LEKH RAJ KHURANA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 03-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

908 
LEKH RAJ KHURANA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
March 3, 1971 
IS. M. SIKRI, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. s. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 
1950--Articlc 3ll-Civi1ian employee of 
Dejence Service-If entitled to protec(ion of Article. 
Slatutory Rules-Breach of-justiciability Natural Justice-If can be 
invoked under general law of 1naster and servant. 
The appellant was. appointed in 1942 as Labour Supervisor, Army 
Ordance Corps. 
In 1951, pending inquiry into certain charges against' 
him his ·service was terminated by givin~ him one month's notice under 
rule 5 of the Civilians in Defence Services (Temporai:v Service) . Rules, 
1949. 
He challenged the kgality of the order of termination on the 
grounds that it had been passed by an officer subordinate to the a1,1tho-
rity who appointetl him and that no adequate opportunity had been 
afforded to him of defending himself. 
He also alleged that ·the Order 
was vitiated by ma/a /ides. 
In the appellant's appeal against the dismissal 
·Of his suit the High Court held that Article 311 of the Constitution was 
inapplicable, that breach of the Rules did nor give an aggrieved party 
a right to go to the Court and that the Order was not vitiated by 
ma/a fides.-Dismissing the appeal to this Court. 
HELD : The appellant, holding a post connected with Defence cannot 
claim the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. 
Jugatrni Mahinchcnd Ajwani v. Union of India C.A. 1185 ·of 1965 dt. 
6-2-67 and S. P. Bahl v. Union of India C.A. 1918 of 1966 dt. 8-3-68; 
followed. 
(ii) The view of the High Court that the rules are not justiciable 
.cannot he sustained. 
Breach of statutory rules in relation to conditions 
·Of service would ·entitle the aggrieved government servant to have recol.frsc 
to the court for redress. 
R. Venkataro v. Secretary of State, A.I.R. 1937 P .C. 31, T/ie State 
.of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Ajodhya Prasad, [1961) 2 S.C.R. 671 and 
State of Mysore v. M. H. Bellary, [1964) 7 S.C.R. 471, referred to. 
Jn the present case the order of. discharge has been passed by the · 
,~ppointing authority as required by rule 5 .. 
(iii) In the appeal before this Court the finding on the point of 
ma/a fides must be accepted as final and the appellant cannot be allowed 
·to re-agitate that n1atte~s. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
F 
G 
(iv) As regards the applicability of the rule of natural justice it has 
H 
not been shown how under the general Jaw of master and selrvant, in the 
I 
absence of any protection conferred by Article 311 of the Constitution, 
"Such a rule can be invoked. 
• 
I 
-
LEKHRAJ v. UNION (Grover, !.) 
909 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1719 of 
1967. 
AppeaJfrom the judgment and decree dated May 23, 1961 of 
the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 43-D of 1956. 
B 
N. N. Keswani, for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. 
This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment 
c 
and decree of the Punjab High Court 
(Circuit Bench, Delhi} 
by which the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that 
the order dated May 26, 1951 directing' his removal from ser11ice 
was wrongful, illegal and void and that he still continued to be 
in the service of the respondent as Supervisor, Army Ordnance 
Corps 
D 
E 
F 
G 
According to the allegations in the plaint the appellant was 
appointed by the Governor-General in July 1942 as Supervisor. 
Army Ordnance Corps which, according to him, was 
a civil 
post under the Crown in India. 
In the months of September 
and October, 1950 the appellant was served with chargesheets 
by the Ordnance Officer, Administration, 
Shakurbasti, 
Delhi 
State, where he was poste<l at that time calling upon him to 
submit his defence to th! charges of making serious false allega-
tions against his superior officer Maj. H. S. Dhillon. The appel-
lant asked for grant of time for submitting his defence and he 
also demanded copies of certain documents etc to prove his case. 
On May 26, 1951 while this inquiry was pending he was served 
with an order by the Ordnance Officer, Administration, Sbakur-
basti, Delhi which was as follows:-
"Under instructions received from Army Head-
quarters you al'! hereby given one month's notice of 
disc~arge with immediate effect, services being no longer 
reqmred. 
Your services will be terminated on 25th 
June, 1951" . 
. 'J'.he appell
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.