P. BALAKOTAIAH versus THE UNION OF INDLA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 03-12-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
v ... mbua. 
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
P. BALAK-OTAIAH 
v. 
THE UNION OF INDlA AND OTHERS 
(and connected appeals) 
[1958] 
(S. R. DAS, C. J., VENKA!TARAMA AIYAR, S. K. DAS, A. K. 
SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE JJ.) 
&i.ilway Services-Rules for safeguarding national security-
Constitutionality-Employee engaged in subversive activity-Ter. 
mination of Service-Validity-.-Railway Services (Safeguarding 
of National Security) Rules, 1949 R. 3, 7,-Constitution of India, 
Arts. 14, 19(l)(c), 311. 
The Services of the appellants who were Railway Servants. 
were terminated for reasons of national security under s. 3 of 
the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 
1949. Notices served on them under that section to show cause 
charged them as follow : -
"Whereas in the opinion of the ...... General Manager, you are 
reasonably suspected to be a member and office secretary of the 
B. N. Rly., Workers' Union (COil)munist sponsored) and were 
thickly associated with communits such as Om Prakash Mehta, 
B. N. Mukherjee, R. L. Reddi, etc., in subversive activities in 
such manner as to raise doubts about your reliability and loyalty 
to the State in that. though a Government employee, you attend-
ed private meetings of the Communists, carried on agitation 
amongst the Railway workers for a general strike from Novem-
ber 1948 to January 1949 evidently to paralyse communication 
and movement of essential supplies and thereby create disorder 
and confusion in the country and that, ·consequently. you are 
liable to have your services terminated under rule 3 of the said 
Rules". Orders of suspension were passed on them. They made 
their representations. The committee of Advisers on enquiry 
and after examining them found that the charges were true and 
the General Manager acting on its report terminated the ser-
vices of the appellants, giving them a month's salary in .lieu of 
notice. The appellants moved the High Court under Art. 226 
of the Constitution and contended that the Security Rules con-
travened Arts. 14, 19(J)(c) and 311 of the Constitution and as 
such the orders terminating their services were void. The High 
Court did not decide the Constitutional validity of the Security 
Rules and dismissed the petitions on other grounds. 
Held, that the word 'subversive activities' occurring in Rule 
3 of the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) 
Rules, 1949, in the context of the objective of natio11al security 
which thev have in view, are sufficiently precise in import to 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1053 
sustain a valid classification and the Rules are not, therefore, 
invalid as being repugnant to Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
Ananthanarayanan v. Southern Railway, A. I. R. 1956 Mad. 
220, disapproved. 
The charge shows that action was taken against the appel-
lants not because they were Communists or trade unionists but 
because they were engaged in subversive activities. The orders 
terminating their services could not, therefore, contravene Art. 
19(1) (c) of ·the Constitution since they did not infringe any of 
the rights of the appellants guaranteed by that Article which 
remained precisely what they were before. 
Article 311 of the Constitution can apply only when there is 
an order oi dismissal or removal by way of punishment. As the 
terms of employment of the appellants provided that their ser-
vices could be terminated on a proper notice and R. 7 of the 
Security ftules preserved such rights as benefits of pension, 
gratuities and the like to which an employee might be entitled 
under the service rules, there was neither premature termina-
tion ngr forfeiture of benefits already acquired so as to amount 
to punishment. The order terminating the services under R. 3 
of the Security Rules stood on the same footing as an order of 
discharge under R. 148 of the Railway Establishment Code and 
was neither one of dismissal nor removal within the meaning 
of Art. 311 of the Constitution. Article 311 had. therefore, no 
application. 
Parshotam LaL Dhingra v. Union of India. Civil Appeal 
No. 65 of 1957, relied on. 
Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India, [1953] S.C.R. 655, 
Shyam Lat v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India, 
[1955] 1 S.C.R. 26 and State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. 
Doshi, Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1955, referred to. 
Although the Rules are clearly prospective in character, 
materials for taking action against an employee thereunder may 
be drawn from his con

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