C) Service Law - Inquiry Report Supply - Article 311(2) Constitution of India - For defence personnel, there is no entitlement to supply of inquiry report under Article 311(2) read with CCS (CC&A) Rules because Rules do not apply. Tribunal order directing supply and reinstatement set aside. Held that order of Tribunal is illegal and appeal allowed. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 apply to defence personnel and whether a defence personnel is entitled to supply of inquiry report under Article 311(2) read with the Rules.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 have no application to defence personnel; consequently, respondent not entitled to supply of inquiry report under Article 311(2) read with the Rules. The order of the Tribunal directing supply of inquiry report and reinstatement was illegal and was set aside. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- CCS (CC&A) Rules
- 1965 have no application to defence personnel
- Rules made under proviso to Article 309 are subject to doctrine of pleasure under Article 310
- Article 310(1) expressly excludes applicability of Rules to defence personnel
- Defence personnel not entitled to supply of inquiry report under Article 311(2) read with Rules
- Tribunal order directing supply of inquiry report and reinstatement is illegal
