Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) These appeals are by certificate under Art. 132 and involve the determination of the amplitude contained and nature of the power conferred on the President by clause (c) of the second proviso of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.
(2.) 18 policemen - Sardari Lal and two others being Sub-Inspectors and the remaining being either Head Constables or Constables - of the Delhi Armed Police Force were dismissed from service by separate but similar orders dated 14th April, 1967, by way of punishment. They challenged those orders before the Delhi High Court mainly contending that the exercise of power under clause (c) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) was not upon President's personal satisfaction and as there - had been no inquiry as mandated by Art. 311(2), the dismissals were bad. The High Court did not accept the contention and rejected the writ petitions. The dismissed policemen carried appeals to this Court and by judgment dated 21st January, 1971 in Sardari Lal v. Union of India, (1971) 3 SCR 461, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court in each of the writ petitions and quashed the several orders of dismissal on the ground that each of them was illegal, ultra vires and void. This Court held :- "On the principles which have been enunciated by this Court, the function in clause (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2) cannot be delegated by the President to any one else in the case of a civil servant of the Union. In other words, he has to be satisfied personally that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold the inquiry prescribed by clause (2). In the first place, the general consensus has been that executive functions of the nature entrusted by the Articles, some of which have been mentioned before and in particular those Articles in which the President has to be satisfied himself about the existence of certain fact or state of affairs cannot be delegated by him to any one else. Secondly even with regard to clause (c) of the proviso, there is a specific observation in the passage extracted above from the case of Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan (1964) 5 SCR 294 that the powers of the President under that provision cannot be delegated. Thirdly, the dichotomy which has been specifically introduced between the authority mentioned in clause (b) and the President mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso cannot be without significance. The Constitution-makers appearently felt that a matter in which the interest of the security of the State had to be considered should receive the personal attention of the President or the head of the State and he should be himself satisfied that an inquiry under the substantive part of clause (2) of Article 311 was not expedient for the reasons stated in clause (c) of the proviso in the case of a particular servant." Following the judgment of this Court, the dismissed policemen were reinstated in service with effect from 16th April, 1971. and 5th of June, 1971, fresh orders of dismissal were served on these policemen again invoking the power under clause (c) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) for dispensing with the inquiry. One of the representative orders is extracted below:- "Whereas you, Shri Sardari Lal, Sub-Inspector being No. D-331 (present No. D 1177) of Delhi Police, held your office during the pleasure of the President." "And whereas the President, after considering all the facts and circumstances of your case, is satisfied under sub-clause (c) of the 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, in relation to you, such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2) of the said Article 311 of the Constitution." "Now, therefore, the President is pleased to dismiss you from service with immediate effect."
(3.) Several writ applications were again filed before the High Court. It was inter alia contended that the order of dismissal without an inquiry as envisaged in Art. 311(2) was vitiated as the power under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) had not been made upon personal satisfaction of the President.;