UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus M.M. SHARMA

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 30-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 18 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
M.M. SHARMA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2797 of 2011) 
MARCH 30, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Service Law - Miscon,duct - Dismissal - Respondent, 
C First Secretary in Indian Embassy at China, was allegedly 
found involved in unauthorized and undesirable liaison with 
foreign nationals of the host country - Appellant-authority, by 
exercising powers under clause(c) of the second proviso to 
Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, dispensed with enquiry into 
D the conduct of the respondent and dismissed him from service 
- Respondent challenged the order - Tribunal directed re-
consideration of the punishment - Appellant-authority 
maintained the dismissal order - Respondent again filed 
application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed -
E Respondent filed writ petition - High Court set aside the 
second order of appellant-authority on ground that it was not 
a reasoned order and directed the appellants to pass fresh 
order with reasons for imposing penalty of dismissal -
Justification of - Held: Not justified - The reasons contained 
F in the records establish that in the facts of this case holding 
of an enquiry was rightly dispensed with, in the interest of 
security of the country - A very high level committee, on basis 
of materials available on record, prima facie came to the 
conclusion that action could be taken for dismissal of 
G respondent - The charges against the respondent being very 
serious and also in view of the fact that the respondent was 
working in a very sensitive post, it cannot be said to be a case 
of disproportionate punishment to the offence alleged - The 
power to be exercised under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the 
H 
18 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. M.M. SHARMA 
19 
Second proviso to Article 311 (2), being special and A 
extraordinary powers conferred by the Constitution; there was 
no obligation on the part of the disciplinary authority to 
communicate the reasons for imposing the penalty of 
dismissal and not any other penalty - If in terms of the 
mandate of the Constitution, the communication of the charge 
B 
and holding of an enquiry could be dispensed with, in view of 
the interest involving security of the State, there is equally for 
the same reasons no necessity of communicating the reasons 
for arriving at the satisfaction as to why the extreme penalty 
of dismissal is imposed on the delinquent officer - Order c 
passed by the High Court is therefore set aside and the order 
passed by the Tribunal is restored - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Art.311(2), sub-clause(c) of second proviso. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 311 - Exercise of 
power under - Ambit and scope of - Discussed. 
D 
Doctrines - Doctrine of 'pleasure" - Recognition of, under 
th.e. Indian Constitution by way of Article 310 - Held: Under 
the aforesaid provision, all civil posts under the Government 
are held at the pleasure of the Government under which they 
E 
are held and are terminable at its will - But the same is 
subject to other provisions of the Constit.ution which include 
the restrictions imposed by Article 310(2) and Article 311(1) 
and Article 311 (2). 
Respondent, First Secretary in Indian Embassy at 
F 
China, was allegedly found involved in unauthorized and 
undesirable liaison with foreign nationals of the host 
country. The appellant-authority, by exercising powers 
under clause(c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of 
the Constitution, dispensed with enquiry into the 
G 
conduct of the respondent and dismissed him from 
service. Respondent challenged the order before the 
·Tribunal. The Tribunal directed re-consideration as to 
whether the penalty of dismissal could be substituted by 
any other lesser punishment. The appellant-authority 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT, REPORTS 
[2011) 6 S.C.R. 
A maintained the dismissal order. Respondent again filed 
application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed 
the application. Respondent filed writ petition. The High 
Court set aside the second order of appellant-authority 
on ground that it was not a reasoned order and directed 
B the appellants to pass order afresh with reasons for 
imposing penalty of dismissal from service. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD:1. Article 311 of the Constitution provides for 
protection to public servant from punitive action being 
taken against them by an authority subordinate to one 
who appointed him, 

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