LexA.K. KAUL AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) A.K. KAUL AND ANR. A v. UNION OF INDIA APRIL 19, 1995 (S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN .UDDIN, JJ.] B Service law : Employees of llrtelligence Bureau-Dismissal from ser- vic~equirement of holding inquiry dispensed witli-Order passed under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution-Satis- faction of the Presidellt-Not practicable and expedieltt in the i1tterest of the C security of the nation to hold inquiry. Constitution of India: Art.311(2)(c)-Exercise of powers under Article 311(2) of the Constitution-Satisfaction of Presideltt or Govemoi-Whether amenable to judicial review-Justiciability of. Constitution of India : Art. 74(2)-Disclosure of documents-Wlrether obligatory for Govemment lo produce before the Court all the relevant material from which satisfaction of President or Governor is anived at. D Evidence Act: Sections 123 and 124'-Claims of privi/ege--Wlrerher extends to disclosure of nature of activities indulged in or only to materials E relied upon in support of the said activities. Appellants were employees or Intelligence Bureau, in the Ministry or Home-Mfairs, or the Government or India and were also important office bearers of ''The Intelligence Bureau Employees Association' (!BEA). F Vlde a circular dated 3 .. 1980, the formation or the IBEA was declared to be in violation of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Ag- grieved, the appellants flied in the Supreme Court of India, writ petitions challenging the said declaration and this court issued Rule Nisi and passed interim orders forbidding disciplinary action against the appel· G lants in respect of the reasons mentioned in the circular. · In exercise of powers under Art. 311(2)(c) of constitution, the appel- lants were dismissed from service on the grounds that their activities were against the interest of the security or the State. Writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the said orders of H 469 r 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R. A dismissal on the grounds that the said action of the respondents was malafide and was directed to penalise and victimise the appellants for .A.. promoting and participating in the activities of the IBEA. The said Writ Petitions were subsequently tra'lsferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. B The appellants also filed, before the Tribunal interim applications, seeklng the production of official records mentioned therein, for inspection by the tribunal and/or by the appellants and their counsel. The respon- dents claimed privilege against disclosure of the said documents invoklng the provisions of Art. 74(2) of the constitution and Ss. 123 and 124 of the c Evidence Act but at the same time did not oppose the production, before the Tribunal, of such documents or portions thereof relating to the dis- missal of the appellants as would satisfy the Tribunal, that their claim or privilege is bonafide and genuine. Upon perusing the records, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the D respondents, of privilege against the disclosure of official records. It ~ further found that the satisfaction of the President had been arrived at only after application of mind to relevant materials which relate to such activities of the appellants as would prejudicially affect the security of the >late and hence warranted their dismissal. Accordir.gly the applications of E tht appellants were dismissed. Against the aforesaid orders appeals were filed, in this court by the appellants, contending therein that (a) Exercise of power under CI (c) of the second proviso to Art 311(2), is subject to judicial review. (b) It is open to challenge on the ground that the satisfaction of the President or F Governor is vitiated by malafide or is based on extraneous considerations having no relevance to the interest of the security of the state. (c) That subject to the clam of privilege being justified under the provisions of Sec. 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, It is obligatory for the concerned govern- ment to produce 'before the court all relevant material warranting the act G of dismissal, and (d) That the claim of privilege does not extend to the disclosure of the nature of activities but can relate only to the material .~ relied upon in support of the said activities. The respondents contested the appeals on the ground that an order under c, (c) of the proviso to Art 311(2)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.