KULDIP SINGH, J. - (1.) INDRAJIT Datta, respondent in the appeals herein, was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Naval Establishment. It cannot be disputed that the salary paid to be respondent was part of the estimates of Ministry of Defence. An enquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules) was held against him on various charges. As a result of the findings of he Enquiry Officer the respondent was removed from service by the order dated 8.7.1986. He challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the reinstatement of the respondent without backwages. These appeals by the Union of India are against the judgment of the Tribunal.
(2.) THE question before the Tribunal was whether the Rules were applicable to the permanent civilians in the defence services. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 331, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Rules were not applicable to the civilians working in the defence services. The Tribunals set aside the removal order on the following findings: "It is, therefore, clear that the applicant, being a civil employee serving in Defence, cannot claim any protection under Article 311 of the Constitution and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and subject to Article 311 thereof, have no application in his case. The entire disciplinary proceeding started by the suspension order and thereafter is misconceived without having any legal effect. In that view of the matter the applicant is deemed to be continuing in his service. We are not inclined to allow back wages to the applicant for the intervening period. The respondents are, however, directed not to recover from the applicant the amount which has already been paid to the applicant by way of subsistence allowance. This order, however, will not prevent the respondents to take appropriate legal recourse or pass any order sustainable in law in view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court." We see no ground to interfere with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. Mr. V.C. Mahajan learned counsel appearing for the appellants has, however, contended that by following the procedure prescribed under the Rules no prejudice was caused to the respondent rather he was benefited as the rules of natural justice were complied with before passing the order of removal. According to him, his services could have been terminated on the basis of pleasure doctrine under Article 310 of the Constitution of India and simply because he was given an opportunity to defend the charges he cannot have any grievance as no prejudice was caused to him. We find some plausibility in the contention but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we are not inclined to go into the same. It is not disputed that in the 1984 respondent submitted resignation to join a shipping company. The resignation was not accepted and instead he was subjected to the disciplinary proceeding under the Rules. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals dismissed.;