Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a permanent staff member of Indian Oil Corporation, was involved in theft of oil from Haldia Dock Complex. An FIR was lodged against all persons involved including the petitioner, leading to registration of Criminal Case No.1. The petitioner was arrested on September 6, 1988, and released on November 3, 1988. Relying upon Station Order No.20-IV of the Corporation, which permitted removal or dismissal without following the prescribed enquiry procedure where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence or where the General Manager is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the workman, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the validity of the rule by filing a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court, in W.P.C.O. No.1590(W) of 1989 and on appeal from Original Order Tender No.3066/92 by order dated 28th June, 1995, upheld the validity of the rule and dismissed the petition. This led to the present special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the rule was ex facie arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and relied on Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd. & Anr. v. Hindustan Steels Ltd. & Anr., where a similar provision in Hindustan Steels Ltd. standing order was struck down as violative of Article 14 and natural justice. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention. It observed that the rule was made with the intention to prevent an employee served with a charge-sheet and arrested in furtherance thereof from continuing in service, subject to the result of the trial. Continuance of an officer involved in an offence would be an affront to good and disciplined conduct of workmen and would demoralise the service. Therefore, it was most expedient in public interest not to hold any further enquiry and terminate services forthwith, subject to result of trial. The Court held that the doctrine of natural justice has no application when the authority concerned is of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold an enquiry and against the interest of security of the Corporation to continue the offender workman when serious acts are likely to affect the foundation of the institution. The Court relied on Tulsi Ram Patel v. Union of India, where a Constitution bench upheld the validity of similar provisions under Article 311 of the Constitution. It also noted a recent SLP where validity of pari materia provision was upheld. The Court rejected the argument that Tulsi Ram Patel upheld the rule subject to natural justice, stating that natural justice requires to be modulated consistent with the scheme of the rules and that principle of natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement the law. Since the rule was made to meet a specified contingency, the principle of natural justice by implication stood excluded. Consequently, the Court held that the rule was not ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination Without Enquiry - Indian Oil Corporation Station Order No.20-IV - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 - Petitioner, a permanent employee of Indian Oil Corporation, was dismissed after arrest in a theft case without holding an enquiry; rule permitted dismissal when General Manager satisfied for reasons recorded that it is neither expedient nor in interest of security to continue workman; Court held rule not ex facie arbitrary and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 as it served public interest and security of Corporation. Held that rule valid. (Pages 1-2) B) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Exclusion by Implication - Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 21 - Court held principle of natural justice has no application where authority is of opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold enquiry and against interest of security to continue employment of offender workman when serious acts affect foundation of institution; rule made to meet specified contingency, principle of natural justice by implication stands excluded; rule not ultra vires Articles 14 and 21. Held that termination without enquiry valid. (Pages 1-2) C) Precedent - Constitution Bench Decision - Tulsi Ram Patel v. Union of India - Constitution of India, Article 311 - Court followed Tulsi Ram Patel upholding similar provision under Article 311 and distinguished Workmen of Hindustan Steels; held principle of natural justice requires to be modulated consistent with scheme of rules; natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement law. Held special leave petition dismissed. (Pages 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Station Order No.20-IV of Indian Oil Corporation, which permits dismissal without enquiry of an employee arrested for a criminal offence, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; whether principles of natural justice are excluded.
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed. Station Order No.20-IV upheld as valid and not ultra vires Articles 14 and 21. Termination without enquiry confirmed.
Law Points
- Station Order No.20-IV permits dismissal without enquiry if General Manager satisfied it is inexpedient or against interest of security to continue workman
- principle of natural justice excluded by implication
- natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement law
- rule not ultra vires Articles 14 and 21
