BAKSHI SARDARI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 31-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRs 
& ORS. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
B 
JULY, 31 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M DUTT,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311(2)(c) Police per-
sonnel-Dismissed from service-Enquiry dispensed with-Satis-
C faction of President-Whether personal satisfaction necessary-
Communication of reasons-Whether obligatory. 
Practice and procedure: Order of dismissal--Set aside for non-
compliance of requirements of law-Whether employer entitled to pass 
p fresh order of dismissal after reinstatement-Leave of CoUTl-Whether ). 
necessary. 
The Supreme Court having quashed in appeal the dismissal or-
ders dated April 14, 1%7 passed against the appellant-policemen, they 
-
E 
were served fresh orders of dismissal on June 5, 1971 In exercise of the 
1 _ 
power conferred under clause (c) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of ~ 
the Constitution. The appellants challenged that these orders, without 
an inquiry as envisaged in Aritlce 311(2), were vitiated as the power '-r 
under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to that Article had not been 
exercised upon personal satisfaction of the President. On behalf of the 
F 
respondent-Union of India, it was contended that the President had 
personally considered all the facts and circumstances of each case-and, 
after having satisfied himself, passed the order that in the interest of the 
security of the State it was not expedient to hold the inquiry. 
The High Court held that the exercise of the power by the Presi-·'>-· 
G 
dent under cluase (c) to the proviso to Article 311(2) was fully covered 
by clause (1) of Article 361 and the President was not ao5werable to any 
court for the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under 
this clause of the proviso to Article 311 and no court had jurisdiction to 
examine the facts and circumstances that led to the satisfaction of the 
President envisaged in clause (c) except probably on the ground of 
·Ji 
malafide, and dismissed the Writ Petitions. 
704 
-
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL v. U.0.1. 
705 
In the appeals before this Conrt, it was contended on behalf of the 
A 
appellant that the impugned order of dismissal in 1971 which was 
claimed to have been passed on the personal satisfaction of the Presi- · 
dent was vitiated in view of the rule laid down in the case of Shamsher 
Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, that the appellants having been 
reinstated in service in terms of judgment of this Court, without leave of 
the Court, no second order of dismissal on the same material could have 
B 
been passed, and that the High Court was wrong in holding that the 
sufficiency of satisfaction of the President was not justiciable. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: I.I The order of the President was not on the basis'of his 
personal satisfaction as required by the Rule in Sardari Lal' s case but 
was upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as required in 
Shamsher Singh's alSO. The dismissal order was, therefore, not 
vitiated. [711H, 712A] 
c 
1.2 This Court quashed the orders of dismissal earlier on account 
D 
of non-compliance of the requirement of law and when the police offi-
cers returned to service it was open to the employer t<Mleal with them in 
accordance with law. No leave of Court was necessary for maldng a 
fresh order in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after removing 
the defects. [712B] 
E 
_..,._ 
1.3 There was a constitutional obligation to record in writing the 
reason for the satisfaction that one of the sub-clauses was applicable 
and if such reason was not recorded in writing, the order dispensing 
~ 
with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would 
both be void and unconstitutional, and the communication of the reason 
to the aggrieved Government servant was not obligatory but perhaps F 
advisable. [712D] 
In the instant case, the record of the case indicates that the reason 
has been recorded though not communicated. That would satisfy the 
requirements oflaw. [712E] 
Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 
398, followed. 
G 
1.4 No malatides could be attributed to the impugned order of 
dismissal. The President's order is dated 2nd of June and the typed 
orders of dismissal bear the date of the following day. There is, there-
H 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1987] 3 S.C.R. 
A fore, no scope to suggest that typed orders representing Govern-
ment's decision were available on the record by the time the matte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.