1995 JTR(SC) 1257
1996 AIR(SC) 1065 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 563 ; 1996 32 ATC 481 ; 1995 9 JT 343 ; 1996 LIC 934 ; 1996 1 LLJ 1044 ; 1996 1 LLN 462 ; 1995 7 Scale 315 ; 1996 1 SCC 536 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 333 ; 1996 1 SCJ 21 ; 1995 Supp6 SCR 157 ; 1996 2 SCT 600 ; 1996 1 SLR 641 ; 1996 KHC 640 ; 1996 1 Supreme 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.
Hari Pada Khan, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Spl. Leave Petn. (C) No. 20044 of 1995,
D/- 4-12-1995.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.14, Art.16, Art.21
(A) The constitutional provisions referenced include Article 14 on equality, Article 16 on employment equality, Article 21 on protection of life and personal liberty, and Article 136 granting the Supreme Court discretion to grant special leave petitions. The case involves the dismissal of a permanent employee under a rule that permits termination without a full disciplinary proceeding when the employer, satisfied after recording reasons in writing, considers it neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the employees service due to involvement in a criminal offence. The High Court upheld the validity of this rule, and this Bench exercises its power under Article 136 to dismiss the special leave petition, thereby affirming the application of the rule in the context of maintaining discipline and security in a public corporation.
(B) The rule is a valid exercise of the employers authority to ensure institutional security and public interest, provided reasons are recorded. The principle of natural justice is not excluded but is modulated and supplemented by the rule, and such provisions are upheld as prospective when aimed at preventing demoralization and safeguarding the foundation of the institution.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a permanent staff member of a corporation, was arrested in connection with theft at a dock complex, released after a short period, and subsequently dismissed under a standing order that allows termination without a full enquiry when the employer is satisfied it is against the interest of security to continue the employee. The petitioner challenged the rules validity before the High Court, which dismissed the petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the rule is not arbitrary and is a reasonable provision to protect institutional integrity. It held that the principle of natural justice is excluded by implication when the rule addresses such contingencies and that the rule does not violate Articles 14 or 21. The Court also noted the prospective operation of such provisions, as previously upheld in similar cases.
Issues:
Whether the rule permitting summary dismissal without a full enquiry is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Whether the High Courts finding on the rules validity is correct.
Ratio Decidendi:
The rule is a valid and reasonable restriction in the interest of security and public order, and the principle of natural justice is supplemented rather than supplanted by the rule. The rule operates prospectively and does not offend the constitutional guarantees of equality and life.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the dismissal of the petitioner from service is upheld.
(A) The constitutional provisions referenced include Article 14 on equality, Article 16 on employment equality, Article 21 on protection of life and personal liberty, and Article 136 granting the Supreme Court discretion to grant special leave petitions. The case involves the dismissal of a permanent employee under a rule that permits termination without a full disciplinary proceeding when the employer, satisfied after recording reasons in writing, considers it neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the employees service due to involvement in a criminal offence. The High Court upheld the validity of this rule, and this Bench exercises its power under Article 136 to dismiss the special leave petition, thereby affirming the application of the rule in the context of maintaining discipline and security in a public corporation.
(B) The rule is a valid exercise of the employers authority to ensure institutional security and public interest, provided reasons are recorded. The principle of natural justice is not excluded but is modulated and supplemented by the rule, and such provisions are upheld as prospective when aimed at preventing demoralization and safeguarding the foundation of the institution.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a permanent staff member of a corporation, was arrested in connection with theft at a dock complex, released after a short period, and subsequently dismissed under a standing order that allows termination without a full enquiry when the employer is satisfied it is against the interest of security to continue the employee. The petitioner challenged the rules validity before the High Court, which dismissed the petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the rule is not arbitrary and is a reasonable provision to protect institutional integrity. It held that the principle of natural justice is excluded by implication when the rule addresses such contingencies and that the rule does not violate Articles 14 or 21. The Court also noted the prospective operation of such provisions, as previously upheld in similar cases.
Issues:
Whether the rule permitting summary dismissal without a full enquiry is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Whether the High Courts finding on the rules validity is correct.
Ratio Decidendi:
The rule is a valid and reasonable restriction in the interest of security and public order, and the principle of natural justice is supplemented rather than supplanted by the rule. The rule operates prospectively and does not offend the constitutional guarantees of equality and life.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed, and the dismissal of the petitioner from service is upheld.
ASHOK TIVARI, B.C.Jain, B.S.Gupta, MANINDER SINGH, S.N.Mehta
Judgement
ORDER:- Petitioner was a permanent staff member of the Indian Oil Corporation. He along with others, is said to have been involved in theft of oil from Haldia Dock Complex. An FIR was lodged against all the persons who committed the theft including the petitioner. On that basis, Criminal Case No. 1 was registered and he was arrested on September 6, 1988 and was subsequently released on November 3, 1988. Relying upon Station Order No. 20-IV of the Corporation, he was dismissed from service, which reads thus :
"Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a court of law or where the General Manager is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that there is neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the workman, the workman may be removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure laid down under III of this clause."
2. When the services of the petitioner were terminated he challenged the validity of the Rule in question 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 above rule and dismissed the petition. Thus this special leave petition.
3. Whri M. N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rule is ex facie arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court in Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd v. Hindustan Steels Ltd., (1985)2 SCR 428 : (AIR 1985 SC 251), considered a similar provision made by the Hindustan Steels Ltd. in its Standing Order. This Court struck down the provision as violative of Article 14 and held that the action violated the principle of natural justice offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Same ratio is applicable to the facts in this case. Therefore, it is contended that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention.
4. It is seen that the rule has been made by the Corporation with the intention to prevent an employee of the Corporation served with a charge-sheet and arrested in furtherance thereof, from continuing in service. Of course it would be subject to the result of the trial. Continuance of the officer involved in an offence would be an affront to good and disciplined conduct of workmen. His continuance in service of the Corporation would demoralise the service. Therefore, it was most expedient in the public interest not to hold any further enquiry and terminate his services forthwith. However, it would be subject to the result of the trial.
5. The doctrine of principle of natural justice has no application when the authority concerned is of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold an enquiry and that is would be against the interest of security of the Corporation to continue in employment the offender-workman when serious acts are likely to affect the foundation of the institution. In Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 : (AIR 1985 SC 1416), a Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the similar provisions under Article 311 of the Constitution. Recently, in S.L.P. (C) No. 11659/92 the matter had come up before this Court on November 13,1995 where the validity of a pari materia provision was questioned. This Court upheld the validity stating that the above Clause will operate prospectively.
6. A contention has been raised by Mr. Krishnamani that in Tulsi Ram Patels case (AIR 1985 SC 1416)(supra)this Court had upheld the validity of the Rule subject to the principle of natural justice. It is needless to mention that the principle of natural justice requires to be modulated consistent with the scheme of the Rules. It is settled law that the principle of natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement the law. In that view of the matter the Rule having been made to meet specified contingency the principle of natural justice by implication stands excluded. We do not think that the Rule is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 as stated earlier.
7. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
Petition dismissed.