Madon, J. - (1.) The appellants who were employed in the Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India were dismissed from service in the exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, without serving any charge-sheet upon them and without holding any inquiry. The appellants thereupon filed in the Delhi High Court a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said orders of dismissal. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its judgment and order dated September 25, 1981. It is against the said judgment and order of the Delhi High Court that the present two Appeals have been filed by Special Leave granted by this Court.Article 311 of the Constitution
(2.) Prior to the amendment of the second clause of Art. 311 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, with effect from January 3, 1977, the second proviso to the said clause was the only proviso to the said clause (2). Art. 311 as amended by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, and the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, reads as follows "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State, (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply - (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.
(3.) The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, have been made by the President in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. Rule 19 of the said Rules is in substance the same as the second proviso to Article 311 (2) and provides as follows: "19. Special procedure in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18. (i) where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule." The word "Commission" is defined by clause (d) of Rule 2 as meaning "the Union Public Service Commission". The Decision in Tulsiram Patel's Case.;