Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) Union of India preferred this appeal from a judgment passed by Mr. Justice P. C. Borooah as he then was on 17th of December, 1980. In writ petition Mohendra Protap Sinha being aggrieved by an order of dismissal as conveyed through the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (sic) that the President of India after considering all the facts and_ relevant materials and circumstances of the case was satisfied under sub-cl.(c) of the proviso to CL(2) of Article 311 of the Constitution read with R.14 of the All India Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1969 to the effect that in the interest of the security of the State it was not expedient to hold any enquiry under Cl.(2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and the President was satisfied that the writ petitioner was unfit to be retained in the public service as such it was decided to dismiss him from his services. The petitioner contended that such decision was mala fide, inasmuch as he had reason to believe that there were no materials upon which such order of dismissal could be passed under Article 311 Cl.(2) sub-cl.(c). The allegations against the writ petitioner were not serious or grave enough which could put the security of the State in jeopardy. Hence, there was misapplication of powers given under Article 311(2)(c) by the President of India as there were no cogent materials. The Court should go behind the order and ascertain as to whether there were proper materials for drawing the sub-jective satisfaction by the President of India.
(2.) It was the case of the writ petitioner that while performing his duties at Salua, District Midnapore, as a Commanding Officer, Eastern Frontier Rifles, he earned the displeasure of Shri Ranjit Kumar Gupta, the then Additional Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, and had to suffer the consequences by way of immediate transfer, non grant of increments, stoppage of increments and in various other manner discredited by Shri Gupta. On being promoted to the position of Inspector General of Police, Sri Ranjit Gupta, interfered with the services of the writ petitioner even to the extent of withdrawal of his official' vehicle, driver and orderlys and thereby the petitioner was constantly harassed and humiliated.
(3.) In the petition itself the writ petitioner contended that immediately "after' June, 1975, he came to know that he could be detained under the provisions of Maintenance of Internal Security Act and also the petitioner became aware that a proposal was given to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi that the Petitioners' services should be dispensed with under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution. He contended that all the grounds were incorrect, false and mala fide and he apprehended that there was a conspiracy to detain him under the said Act. Ultimately he was not detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. However, he was dismissed under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution according to the petitioner at the instance of the said Inspector General of Police and such recommendations based on facts were incorrect, baseless and mala fide.;