1976 (7) TMI 166 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the doctrine of pleasure of the President u/s Article 310 of the Constitution.
2. Compliance with rules framed u/s Article 309 of the Constitution.
3. Entitlement to protection u/s Article 311 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the Doctrine of Pleasure of the President u/s Article 310:
The central issue was whether the doctrine that a Central Government servant holds his post "at the pleasure of the President" u/s Article 310 of the Constitution authorizes the termination of services without assigning any reason, especially for posts "connected with defence." The Supreme Court noted that the doctrine of pleasure is subject to the provisions of Article 311, which provides certain protections to civil servants. However, it was clarified that the pleasure doctrine applies to all government servants, including those in services connected with defence, but the protections of Article 311 do not extend to such posts.

2. Compliance with Rules Framed u/s Article 309:
The High Court had held that the termination of the respondent's service was illegal due to non-compliance with the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, framed u/s Article 309. The Supreme Court, however, found no specific rule under Article 309 that was violated by the termination order. The Court emphasized that the 1965 Rules principally deal with disciplinary proceedings and penalties, and there was no rule mandating disciplinary proceedings for termination of service in this case. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the rules under Article 309.

3. Entitlement to Protection u/s Article 311:
The respondent claimed that his termination without following the 1965 Rules violated Article 311, which provides procedural safeguards against dismissal. The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 311 does not apply to posts connected with defence, as established in the precedent set by L. R. Khurana v. Union of India. Therefore, the respondent, holding a post connected with defence, was not entitled to the protections of Article 311. The Court dismissed the argument that Articles 14 and 16 could be invoked to extend Article 311 protections to the respondent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Court held that the termination of the respondent's service did not violate any rules framed under Article 309, and the protections of Article 311 were not applicable to the respondent's post connected with defence. The appellants were directed to bear the costs of both sides throughout, in accordance with the undertaking given at the time of the grant of special leave.

Appeal allowed.