UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BINOD BIHARI BEHERA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 14-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
BINOD BIHARI BEHERA 
NOVEMBER 14, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Service Law 
Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 : Section 5 proviso and 
Section 22. 
Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 : Rules JA, 11 and 58. 
A 
B 
c 
Central Industrial Security Force-Sub-Inspectol'-Resignation-Accep-
tance by Deputy Inspector General-Request for withdrawal of resignation 
and re-enlistment in Force-Pennissibility of-Held : Deputy !nspector D 
General was competent to appoint Sub-Inspector and thus empowered to 
accept resignation-Withdrawal of Resignation after acceptance held not 
pemtissible-Power of appointment under Proviso to Section 5 can be exer-
cised in tenns of the Rule framed under the Act. _ 
Enlistment-Refusal of-Relevant factors to support refusal taken into 
account-Held it was not an arbitrary exercise of power under Rult: 58. 
The respondent, a Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security 
Force, submitted his resignation which was accepted by the Deputy Inspec-
E 
tor General of the Force on 17.10.1984. On 4.12.1984, he applied for 
F 
withdrawal of his resignation and alternatively prayed for his re-enlist-
ment in the Force but both his prayers were rejected. A writ petition filed 
by him was allowed by the High Court on the ground that (i) there was no 
valid acceptance of the resignation before its withdrawal because the 
Deputy Inspector General was not competent authority under the rules to G 
accept it; and (ii) the refusal of sanction for re-enlistment by Deputy 
Inspector General was arbitrary. Against the decision of the High Court 
an appeal was preferred before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment of the 
High Court, this Court 
H 
181 
A 
B 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1. The acceptance of respondent's resignation by the Deputy 
Inspector General was valid. It was not open to the respondent to withdraw 
his resignation after it has been duly accepted by the Deputy Inspector 
General. [186-G] 
2. Section 5 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 
prescribes for appointment of the enrolled members of the Force by 
Director General, who shall exercise that power in accordanc·e with the 
Rules made under the Act. The manner of exercise of power of appointment 
conferred on the Director General is regulated by the Central Industrial 
Security Force Rules, 1969 framed under Section 22 of the Act. The proviso 
C 
to Section 5 permits the Central Government by order to specify in this 
behalf such other supervisory officer as may be specified to exercise the 
power of appointment under the Section. Rule 11 fully satisfies the require-
ment of the proviso to Section 5. It clearly empowers the Deputy Inspector 
General to make appointments to the post of Inspector by virtue of which 
D 
the Deputy Inspector-General was competent to make the appointment of 
the respondent and, therefore, was also competent to accept his resigna-
tion. [184-D-E; 185-A; C-D] 
E 
F 
3. There is a cle!'r fallacy in the view taken by the High Court that 
the proviso to Section 5 requires conferment of power of appointment on 
a supervisory officer by an order made by the Central Government and 
Rule l;t. does not satisfy this requirement. The status of a rule framed by 
the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 22 
of the Act for carrying out purposes of the Act, which in particular and 
without prejudice to the generality of that power enables to provide by 
rules for regulating the conditions of service of members of the Force, 
cannot have lesser efficacy in law or be treated as not satisfying the 
requirement of an order of the Central Government contemplated by the 
proviso in Section 5. [186-B-E] 
G 
4. The only judicial scrutiny required for deciding whether refusal of 
the sanction for re-enlistment of the respondent as a member of the Force 
was arbitrary, was to see whether the record disclosed existence of relevant 
facts to support the rejection of sanction. The High Court perused the 
relevant files and has referred to the notes therein made by the Deputy 
Inspector General justifying refusal of the sanction for re-enlistment. The 
H reason assigned to support refusal of sanction for re-instatement was that 
U.0.1. v. B.B. BEHERA(J.S. VERMA,J.] 
183 
the service record of the respondent was not satisfactory. It was also A 
pointed out that this prayer of

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