Author: Diksha Patole

Edited by: Sulesh Choudhary

ABSTRACT

The case between Union of India & Anr vs. Balbir Singh & Anr decided on 5th May, 1998 is based on the present dismissal of the Balbir Singh (respondent), the former Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, following the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984.

 Balbir Singh was arrest and the same was condemned to death for his role in the assassination of the Prime Minister, however, he was later discharged by the Supreme Court for lack of adequate proof. Still, going by his order of dismissal which was perhaps in proviso (c) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, Singh was acquitted. Decision to dismiss Singh has been made on practicing the contents of reported documents as affirmed by the Committee of Advisors and President of India deemed capable of posing a threat to the State Security.

 The first remedy that Balbir Singh took was to present his grievances before CAT seeking to quash the order of dismissal made against him. The CAT gave the decision in favour of Singh but the Apex court reversing the CAT’s order held that dismissal under proviso (c) of Article 311(2) of the Constitution was legal as there was adequate material that was secret and relevant to the security of the State.

 This the court was citing from S. R. Bommai and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors and B. Bhaskara Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh to apropose the proviso (c) to Article 311(2) showing that even though some of the material milestones are irrelevant but it does not matter because there are other justified moves that can sustain the decision.

The case showcases the balance between procedural fairness and the importance of decisive action for national security, reinforcing the narrow scope of judicial review in such context.

Keywords: Article 311(2), proviso(c), national security, supreme court of India, Indira Gandhi assassination, committee of advisors, central administrative tribunal, judicial review, reversal of tribunal decision, confidential material

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of India in the Article 311 protects the civil servants of the Union and State Governments from removal or other unfavourable changes to their position.

 The Article ensures that a government employee is not dismissed or removed without being given an opportunity to be heard and an investigation is made before any authority below the one that hired him initiates any disciplinary proceedings against such an employee.

 Article 311(1) shields the civil servant from being dismissed or removed without an inquiry. However, Article 311(2) provides that the employee should be informed of the matters being complained of against him or her and must be heard.

 But of course, there are times perhaps when the President or Governor has found it necessary that an inquiry cannot be served in the interest of the nation’s security.

 In this instance, the case refers mainly to the procedural and the judicial review part of Article 311. The Petitioner’s services were terminated at the instance of the Committee of Advisors and concurred with by the President of India on the basis of the evidence by the Intelligence Bureau on Balbir Singh (Respondent).

 The SC also analysed the issues regarding the approval of the President of the dismissal of the employee and whether the approval was influenced by the extraneous consideration or not.

FACTS OF THE CASE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The respondent in 1984 was posted as Sub-Inspector and was posted for security of the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s residence in Special Security District New Delhi.
2. Mrs Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated on the 31st of October, 1984 by her two security guards, Sub-Inspector Beant Singh and Constable Satwant Singh.
3. Criminal complaint was filed under section 307, 302 and 120-B I PC along with 25, 27, 54 & 59 of arms act.
4. Concerning the said criminal case, the respondent was also charged and arrested as well. While the respondent was charged before the Disciplinary Committee, on the 8th of December, 1984 he was arrested and subsequently placed under suspension. The order of suspension stating a Departmental Enquiry to be conducted.
5. Despite the finding of the said criminal case, the Intelligence Bureau got some material. From the material gathered, it is deduced that the Delhi Police had tendered a memo proposing dismissal of the respondent from the service as he was involved in activities that were considered subversive to the security of the State.
6. The Committee of Advisors suggested that the respondent should be dismissed from service as provided by proviso(c) to Article 311(2). Consequent to this recommendation, the President of India, under proviso (c) to Article 311 (2) issued and order dismissing the respondent from the service.
7. In the said criminal case the respondent received the death penalty along with two other offenders. The appeal has been lead and rejected by the High Court with respect to the conviction of the accused. But on the appeal to Supreme court the respondent was set free.
8. Therefore, on 23rd of April, 1990 the respondent filed an application before CAT challenging the order of dismissal passed by the first appellant.
9. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) first in favour of Balbir Singh said his dismissal was not proper.
10. To this the Supreme Court simply added the order of the CAT thus nullifying the application to challenge the dismissal.
11. The Supreme Court remarked that there were reasonable grounds for letting off him/her without conducting a Departmental Enquiry.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. This case started with the commencement of departmental action against the employee, Balbir Singh. Pursuant to the disciplinary rules and as provided under Article 311 sub section (2) an inquiry was carried out. Balbir Singh was informed of the charges against him besides, he was allowed to defend himself against the accusations leveled on him. The inquiry officer committed the accused for the charges that were leveled against him.
2. It is important to note that from the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority that usually could be a senior officer or the head of the department in question applied a penalty. Based on this penalty, it is evident that such a person would be dismissed, removed or demoted based on the invocation of Article 311.
3. Unsatisfied, Balbir Singh undertook an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding the disciplinary proceedings taken against him.
4. The court gave the verdict in the favour of Balbir Singh, being dissatisfied with the judgement passed by the court, the Union of India, representing the government department, approached the Supreme Court. The appeal would be dealing with the Court’s interpretation of Article 311 or whether the disciplinary action was procedurally proper.
5. The Supreme Court went straight to a microscopic analysis of the whole process to determine whether the government had observed all the legalities enshrined in Article 311 which outlines procedural measures to be followed. These involved determining if the inquiry was fair, the charge proven to be so and if indeed the punishment was commensurate with the offence.

 LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Respondent’s dismissal order dated 16/3/1985 was valid.
2. Whether the judgement made by the Tribunal was valid.

PETITIONER ARGUMENTS

1. Union of India and its officials submitted that the dismissal of Balbir Singh was under the sanction of second proviso to article 311(2), which is Clause C. This provision permits dismissal of a government employee without a departmental inquiry where it is deemed necessary in the interests of the state’s security.
2. The petitioner therefore pointed out that the documented evidence considered by a high level Committee of Advisors in which it was classified as confidential, justified dismissal on account of Singh’s part in things regarded as prejudicial to state security.
3. They stated that the Tribunal made a mistake in the invalidation of the dismissal since the Tribunal should not usurp the authority of the President in deciding on the fate of the appellant who dismissed employees as per the Committee’s advice.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. It was submitted that the dismissal of Balbir Singh was unjustified and demanded that the order should be quashed.
2. It was argued that there was no procedural fairness during the dismissal of Balbir Singh as it omitted the regular departmental inquiry process.
3. It was highlighted that the Supreme Court acquitted Balbir in the said criminal case and argued that the acquittal should have affected the dismissal decision.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 311(2) –  It requires that no officer can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank although he can be suspended and that he be allowed to explain himself. Particularly, this provision requires that before the adverse actions are taken against the employee, s/he should be afforded an opportunity to be heard and defend him/herself in case charges/ complaints are made against him/her. This makes sure that there is follow through that discipline is done in a fair and constitutional manner without infringing on any rights of the civil servants besides observing justice.

JUDGEMENT

1. In the final verdict of the case Union of India & Anr vs Balbir Singh & Anr Supreme court of India partly allowed the appeal filed by Union of India and quashed the CAT order.
2. The court referred to S. R. Bommai and Ors vs Union of India and Ors to define the nature of the review under proviso (c) to Article 311(2). The Court, once again, reminded that the Order-in-Council’s satisfaction can be challenged although it is limited to the examination whether the satisfaction was unmindful of mala fides or based on irrelevant grounds. Also, the court cannot override its satisfaction with that of the President if there is material that can support the action.
3. This court pointed out an error in judgment of the Tribunal in which they failed to take into account of the confidential document in relation to the State Security. B. Bhaskara Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh was used to point out that despite the fact that the material includes the irrelevant part, the action shall be justified by identifying other relevant materials justifying the action.
4. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that the Balbir Singh’s dismissal under proviso (c) to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was sound because there was enough material that was sealed and relevant to state security.

CONCLUSION

1. “The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs” the Bench ruled.
2. It asserted the constitutional propriety of the action taken under proviso (c) to Article 311(2) of Constitution of India thus allowing such dismissals in the interest of the nation’s security.
3. Therefore, in my view, the case defends the best interest of national security and the procedural fairness both by demonstrating how the Judiciary meticulously balances and strikes a middle ground on various novel issues to do with the stature of the law.

REFERENCES

1. R. Bommai and Ors v. Union of India and Ors
2. Bhaskara Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
3. Union of India & ANR v. Balbir Singh & ANR
4. Article 311(2) of Constitution of India
5. https://indiankanoon.org/