SARDARI LAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 21-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F. 
G 
H 
461 
SARDARI LAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. 
January 21, 1971 
[J. C. SHAH, C.J., G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER, 
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311(2) (c)-Power to dispense with 
i714"irY under Article cannot be delegated to the Joint Secretary 
under 
(Government of India Allocation· of Business) Ru/.,, 1961 made under 
Ari. 77(3) of the Cons1itution-A1t.c/e 77(2) does not prevent the cour~ 
from examining validity of order passed by Joint Secretary under s. 311(2) 
(c) in the name of the President. 
The appellant and 17 others were dismissed from Delhi Police Force. 
The order in the case of the appellant recited that he was unfit to be re-
tained in Civil Service. It also recited that the President was 
satisfied 
under Art. 311(2)(c) of the Constitution that in the 
interest of the 
securi.y elf the State it was not expedient to hold !an inqui-ry. The order 
was made by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of 
Home Affairs under authority granted to him by the Government of India 
(Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 made under Ar:. 77(3) of the Cons-
titution. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that authority could 
not be exercised on behalf of the President by the Joint Secretary. The 
High Court rejected this contention. Jn appeal by certificate, 
HELD : On the principles enunciated by thi~ Court in earlier decisions 
the 'functions in cl. (c) of the proviso to Art. 311(2) cannot be delegated 
by the President to anyone else in the case of a civil servant of the Union. 
In other words he has to be satisfied presonally that in the interest of :he 
security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inqmrv pre<cribed hy 
cl. ( 2). Jn the first place the general consensus in the decisions of this 
Court has been that executive function of the nature entrusted by certain 
articles, such as Arts. 309, 352, 356, 360 and in particular those articles 
in which the Pr03ident has to be satisfied himself about the exis ence of 
certain 'facts or state of affairs cannot be delegated by him to anyone else. 
Secondly even with regard ·o cl. (c) of the proviso there is specific obser-
vation in Jayanti/a/'s case that the powers of the President under that pro-
vision cannot be delegoted. Thirdly the dichotomy which has been speci-
fically introduced be ween the authority 
mentioned in cl. 
(b) and t~e 
President mentioned in cl. ( c) of the proviso cannot be without signifi-
cance. The Co"stitutio" makers apparently 'felt that a matter in which 
the hterest of the security of the 
Sta·e has to be 
con•idered 
should 
receive persoial attention of the President or the Head of the State and he 
should himself be satisfied that an inquiry unde' the substantive part di 
cl. (2), Ar:. 311 was not -expedient for the reasons stated in cl. (c) of 
the proviso in the case of a particular servant. [467 D-G] 
The order imou~ned in the present case was therefore illegal, ultra 
vires, and void. If the functions or functions exercisable unde' cl. (c) 
of the proviso under consideration could not be dele•ated or alloca·ed to 
anyone else by the President, Art. 77(2) could not stand in th€1 way di 
the Court in the matter of examining the validity of the order. i (467 H-
468 B] 
Mori ~nm De~q etc. v. G•nera/ Ma11a~er, N.£.P. Railway, ¥q/igaon, 
~-~u, [1964]5 S.C.R. 683, 731, 732 and lavanti'n/ Amr;t. Lal' Shodhan 
>.~"I·. N. Rana & Ors., [1964]5 S.C.R. 294, 307, 308, applied. 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971 J3 S.C.R 
CIVIL APPELL/I.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 576 of 
A 
1969. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 11, 
1968 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No, 1440 of 1.967. 
A. S. R. Chari, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and K. R. Nagaraja, 
B 
for the petitioner. 
S. T. Desai and R. N. Sachthey, for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 
S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5. 
S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the iintervener. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal by cei:tificate from a common 
judgment of the Delh_i High Court which disposed of a batch of 
c 
14 petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
The question 
involved is of importance and relates to the exercise of powers 
expressly conferred on the President by clause (c) of the proviso 
D 
to Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. 
On 14th April, 1967, the appellant and 1 i other members of 
the Ddhi Police Force were dismissed from service
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.