SATYAVIR SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 12-09-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

791 
SATYAVIR SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTE!'!BER 12, 1985 
[V.D. TULZAPU!U<.Ak, R.S. PATHAK AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] 
Service jurisprudence - Dismissal from serv.ice under clause 
(b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution 
of India read with Rule 19 (ii) of the Central Civil Services 
A 
B 
(Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 without serving 
C 
any charge-sheet and without holding any inquiry - r.onstitutional 
validity of. 
It is incwnbant upon the competent authority, before exer-
cising its power to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank of persons 
employed in civil capacities under. his control, to follow the 
D 
constitutional provisions contained in Article 311 and also the 
procedure prescribed in Rules 14 to 18 of the Central Civil 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 
Prior to the amendment of the second clause of. Article 311 
of the· Cons-titution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 with 
E 
effect from January 3, 1977, the second proviso to the said 
clause was the only proviso to the said clause 2. Article 311 as 
amended- by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 and 
the Constitution (Forty-second 
Amendment) Act, 1976 reads as 
follows:-
.. 311 Dismissal, remi>val or reduction in rank of persons 
F 
employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State:-
( l) No person who is a member of a civil service of the 
Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or 
holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed 
or removed by an autttority . subordinate to that by which he was 
appointed. 
G 
(2) No such 
person as - aforesaid shall be .dismissed or 
removed or reduced in rank except after an in<,.uiry in which he 
has been informed of the charges against him and given a reason-
able opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:-
Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to 
impose 
upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed 
H 
792 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP:Z S.C.R. 
A 
on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it 
shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of 
making representation on the penalty proposed: 
Ptovided further that this clause shall not apply:-
(a) 
where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank 
on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a 
criminal chargt; or 
(b) 
where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person 
or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be 
recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably 
c 
practicable to hold such inquiry;'or 
(c) 
where the Ptesident or the Governor, as the cse may be, is 
satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is 
not expedient to hold such inquiry. 
(3) 
If, in respect of any such person as afo~esaid, a question 
IJ 
arises whether it is reasonably practicable to· hold such inquiry 
as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the 
authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce 
him in rank shall be final•" 
· 
In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 
;; 
309 of the Constitution the President has made the Central Civil 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Rule 19 
of the said Rules is in substance the same as the second proviso 
to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and provides as follows:-
"Rule 19 Special procedure in certain cases:-
Notwithstand-
F 
ing anything contained in Rule 14 to rule 18:-
(i) 
where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the 
ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal 
charge, or 
G 
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons 
to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practi-
cable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, 
or 
(iii) where the Ptesident is satisfied that in the interest 
of 
H 
the securit; of the State, it is not expedient to hold any 
SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. 
793 
inquiry in the manner provl.ded in these rules, 
the disciplinary 
authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make 
such orders thereon as it deems fit: 
Ptovided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such 
consultation is necessary before any orders are made in any case 
under this rule." 
The wrod "COlllllission" is defined by clause (d) of Rule 2 as 
meaning "t

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