LexV. S MENON versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962
Muiei!Jal Board,
Pus/J:.ar
v.
81«/1 Transport
1.11/wil:] RajM than
Sarlar, J,
1962
Nrv111161r, 2 2
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
and
under
s. !HA that order
could
not be
a~ec~e~
~t all. In my yiew,
the . appell~nt
.\<tm1c1pahty was clearly entitled to a wnt quashmg
the order of
the State Transport Authority of
January 6, 1961.
l would,
therefore, allow the appeal with
costs.
BY Court·r : By majority judgment the appeals
are allowed and the matter sent back for disposal in
accordance with law.
Parties to bear their own
Costs.
V. S MENON
v.
UNION OF INDIA
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAB,
K. N. WoNcHoo, K. C. DAS
GUPTA
and
.J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Puhlic Servant-Disciplinary action-Subversive activitiu-
chntge of a,ssor,ialing with communists-compulsory re.tirement-
Legality
of-Writ Petition-If
ma,intainable-Civil Services
(8tifeg1wrding of National Security) Rules, 1949. r. 3-
Constit11tinn of India, Arts. 2211, 311.
'fhc appellant, a public servant, wa:ii; charged under r. 3,
Civil Services (Safeguarding of Natio'1a1 Security) Rules, 1949,
for associating with communists and others engaged in subver ..
sive activities.
After enquiry, an order was made compulsorily
retiring the appellant fron1 service.
He filed a writ petition
before. the High Court hut it was dismissed.
He appellant
contended that the order of compulsory retirement was illegal
and that the High Court had jurisdiction to quash the same.
Hehl, that the charge against the appellant waa not a
charge under r. 3 and accordingly the order of compulsory
retirement was illegal. The rnle contemplated compulsory
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
405
retircn1ent in cases where the public servant was engaged or
suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, or \.vas associa·
ted with others in subversive activities. The appellant was
only alleged to have been associated with otl1crs who were
engaged in subversive activities; but it was not alleged that he
had taken any part in subversive activities by himself or along
with others. Taking interest in political activities of the
communist party did not amount to taking part in subversive
activities so long as the communist party was recognised political
party and was not banned.
Held, further, that the impugned order could be quashed
on a petition under Art. 226. The premature termination of the
service of the appellant, which was not justifiaU!c under r. 3
amounted to removal from service by way of penalty and
attracted the application of Art. 311.
P.
Balakctaiah v. The
Union
of
India,
[1958]
S. C.R. 1052, distinguished.
CrVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 83 of 62.
Appeal by special leave from the
judgment and order dated October 6, 1960, of the
Punjab High
Court
(Circuit Bench) Delhi in
L. P.A. No. 23-D of 1957.
R. V. S. Mani, 11. C. Mital aud P. Ke8ava
l'illai, for the appellant.
C. K. Daphtary, Holioiwr Uenerat of India,
R.H. Dhebar, P. D. Menon, for the respondents.
1962. November 22. The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SINHA, C. J.-This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment and order of the
Punjab High Court, dated October 6, 19()0, dismiss-
ing Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a
single Judge of that Court, dated September I 0, IH57,
dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Art. :!26
of the Constitution. There are
two respondents,
namely, (l} the Union of India and {2) Dircctor-
General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi.
1962
V.S. Minon
"
Unirm of lntlia
Sinlt.a, O. J.
}!Jf2
V.S.Mmon
v.
Uaiao of lnllia
S111M, C. J,
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
This case has had a chequered history as will
appear from the following facts.
The appellant was
appointed in June 1943 as an Engineering Super·
visor by the second respondent. In January 1949,
he was suspended from service on account of certain
activities of his which were considered to be objec·
tionable. He was du! y served with a notice to show
cause, and his cas!! was in due course considered by
the Committee of Advisers, who recommended that
he be retained in service.
In pursuance of the
recommendation of the Advisory Committee, the
appellant was reinstated with effect from May 26,
1951. After passing his departmental examination
in 1952, the appellant was appointed as officiating
Sub-Divisional Officer, Telegraphs.
While he was
so employed at Nagpur, he wasExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.