Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by two government employees who challenged their dismissal from service by the Governor of Assam. The appellants were dismissed by separate orders dated April 1, 1965, which recited that each was unfit to be retained in public service and ought to be dismissed. The orders further stated that the Governor was satisfied under sub-clause (c) of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 that in the interest of security of the State it was not expedient to give an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. The appellants contended that the orders did not comply with Article 311(2) as amended by the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, which came into force on October 6, 1963; that they were passed without consulting the Assam Public Service Commission; and that they were mala fide at the instance of the Chief Secretary and Finance Minister. The High Court of Assam and Nagaland dismissed the writ petitions on July 26, 1967, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court by certificate. The main legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the impugned orders complied with the amended Article 311(2), whether consultation with the Public Service Commission was mandatory under Article 320(3)(c), and whether the dismissal orders were vitiated by mala fides. The appellants argued that the satisfaction recorded by the Governor referred only to inexpediency of giving an opportunity to show cause against the penalty, not to inexpediency of holding an inquiry as required by the amended proviso. They also contended that non-consultation with the Public Service Commission invalidated the orders and that the orders were passed due to the influence of the Chief Secretary and Finance Minister. The State maintained that the Governor's satisfaction was sufficient and that the law did not require consultation with the Commission. The majority of the Supreme Court, comprising Shelat and Dua JJ., held that the expression 'reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken' in the unamended Article 311(2) included an opportunity to show cause against guilt, which corresponded to the reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of charges in an inquiry under the amended provision. The 1963 amendment was made principally to clarify the result of judicial decisions; therefore, the use of language from the unamended article in the impugned orders did not nullify them, and the Governor's recorded satisfaction in the interest of security of the State necessarily implied that it was not expedient to hold an inquiry. The Court rejected the plea of mala fides, finding no evidence that the Chief Secretary or Finance Minister advised or influenced the Governor; authentication of the order by the Chief Secretary did not establish mala fides. On the issue of consultation with the Public Service Commission, the Court held that neither rule 10 of the Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964 nor regulation 6 of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 required consultation, and Article 320(3)(c) had been held not mandatory by this Court. Bhargava J. dissented on the first issue, holding that the satisfaction recorded by the Governor related only to the third step (penalty) and not to the inquiry, and therefore the dismissal order was void. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the dismissal orders were upheld by the majority.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Dismissal of Government Servant - Reasonable Opportunity - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(2) and proviso (c) - The Governor's recorded satisfaction that it was not expedient to give opportunity to show cause against action proposed implied satisfaction that it was not expedient to hold inquiry under amended Article 311(2). The 1963 amendment clarified existing judicial interpretation of unamended Article 311(2) and Section 240(3) of Government of India Act, 1935, so use of unamended language did not invalidate dismissal orders. Held that dismissal orders complied with Article 311(2) as amended (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Consultation with Public Service Commission - Article 320(3)(c) Constitution of India, 1950; Rule 10 Assam Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1964; Regulation 6 Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1951 - Consultation with Commission not mandatory under rules or Constitution; non-consultation did not vitiate dismissal order. Held that orders were not invalid for lack of consultation with Public Service Commission (Paras Not mentioned). C) Administrative Law - Mala Fides - Plea of Mala Fide - No evidence that Chief Secretary or Finance Minister influenced Governor; authentication of order by Chief Secretary did not establish mala fide. Held that plea of mala fide rejected (Paras Not mentioned). D) Constitutional Law - Dissenting Opinion - Requirement of Recorded Satisfaction for Inquiry Dispensation - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(2)(c) proviso - Bhargava J. held that satisfaction must relate specifically to holding inquiry, not to show cause against penalty; absence of such recorded satisfaction rendered dismissal void. Held that majority opinion prevailed and appeals dismissed (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether dismissal orders complied with amended Article 311(2); whether consultation with Public Service Commission was mandatory; whether orders were passed mala fide.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; dismissal orders upheld. Majority held that Governor's recorded satisfaction under proviso (c) implied satisfaction that it was not expedient to hold inquiry under amended Article 311(2); non-consultation with Public Service Commission not mandatory; mala fides not established. Bhargava J. dissented on first issue, holding dismissal void for lack of recorded satisfaction as to inquiry.
Law Points
- Reasonable opportunity under Article 311(2) includes opportunity to show cause against guilt
- Amended Article 311(2) clarified existing law
- Governor's satisfaction under proviso (c) dispenses with inquiry
- Consultation with Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c) is not mandatory
- Non-consultation does not vitiate dismissal order
- Mala fide plea rejected due to absence of evidence of extraneous influence
