DIRECTOR, GENERAL OF ORDNANCE SERVICES AND ORS. versus P.N. MALHOTRA

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 30-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·'t> •. 
A 
DIRECTOR, GENERAL OF ORDNANCE SERVICES AND ORS. 
v. 
P.N. MALHOTRA 
JANUARY' 30, 1995 
B 
(B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
SelVice Law-Constitution of India-A1ticle 311(2)-CCS (CCA) Rules 
1965-Applicability-Civilian employee in defence se1vices drawing his salary 
from Defence Estimates-Wliether can claim protection of Art. 311(2)--Held, 
C Na-1965 Rules not applicable to such an employee. 
/ 
The respondent, a civilian employee in the defence. seniices was 
dismissed from seniice on the basis of disciplinary enquiry held against 
him. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed by appellate authority. The 
D . respondent challenged the order before. the Central Administrative 
Tribunal on the ground that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherender the 
disciplinary enquiry had been held, had no application to the respondent 
and, therefore, the entire enquiry was void. Allowing the application the 
tribunal declared that the order dismissing him from seniice was void. It 
was further declared that the respondent should be deemed to have been 
E continuing in service. Hence this appeal. 
F 
The appellant submitted that the respondent could not be said to 
· have suffered any prejudice by following the procedure p_rj!_scribed by 1965 
Rules. He submitted that they were more specific, more elaborate and more 
beneficial to the em~loyee than the broad principles of natural justice. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : A civilian employee in military service who ·is drawing his 
salary from the Defence Estimates can not claim the protection of Article 
G 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. The CCA Rules of 1965 also have no 
application to such an employee. The dismissal of such an employee cannot 
be faulted on the ground of non complying with the requirements of Article 
311(2). [678-F-G, 679-A] 
At the same time, it is wrong to hold that a disciplinary enquiry held 
H against such an employee in accordance with the CCA Rules is void or 
I 
676 
I 
~ 
-
' 
"" 
... 
"' 
~ 
-ti 
DIRECTOR GEN. OF ORDNANCE v. P.N. MALHOTRA [JEEVAN REJ?D.Y, J.] 677 
invalid. As rightly contended by the appellant, these _rules merely incor-
A 
porate in a more specific and elaborate form the principles of natural 
justice. Following the said rules is indeed more beneficial to the delinquent 
employee. In the absence of proof of any prejudice, the enquiry or the 
orders of punishment can not be set aside on the said ground. 
[678-B, 680-G] 
B 
Union of India and Anr. v. K.S. Subramanian, [1989) Supp. 1 331; 
Lekh Raj Klmrana v. Union of India, [1971) 3 SCR 908; Union of India Anr. 
v. K.S. Subramanian, [1977) 1 SCR 87 and Union of India v. Indrajit Batra, 
Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1993, decided on 6-9-1994 (SC), relied on; 
.. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1110 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order datea 21.5.93 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 593 of 1991. 
K. Lahiri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Ms .. A Subhashini D 
for the Appellants. 
N.K. Aggarwal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties. 
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Ad-
ministratrive Tribunal, New Delhi allowing the Original Application fileµ 
F 
by the respondent and declaring that the order dismissing him from service 
is void and declaring further that he should be deemed to have continued 
in service. 
The respondent is a civilian employee in the defence services. A 
disciplnary enquiry was held against him in respect of certain charges. On G 
the basis of the said enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the com-
petent authority on 22.8.1990. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed 
by the appellate authority, against which he approached the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal. Number of grounds were urged by him in the 
Original Application filed by him, all of which were refuted and denied by H 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 1 S.C.R. 
A the appellants. (respondents in the Original Application) in their counter-
affidavit. 
· At the time of hearing of original application, the counsel for the 
respondent raised the submission that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, 
whereunder the dis'ciplinary enquiry has been held, have no application to 
B the respondent and, therefore, the entire enquiry was void. Reliance was 
placed upon the decision of the 

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