Grover, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a common judgment of the Delhi High Court which disposed of a batch of 14 petitions under Article 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 to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution
(2.) On 14th April, 1967, the appellant and 17 other members of the Delhi Police Force were dismissed from service. The order dismissing the appellant is reproduced below: Whereas, you Shri Sardari Lal, Sub Inspector, Delhi Police No. 331/D, Police Station Kamla Market, Delhi hold your office during the pleasure of the President and Whereas the President is satisfied that you are unfit to be retained in the public service and ought to be dismissed from service, and Whereas the President is further satisfied under sub-clause (c) of proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry, Now, therefore, the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect. By order and in the name of the President of India Sd/ B. Venkatararman) Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
(3.) It was common ground before the High Court and has not been disputed before us that the President had no occasion to deal with the case of the appellant himself and the order was made by Shri Venkataraman, Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was claimed by him that he was competent to make the order by virtue of the authority which he derived under the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 made under Article 77 (3) of the Constitution Before the High Court, the controversy was confined to the narrow point whether the function which is to be performed by the President under Clause (c) of the proviso to Article 311 (2) could be performed by the authority to whom such function had been allocated under the aforesaid Rules. The High Court negatived the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that such a function could not have been delegated by the President to any other authority. The High Court also relied on the provisions of Article 77 (2) which provides for the authentication of orders made in the name of the President.;