Holding

The dismissal orders were valid because the President's satisfaction was exercised in the constitutional sense—on the advice of the Council of Ministers—and a fresh order could be issued without court leave once the earlier defects were removed.

Summary

Eighteen Delhi Armed Police officers were dismissed in 1967 under Article 311(2) proviso clause (c) without an inquiry. The Supreme Court quashed those orders in 1971, reinstating the officers, but the Government issued fresh dismissal orders in June 1971 invoking the President's personal satisfaction. The petitioners challenged the validity of the new orders, arguing that the President must be personally satisfied, that a second dismissal after reinstatement required court leave, and that the President's satisfaction was not justiciable. The Court held that the President acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers, which satisfies the constitutional requirement of "satisfaction" and therefore the orders were not vitiated. It further held that after the earlier orders were set aside, the employer could issue a fresh dismissal order without seeking court permission, provided the statutory requirements were met, including a written record of the reason. The Court also affirmed the duty to record the reason in writing, though communication to the servant is merely advisable, and directed lump‑sum compensation in lieu of compassionate allowances. The appeals were dismissed, subject to the compensation order.

Issues considered

The President's satisfaction under Article 311(2) proviso clause (c) must be personal or can be based on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Whether a second dismissal order can be passed after reinstatement without leave of the Court, in view of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab.
The justiciability of the President's satisfaction and the requirement to record reasons in writing.
The constitutional obligation to communicate the reason for satisfaction to the aggrieved servant.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 166(3), s. Article 311(2) proviso clause (c), s. Article 361(1), s. Article 77(3)

Subjects

Article 311Presidential satisfactionCouncil of MinistersDismissal of government servantsInquiry dispensationJusticiabilityCompensationPolice disciplineConstitutional law

Judgment

A BAKSHI SARDARI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRs
& ORS. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

JULY, 31 1987
B

[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M DUTT,JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 311(2)(c) Police per-
sonnel-Dismissed from service-Enquiry dispensed with-Satis-
-
C faction of President-Whether personal satisfaction necessary-
Communication of reasons-Whether obligatory.

Practice and procedure: Order of dismissal--Set aside for non-
compliance of requirements of law-Whether employer entitled to pass
p fresh order of dismissal after reinstatement-Leave of CoUTl-Whether ).
necessary.

The Supreme Court having quashed in appeal the dismissal or-
ders dated April 14, 1%7 passed against the appellant-policemen, they
E were served fresh orders of dismissal on June 5, 1971 In exercise of the 1 _
power conferred under clause (c) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of ~
the Constitution. The appellants challenged that these orders, without
an inquiry as envisaged in Aritlce 311(2), were vitiated as the power
under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to that Article had not been
'-r
exercised upon personal satisfaction of the President. On behalf of the
F respondent-Union of India, it was contended that the President had
personally considered all the facts and circumstances of each case-and,
after having satisfied himself, passed the order that in the interest of the
security of the State it was not expedient to hold the inquiry.

The High Court held that the exercise of the power by the Presi- ·'>-·
G dent under cluase (c) to the proviso to Article 311(2) was fully covered
by clause (1) of Article 361 and the President was not ao5werable to any
court for the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under
this clause of the proviso to Article 311 and no court had jurisdiction to
examine the facts and circumstances that led to the satisfaction of the
President envisaged in clause (c) except probably on the ground of
·Ji malafide, and dismissed the Writ Petitions.
704
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL v. U.0.1. 705

In the appeals before this Conrt, it was contended on behalf of the A
appellant that the impugned order of dismissal in 1971 which was
claimed to have been passed on the personal satisfaction of the Presi- ·
dent was vitiated in view of the rule laid down in the case of Shamsher
Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, that the appellants having been
reinstated in service in terms of judgment of this Court, without leave of
the Court, no second order of dismissal on the same material could have B
been passed, and that the High Court was wrong in holding that the
sufficiency of satisfaction of the President was not justiciable.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

- HELD: I.I The order of the President was not on the basis'of his c
personal satisfaction as required by the Rule in Sardari Lal's case but
was upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as required in
Shamsher Singh's alSO. The dismissal order was, therefore, not
vitiated. [711H, 712A]

1.2 This Court quashed the orders of dismissal earlier on account D
of non-compliance of the requirement of law and when the police offi-
cers returned to service it was open to the employer t<Mleal with them in
accordance with law. No leave of Court was necessary for maldng a
fresh order in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after removing
the defects. [712B]
E
_..,._ 1.3 There was a constitutional obligation to record in writing the
reason for the satisfaction that one of the sub-clauses was applicable
and if such reason was not recorded in writing, the order dispensing
~ with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would
both be void and unconstitutional, and the communication of the reason
to the aggrieved Government servant was not obligatory but perhaps F
advisable. [712D]

In the instant case, the record of the case indicates that the reason
has been recorded though not communicated. That would satisfy the
requirements oflaw. [712E]
G
Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC
398, followed.

1.4 No malatides could be attributed to the impugned order of
dismissal. The President's order is dated 2nd of June and the typed
orders of dismissal bear the date of the following day. There is, there- H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A fore, no scope to suggest that typed orders representing Govern-
ment's decision were available on the record by the time the matter was
placed before the President. [712F]

[This Court has no sympathy for indiscipline. In an orderly force
like police, indiscipline is bound to give rise to serious problems of
B administration. The Government had made it known that they inte-
nd"d to treat even these policemen liberally by giving them compassion-
ate allowances. The situation would be met in a just way if lump-sum
amounts are paid to the dismissed policemen who are alive or to their
legal representatives in the case of those who are dead, at the rate of

c
Rs.60,000 to Sub-Inspectors, Rs.50,000 to Head Constables and
Rs.40,000 to Constables.] [713B, D-F] -
Sardari Lal v. Union of India & Ors., (1971] 3 SCR 461 and
Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 1 SCR 814, referred
to.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1491-1501of1974. ).

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1973 of the High
Court of Delhi in C.W. Nos 954/71,,211 to 218 and 249 and 251 of
1972.
E
F.S. Nariman, U.S. Prasad, S.K. Mehta, M.K. Dua, S.M. Sarin, -l--
Aman Vachhar and R. Jagannath for the appellants.

Anil Dev Singh, Miss Halida Khatoon. P. Parmeswaran for the .~
Respondents.
p
The judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J.These appeals are by certificate under
Article 132 and involve the determination of th~ amplitude contained
and nature of the power conferred on the President by clause (c) of the
G second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. 'r
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
H challenged those orders before the Delhi High Court mainly contend-
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.) 707

ing that the exercise of power under clause (c) of the second proviso to A
Article 311(2) was not upon President's personal satisfaction and as
there had been no inquiry as mandated by Article 311(2), the dismis-
sals 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 2 lst January, 1971 in Sardari Lal v.
Union of India & Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 461 a Constitution Bench of this B
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
C

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 con-
sensus has been that executive functions of the nature D
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 E
extracted above from the case of Jayantilal Amrit Lal
Shodhan-[ 1964] 5 SCR 294-that the powers of the Presi-
dent under that provision cannot be delegated. Thirdly,
the dichotomy which has been specifically introduced bet-
ween the authority mentioned in clause (b) and the Presi-
dent mentioned in clause (c) of the proviso cannot be with- F .
out significance. The Constitution makers apparently 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 sub-
stantive part of clause (2) of Article 311 was not expedient G
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
rtinstated in service with effect from 16th April, 1971. On 5th of June,
1971, fresh orders of dismissal were served on these policemen again H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A invoking the power under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article
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
B 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

c
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."
D
Several writ applications were again filed before the High Court.
It was inter alia contended that the order of dismissal without an in-
quiry as envisaged in Article 311(2) was vitiated as the power under
sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) had not been
made upon personal satisfaction of the President.
E
In the returns made to the Rule to two separate affidavits-one
by the Inspector General of Police and the other by a Joint Secretary
to the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs-it was
maintained that the President had personally considered all the facts
and circumstances of each case and after having satisfied himself, pas-
. F sed the order that in the interest of the security of the State, it was not
expedient to· hold the inquiry. The original orders of the President
along with the connected papers were placed before the High Court
and the High Court held:-

"The contention, therefore, that the President himself did
G not pass the impugned orders is rejected. The question for '(-
decision then is whether the court can scrutinize and
examine the facts and circumstances that led the President
to arrive at the satisfaction that it was not expedient in the
interest of the security of the State to hold the inquiry
envisaged in Article 311(2) against the petitioners, andjf
so, to what extent."
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.) 709

While examining this aspect of the matter, the High Court relied on A
the ratio of the decision of this Court in Sardari Lal's case (supra) and
examining the second aspect of the contention, the High Court held:-

"The result, therefore, is that the exercise of power by the
President under clause (c) to the proviso to Article 311(2)
~ is fully covered by clause (1) of Article 361 and the Presi- B
;
dent is not answerable to any court for the exercise and
y' performance of his powers and duties under this clause of
the proviso to Article 311 and no court has jurisdiction to
examine the facts and circumstances that led to the satis-

- faction of the President envisaged in clause (c) except pro-
bably on the ground of mala fide."
c
l' The plea of mala fides is based upon the alleged factual situation that
the respective impugned orders had already been taken by the
Government and the President simply endorsed them was not
entertained by the High Court and ultimately each of the writ petitions
was dismissed. D
-(
Mr. Nariman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appel-
!ants has advanced three contentions in support of these appeals:-

(1) the impugned order of dismissal in 1971 which is claimed to
have been passed on the personal satisfaction of the Presi.dent is E
--)- vitiated in view of the rule in the case of Shamsher Singh & Anr. v.
State of Punjab, [1975] ! SCR 814.

'~ (2) appellants having been reinstated in service in terms of the
judgment of this Court, without leave of the Court, no second order of
dismissal on the same material could have been passed; and F

(3) the High Court was wrong in holding that the sufficiency of
satisfaction of the President was not justiciable.

The first aspect argued by Mr. Nariman is on the basis of the
..., reversal of the view expressed by this Court in Sardari Lal's case G
(supra) by a later larger Bench judgment of this Court. The ratio in
Sadari Lal's case came to be considered in Shamsher Singh's case
(supra) by a seven-fodge Bench. Ray, CJ., who spoke for five mem-
bers of the bench and with whom by a separate judgment, the remain-
ing two learned Judges agreed spoke thus:-
H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A "The decision in Sardari Lat's case that the President has to
be satisfied personally in exercise of executive power or
c•
function and that the functions of the President cannot be
delegated is with respect not the correct statement of law
and is against the established and uniform view of this
Court as embodied in several decisions to which reference
B has already been made. These decisions are from the year J
1955 up to the years 1971. The decisions are Rai Saheb \
Ramjawaya Kapurv. State of Punjab, [1955] 2 SCR 225;A. y
Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970] 3 SCR 505 and
U.N.R. Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi, (1977] Suppl. SCR 46. ,.
c
These decisions neither referred to nor considered in
Sardari Lal's case." -
\

"The President as wdl as the Governor is the Constitu- Y
tional or formal head. The President as well as the Gover-
nor exercises his powers and functions conferred on him by
or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his
D Council of Ministers, save in spheres where the Governor
is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his
functions in his discretion. Wherever the Constitutjon re-
quires the satisfaction of the President or the Governor for
the exercise by the President or the Governor of any power
or function, the satisfaction required by the Constitution is
E not the personal satisfaction of the President or the Gover-
nor but the satisfaction of the President or Governor in the
Constitutional sense in the cabinet system of Governme11t,
that is, satisfaction of his Council of Ministers on whose aid
and advice the President or the Governor generally exer-
cise all his powers and functions. The decision of any minis-
ter or officer under rules of business made under any of
these two Articles 77(3) and 166(3) is the decision of the
President or the Governor respectively. These Articles did
not provide for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of
Minister or Officer under the rules of business is the deci-
sion of the President or the Governor."

In their writ petitions, each of the appellants had contended before the
High Court, following the ratio of Sadari Lat's case which was then the
law, that the President had not been personally satisfied before exer-
cise of the power under the proviso to dispense with the inquiry and
the respondents had taken pains to establish by pleading and produc-
H ing the original records that the President had satisfied himself person-
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL v. U.0.1. !MISRA, J.) 711

ally before be made the order dispensing with the inquiry. To reduce A
the argument on this aspect and to have an exact impression of how the
impugned orders were made, we directed learned counsel appearing
for the Union of India to produce the original record and the same has
been put before this Court. It transpires therefrom that the papers
were placed by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the consideration of
the President by the Joint Secretary of the Union Territory of Delhi on B
22nd of March, 1971, and were returned with a note of 20th of April,
1971, to the effect that the President would like to have the advice of
the Council of Ministers in the matter. A draft note for the Cabinet
was prepared relating to the matter and as the record indicates it got
through the Cabinet and the Prime Minister recorded her approval.
Thereafter, it was again placed before the President along with a note C
prepared on 25th May, 1971. The note clearly indicated:
y
' "President's Secretariat may kindly see their note extrac-
ted at pre-page 7/n. As desired by the President, the matter
was placed before the Council of Ministers. A copy of the
Note submitted to the Cabinet may kindly be seen at flag D
'H'. The Cabinet has approved the proposal contained in
paragraph 6 thereof. Minutes of the Cabinet meeting may
be seen at flag'!'."

"It is requested that the matter may now be placed before
the President for consideration." E

On 2nd June, 1971, the President made the following order:-

"I have considered the cases of the eighteen Police officers,
whose names are given in the list appended to this order. I
have also considered all the facts and circumstances of their F
cases stated in the notes of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
dated March 22, 1971, and May 25, 1971."

"I am satisfied, under paragraph (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 G
hold an inquiry into the case of any one of these Police
Officers. I accordingly order that these eighteen Police
Officers be dismissed from service with immediate effect."

It is clear from what has been extracted above that the order of the
President was not on the basis of his personal satisfaction as required_ H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 3 S.C.R.

A by the Rule in Sardari Lat's case but was upon the aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers, as required in Shamsher Singh's case. In view of
this factual position, learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated
that there was no force in his first contention.

We see no force in the second point canvassed by Mr. Nariman.
B This Court quashed the orders of dismissal on account of non-
compliance of the requirements of the law and when the Police Offi-
cers returned to service it was open to the employer to deal with them
in accordance with law. No leave of this Court was necessary for
making a fresh order in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after
removing the defects.
c Now coming to the third contention of Mr. Nariman, the matter
appears to have been concluded by the judgment of this Court in the
case of Union of India & Anr. v. Tu/siram Patel & Ors., [1985) 3 SCC
398. Those were also cases of striking railwaymen against whom orders
of dismissal had been made after dispensing with the inquiry by exer-
D cise of powers under the same proviso. Four learned Judges represent-.
ing the majority spoke through Madon, J. and this Court held that
there was a constitutional obligation to record in writing the reason for
the satisfaction that one of the sub-clauses was applicable and if such
reason was not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the
inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be
E void and unconstitutional. The Court further stated that communica-
tion of the resaon to the aggrieved Government servant ·was not ob-
ligatory but perhaps advisable. The record of the case produced before
us clearly indicates that the reason has been recorded though not
communicated. That would satisfy the requirements of the law as indi~
cated in Tulsiram Patel's case. The plea of mala fides as had been
F contended before the High Court and casually reiterated before us
arises out of the fact that typed orders dated 3rd of June, 1971, were
already on record in the file when the papers were placed before the
President; such a contention is without any substance. The President's
order is dated 2nd of June and the typed orders of dismissal bear the
date of the following day. In this setting, there is no scope to suggest
G that typed orders representing Government's decision were available
on the record by the time the matter was placed before the President.

All the legal contentionshave failed. Ordinarily in such a situa-
tion, the appeals have to be dismissed. Mr. Nariman, however, has
placed before us for consideration a statement made by the Home
H Minister before the Lok Sabha on 18th of December, 1978. Therein he
had stated:-
BAKSHI SARDARI LAL v. U.0.1. [MISRA, J.] 713

" .............. 18 persons who have been dismissed by A
invoking clause (c) of the proviso to Article 311(2) will be
considered for grant of compassionate allowances."

. This statement was also reiterated in the papers placed before the
President. Obviously the Government intended to pay them compas- B
'~ sionate allowances. We have no sympathy for indiscipline. In fact, in
I an orderly force like the Police, indiscipline is bound to give rise to
"'Y serious problems of administration. It is, however. unnecessary to go
' into that aspect of the matter as the Government had made it known
that they intended to treat even these 18 policemen liberally by giving

- them compassionate allowances. The matter has been sufficiently
protracted, the first order of dismissal was made a little more than 20 C
years back and in the meantime some of the policemen out of this
.,,. group of 18 have died. In such circumstances to leave this matter for a
' future date for fixing compassionate allowance would not be just and
proper. We had suggested to the learned counsel appearing for the
Union of India to have instructions and give us an indication of what
was in view of the Government when compassionate allowance was D
thought of. There has been no response yet. We are not prepared to
detain delivery of the judgment on that ground. In our opinion, the
situation would be met in a just way if instead of paying a recurring
allowance, a Jump sum amount is paid to the policemen who are alive
or their legal representatives in the case of the policemen who are
dead. We accordingly direct that in the case of Sub-Inspectors who E
were dismissed, a lump sum amount ~f Rs.60,000 (Rupees Sixty
Thousand only), in the case of Head-Constables who were dismissed a
sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and in the case of
Constables a lump sum of Rs.40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand only)
should be paid within one month from today.
F
The appeals are dismissed subject to the direction for payment
of the lump sum amounts indicated above in lieu of compassionate
allowance. There would be no orders for costs.

N.P.V. Appeals dismissed.
G