Sinha, C. J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Punjab High Court, dated October 6,1960, dismissing Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of that Court, dated September 10, 1957, dismissing the appellant's writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. There are two respondents, namely, (1) the Union of India and (2) Director- General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi.
(2.) This case had a checkered history as will appear from the following facts. The appellant was appointed in June 1943 as an Engineering Supervisor by the second respondent. In January 1949, he was suspended from service on account of certain activities of his which were considered to be objectionable. He was duly served with a notice to show cause, and his case 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 was served with a notice dated November 3, 1952, from the office of the Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs, under the provisions of Rr. 3 and 4 of Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949 which hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules in the following terms: "No. STA. 98-10/52 New Delhi, the 3rd November, 1952. whereas in the opinion of the "Competent Authority" as defined in rule 2 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, (who in your case is the Director-General) there are reasonable grounds for believing that after your reinstatement in service on the 26th May, 1951 you have continued to associate with others engaged in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about your reliability and consequently it is proposed to take action for your compulsory retirement from service under rule 3 of the said rules. The following are the allegations against you:- "Soon after your arrival in Nagpur important local communists were reported to have contacted you and during the discussions you were reported to have interested yourself in the political activities of the Communist party and other political organisations and groups in Nagpur. You are also reported to be actively continuing your association with Shri. B. N. Mukherjee and other prominent local Communists." 2. You are hereby required to proceed on such leave as may be admissible to you with effect from the 15th November, 1952. 3. You are hereby required to state within 14 days of the receipt of this notice whether you accept or deny the accuracy of the above allegations. If you do not reply within that period, it will be assumed that you admit the allegations. 4. In either case, you may within the same period submit any representation you wish to make as to why you should not be compulsorily retired from service under the said Rules (copy attached). 5. If after considering your representation the competent authority decides that no further action should be taken against you, you wil1 be informed accordingly. 6. If after considering your representation the competent authority considers that there are sufficient grounds for taking further action, the materials on record together with your representation will be referred to the Committee of Advisers set up by the Government of India for this purpose. 7. You are further asked to state whether you wish to be heard in person by the Director-General or by the Committee of Advisers before orders are passed on your case. 8 If you send no reply within 14 days of the receipt of this notice orders will be passed on your case without any further reference to you. Sd/- Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi. On November 17, 1952, the appellant submitted his answer to the show-cause notice. The answer runs into 9 pages (typescript) to the effect that the charge was vague, baseless and without foundation, and requesting for a personal hearing before the second respondent, as well as before the Committee of Advisers. The appellant submitted a letter on January 23, 1953, requesting that, "at the time of the oral hearing all the evidence on which the charges mentioned in your letter No. STA 98-10/52 dated 3-11- 1952 have been framed," may be made available to him so that on scrutinising them he might prove his innocence. On January 28, 1953, the second respondent examined the appellant in person, and thereafter on May 19, 1953, he was served a second show-cause notice, which is in these terms: "Memo No. STA-98-10/52/SEA Dated New Delhi, the 19th May, 1953. Shri V. S. Menon, Sub-divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Nagpur, was called up to answer the following charges:- "Soon after your arrival in Nagpur important local Communists were reported to have contacted you and during the discussions you were reportd to have interested yourself in the political activities of the Communist Party and other political organisations and groups, in Nagpur. You are also reported to be actively continuing your association with Shri B.N. Mukherjee and other prominent local Communists." 2. The Committee of Advisers have considered the defence submitted by Shri V. S. Menon and the record of the personal hearing and are provisionally of the opinion that sufficient ground exist to bring home these charges to Shri Menon, justifying his compulsory retirement from service under Rule 3 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. 3. Shri Menon is, therefore, called upon to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum, why he should not he compulsorily retired from service. 4. A copy of the record of personal hearing granted to him is forwarded herewith. 5. If Shri Menon fails to submit his defence within the period stipulated above, orders will be passed ex parte. Sd - Director-General." On August 28, 1953, the following order was passed against him: "Memorandum No. STA. 98-10/52/SEA Dated New Delhi, the 28th August, 53 In the Office Memo of the Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs No. STA. 98-10/52 dated the 3rd November 1952, Shri V. S. Menon, Officiating Sub-Divisional Officer Telegraphs, Nagpur, was informed of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action for his compulsory retirement from service under R. 3 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, and was called upon to submit any representation he wished to make as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service under the said rules. Shri Menon submitted his statement in defence on 17th November, 1952, in which be also expressed a desire for a personal hearing by the Director-General. He was accordingly granted an oral hearing by the Director-General on 28th January, 1953. 2. The Committee of Advisers having considered the defence submitted by Shri V. S. Menon, and the record of the personal hearing, were of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist justifying Shri Menon's compulsory retirement from service under R. 3 of the said rules Shri Menon was thereupon called upon in Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs Memo No. STA. 98-10/52- SEA, dated the 19th May, 1953 to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. Shri Menon submitted his representation on 18th June, 1953. This representation has also been considered. 3. The competent authority (who in this case is the Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs) after careful consideration of this case is of the opinion that Shri V. S. Menon has been associated with others in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about his reliability, and is satisfied that his retention in the public service is prejudicial to national security. Shri V. S. Menon is hereby informed that the competent authority has accordingly decided with the prior approval of the President, that Shri V. S. Menon should be compulsorily retired from service in accordance with the provision of the R. 3 of Civil Services, Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. ( H. L. Jerath) Director - General, Posts and Telegraphs."
(3.) The appellant moved the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Nagpur under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The case was heard by a Full Bench of three Judges consisting of Kaushalendra Rao, V. R. Sen and Bhutt, JJ. The Court was agreed as to the order to be passed, namely, that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that no writ could issue against the respondents, though the Judges were not agreed on the merits of the controversy Kaushalendra Rao, J. was of the view that even on merits the Court could not grant any relief, whereas Sen and Bhutt, JJ., took the view that it was not covered by Art. 310 of the Constitution, and that the allegations in the initial show-cause notice were vague, nor did they disclose any personal association on the part of the appellant in any subversive activities, and that, therefore, there was no compliance with R. 4 of the Rules.;