SATYAVIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

791 SATYAVIR SINGH AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. ETC. ETC. SEPTE!'!BER 12, 1985 [V.D. TULZAPU!U<.Ak, R.S. PATHAK AND D.P. MADON, JJ.] A B **Service** **jurisprudence - Dismissal** **from serv.ice under** **clause** (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 (ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 without serving C any charge-sheet and without holding any inquiry - r.onstitutional validity of. It is incwnbant upon the competent authority, before exercising its power to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under. his control, to follow the D constitutional provisions contained in Article 311 and also the procedure prescribed in Rules 14 to 18 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Prior to the amendment of the second clause of. Article 311 of the· Cons-titution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 with E effect from January 3, 1977, the second proviso to the said clause was the only proviso to the said clause 2. Article 311 as amended- by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 and the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 reads as follows: .. 311 Dismissal, remi>val or reduction in rank of persons F employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State: ( l) 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 autttority . subordinate to that by which he was appointed. G (2) No such person as - aforesaid shall be .dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an in<,.uiry 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 H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP:Z S.C.R. A 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: Ptovided 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 chargt; 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 c practicable to hold such inquiry;'or (c) where the Ptesident or the Governor, as the cse 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 afo~esaid, a question IJ 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•" In exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article ;; 309 of the Constitution the President has made the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Rule 19 of the said Rules is in substance the same as the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and provides as follows: "Rule 19 Special procedure in certain cases:- NotwithstandF ing 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** G (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 Ptesident is satisfied that in the interest of H the securit; of the State, it is not expedient to hold any SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. 793 inquiry in the manner provl.ded in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: Ptovided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such **consultation** **is** **necessary before** **any** **orders are** **made** **in** **any** **case** under this rule." The wrod "COlllllission" is defined by clause (d) of Rule 2 as meaning "the Union l'Ublic Service Commission". A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, with one learned Judge dissenting, except as regards the interpretation to be placed upon clause ( c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, while interpreting Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Cons_titution and in particular the second proviso to Article 311 (Z) of the Constitution, in the case of Union of India and Another v. Tulairam Patel. and other connected matters, [1985] 3 sec 398 reached as many as 114 conclusions on several issues like the pleasure doctrine in the United Kingdom and in India, the nature of inquiry under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and in particular the second proviso to Article 311 (2), Article H and the second proviso, the Service Rules and Acts, the ratio decfdenclf in Divisianal Personnel Officer, Sonthern Rai1-y and another V• T.!l. Qnllappan, [1976] 1 SCR 783 and the correctness ther~of, and the remedies available to civil servants both departmental remedies and by way of judicial review **etc.** According to Challappan's case, a civil servant to whom a service rule analogous to the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is sought_ to be applied has only the right to be heard with respect to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him. The majority judgment, in Tulsiram Patel's case, has, however, conferred upon the civil servants who have been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank bY applying the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule the right to a full and complete inquiry in, an appeal or, revision unless -a situation envisaged by the secMd proviso is pre'lailing at the time of the hearing of th.. appeal or revision application. Even in such a case under the majority judgment the hearing of the appeal or revision application is to he postponed for a reasonable length of time for the situation to become norms!. The a,ppellants in both the appeals were employees of the Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of A B c D E F G H 794 SUPRE~!E COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP;2 s.c.~. A B c D E F G H ~ot perform their duties but instead collected inside the building and in the premises in groups stopping work in many branches. A large number of them went round shouting slogans and made speeches in the corridors of the office. On November 29, 1980, a letter was issued by an association called the Cabinet Secretariat, (Research and Analysis Wing) Employees Association (Regd.) demanding the illlnediate withdrawal of the criminal cases against the 31 e.mployees as also of the said security regulation. India. Earlier, the different branches and departments of the RAW in New Delhi were scattered in several buildings. Ultimately, a new building was constructed for the RAW at Lodhi Road. In the said building the Counter Intelligence Section was house~. After the CIS was shifted to the building at Lodhi Raod, strict security measures were introduced and the employees, when going from one floor to the other, had to show their identity cards. This was resented by the employees and they demanded the withdrawal of this regulation and insisted that the identification check should be made only at the time of entering the building. In the forenoon on November 2 7, 1980 a number of staff members collected in the galleries leading to the CIS rooms, protesting against the said security regulation and demanding its immediate withdrawal. All attempts to pacify them proved unsuccessful, More and more employees joined them and they turned aggressive, breaking into the various rooms of the CIS unit. Several persons forced their entry into the room of the Director CIS and forced, him as also the Assistant Director and the Security Field Officer who were in the room to stand in a corner and did not allow them to move f rnm the spot but kept them as hostages in order to have their deJMnd conceded. The employees who had gathered there shouted slogans against the organisation and its officers. These slogans were obscene, abusive, threatening and personal in nacure. All attempts made by senior officers to pacify them proved unsuccessful and the employees made it clear that they would not let the said three officers go unless the Director of , the Counter Intelll gnece Section announced the withdrawal of the said security regulation. Ultimately with the help of the local police &t about 8,30 p.m. the said three officers were rescued and 31 agitators who were found inside the room were arrested and charged under sections 342, 506, 353, 186, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. The arrested employees were suspended under clause (b) of sub-rule 1 of rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control arni Appeal) Rules, 1965 as a criminal case against them was under investigation. The next day, namely, on November 28, 1980, the agitation continued and many employees did SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. 795 The letter stated that unless these demands were met, the employees would go on a pen-down strike with immediate effect. Thereupon, orders of suspension were issued" against those who were taking a leading, active and aggressive role in the agitation and indulging in these activities. The said suspension orders were issued from the 1st December, 1980 onwards but the pen-down strike continued and spread to other off ices of the RAW in New Delhi as well as in different parts of India including Lu~.know and JS111111.1. Daily the situation worsened. There was completed insubordination and total breskdown of discipline. The atmosphere was charged with tension and there did not seem any hope of the situation becoming normal. Ultimately the seven ·Appellants ir. Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982 and the sole Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1982 were dismissed by orders dsted December 6, 1980 without holding any enquiry by applying to them clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) re'ld with Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Thereupon a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court. At the date of the filing of the said writ petition only appellants Numbers 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982 had been served with the orders of dismissal while the remaining Appellants and Respondents Nos. 4 to 44 in Civil Appeal· No. 242 of 1982 joined in the said writ petition as co-petitioners together with the Cabinet Secretariat (Research and Analysis Wing) Employees Association (Regel.), contending that similar action of dismissal was being 'lpprehended by them. Pending the said writ petition the orders of dismissal were also served upon the remaining Appellants. During the course of the hearing of the said writ petition a statement was made to the High Court on behalf of the Union of India that the other petitioners would not be dismissed without holding a regular inquiry. The said writ petitf.on, therefore, proceeded only so far as the Appellants in these two appeals were concerned. A Di vision Bench of the said High Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated September 25, 1981. Hence the appeals by special leave. In view of the judgment in Tulsiram Patel's case overruling Cballappan'a case, the only contention taken at the hearing of these two Appeals wss that the said orders of dismissal were passed mala fide and the reasons given therein for dispensing with the inquiry were not true and that an inquiry was reasonably practicable. In support thereof, it was contended that (i) the orders of suspension showed that a disciplinary inquiry A B c D E F G H A B _c_ IJ 796 SUPREME COORT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. was in fact contemplated and nothing had happened between the date of the orders of suspension and the date of the orders of dismissal warranting the conclusion that the inquiry was not reasonably practicable; (ii) while eight employees were dismissed for their part in the agitation which took place in Delhi, in respect of the agitation which took place in the Lucknow office of the RAW only two employees of that office were dismissed and therefore, there was no applicaion of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority; (iii) even on December 6, 1980 a suspension order was issued against one of the employees and that ~n December 9, 1980 a suspension orders were issued against two **other** **employees,** **and** **that** **the** **issuance** **of** **these** **suspension** **orders** on the 6th and 9th December showed that the holding of an inquiry was .reasonably practicable; (iv) it was not alleged by the authorities that anyone was physically injured in the agitation; (v) after the suspension orders, the Appellants were prohibited from visiting any of the Cabinet Secretariat Off ices except for the purpose of collecting their dues and that too with prior permission and therefore, they could not have held any meeting or demonstration inside the office premises; (vi) even though **co-workers** **may** **not have been** **available** **as** **witnesses,** **there** **were** policemen and police officers posted inside and outside the building and they were available to give evidence and that superior officers were also available to give evidence; and (vii) the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1982, who was posted at Jammu could not, have taken any active part in the agitation .which took place in Delhi. Dismissing the appeals, the Court, summarizing topic-wise the conclusions reached in Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and other connected matters, [1985] 3 s.c.c. 398. I' HELD: 1.1 Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 3ll (2) and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, .1965, were properly applied to the case of ~ach of the Appellants and the impugned orders of dismi.ssal were validly passed against them. [841 C-DJ G Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel and other connceted matters, [1985] 3 sec 398 applied. 1.2 It is true that each order of suspension stated that the concerned employee was being suspended in the exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10 ( l) of the Central Civil Services H (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, because a SAT'iAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. 797 disciplinary proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was contemplated and that at the date of the orders cif suspension disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants was in contemplation. This, however, does not mean that the situation will continue to be the same and. that at no time thereafter will the holding of the inquiry become "not reasonably practicable.· It is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated, because a situation which renders the holding of ~n inquiry not reasonably practicable can come into being .even during the course of an enquiry. [838 A-D] In the instant case, the affidavits filed in the High Court clearly show that the situation had so changed after the orders of suspension were issued against the appellants that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry against the appellants. The all-India pen-down strike was spreading. More and more centres in India were joining in the said strike. The position was fast deteriorating; Employees were being instigated into ~urther acts of indisci.pline and insubordination and loyal employees and senior officers were being intimidated. Meetings and demonstrations were regularly being held within the office premises and their presincts and there was no possibility of any witness coming forward to give evidence against the appellants who were said to have taken a leading part in this agitation. Further, when the first batch of dismissal orders was served upon some of the appellants on December 8, 1980, the pen-down strike was called off on December 9, 1980. In such a situation as was· then prevailing, prompt and urgent action was required to bring the situation under control, Sometimes not taking prompt action may result in the trouble spreading and the situation worsening and at times becoming uncontrolable, and may at times be also construed by the trouble""1llakers and agitators as a sigo of weak**ness** **on** **the** **part** **of** **the** **authorities** **and** **encourage** **them** **to** **step** **up** the tempo of their .activities or agitation. This is exactly what **happened** **when** **the** **suspen.qion** **orders were** **issued** **and** **that** **what** **was** **required** **was** **prompt** **and** **urgent** **ation** **against** **those** **who** **were** considered to be.· the ring leaders and that once such action was taken the situation improved and started becoming normal. It is pertinent to note that when the first batch of dismissal orders were served upon some of the appellants on December 8, 1980, the pen-down strike was called off on December 9, 1980. [838 o-G] 1,3 The fact that it was thought fit t0 dismiss only two **employees** **of** **the** **Lucknow** **of flee** **cannot** **lead** **to** **the** **conclusion** A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP:2 s.c.R. that the appellants were wrongly dismissed without any application of mind. [893 C-D] 1.4 It will not be reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails.· It is, therefore, not necessary that the disciplinary authority should wait until incidents take place in which physical injury is caused to others before dispensing with the inquiry. [839 F-G] 1.5 In view of the admitted position that the appellants were regularly coming to the office building and talking with other employees over the wall and at the gate twice a day at 11.30 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. and were making inflamatory speeches and holding out threats, it cannot be said that they could not have held any meeting or demonstration inside the office premises. [839 H, 840 A-BJ 1.6 Where the disdplinary authority feels that crucial and material evidence will not be available in an inquiry because the witnesses who could give such evidence are intimidated and would not come forward and the only evidence which would be available, namely, in this case, of policemen, police officers and senior officers, would only be peripheral and cannot realte to all the charges and that, therefore, leading only such evidence may be assailed in a Court of law as being a mere farce of an inquiry and a deliberate attempt to keep back material witnesses, the disciplinary authority would be justified in coming to the conclusion that an inquiry is not reasonable practicable. From a perusal of the affidavit filed and its annexures it is clear that the police officers, policemen and senior officers could not have possibly given evidence with respect to all these acts. Further the senior officers were also intimidated and were threatened with dire consequences if they gave evidence. Grievances were - also made against the senior officers of the RAW in the charter of demands submitted by the association and the evidence of senior officers would have been attacked . as being biased and partisan. [840 C-G] 1.7 The contention taken on behalf of the sole appellant in Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1982 that having been posted at Jammu, he could not have taken part in the agitation which took place in New Delhi is falsified by the fact that during the relevant time he had taken leave for personal reasons and had come down to Delhi and had played an active role in the said agitation. He made inflamatory speeches on the Ist, 3rd, 4th and 5th of December, 1980 and had instigated the other employees to continue - ' SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [MADON, J.] 799 the agitatio!l and intimidated those who had not joined in the agitation into doing so. Further, in a speech made by him on December 4, 1980 he had tried to make public some of the top secret operations of the RAW claiming to have special knowledge of these operations by virtue of his having been posted earlier in a sensitive branch. He was also actively engaged in collecting funds for continuing the agitation. [840 G-H, 841 A-B] The Court, directed:- (i) if any payment has been made to any of the appellants in pursuance of any interim order, such appellant will not be liable to refund such· amount or any part thereof; and (ii) since the appellants have a right to file a departmental appeal under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in case they desires' to file such an appeal, they may do so on or before October 31, 1985 and that the Appellate Authority must condone, ln the exercise of its power under the proviso to Rule 25 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the delay in filing the appeal and hear and dispose of such appeals expeditiously subject to what has been laid down in Tulsir**PAtel 's case.** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 242 & 576 of 1982. A B c D From the Judgment and Order dated 25. 9 .1981 of the Delhi E High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1786 of 1980. Appellant in person for Petr. No. 4 in C.A. No. 242 of 1982. V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No. 242/82. V.M •. Tarkunde, V.N. Ganpule and G.B. Sathe for the Appellants in C.A. No. 576 of i982. **K.Parasaran, Attorney General** **and** **Miss** **A.** **Subhashini** **for** the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F G **MADON,** **J.** **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 p.roviso to Article 311 (2) of the H Constitution of India read with Rule 19 of the Central Civil 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1%5) SUPP.2 s.c.R. A Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, without serving any charge-sheet ·upon them and w.ithout. holding any inquiry. The Appellants thereupon filed in the relhi 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 B 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 Prior to the amendment of the second clause of Article 311 C 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). Article 311 as amended by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, and the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, reads as follows: D "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction In rank ofpersons employed in civil capacities uoder the Union or a State. (1) No person who is a memher 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 E 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 hirn and given a reasonF able oppo~tunity 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 he imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity or G making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply Ii (a) ''where a person is dismissed or removed or r(~duced i 1:1 rank on the ground of conduct which has led to h i.s conviction on a criminal charge; or SP.T'L>VIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [MADON, J.] 801 (b) where the authority empowered to dism�ss or remove a A person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in wri.ting, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the Fresic;ent or the Governor, as the case may B be, is sati.sfied 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), C the decision thereon of the nuthority empowered to dismiss or remov·e such person or to reGuce him in rank shall be final." Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal} Rules, 1965 D 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 Article 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 ce """ - Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18 E (i) where any penalty is imposed on a Govermet servant on the ground of conduct which bas led to his conviction on a crimiP.al charge, or F (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 G (iii) where the President is satisfied that in the interest ot the security of the State, it is not expedi.ent to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPP.2 s.c.R. . Provided that the Commission shall be .consulted, where such. **consultation** **is** **necessary,** **before** **any** **orders** **are** mad~ **in any** **case** under this rule." ' The word "Co!l:mission" is defined by clause (d) of Rule 2 as mean ing "the Union Public Service Commission". The Decision in Tulsiram Patel's Case It was not disputed at the hearing of these two Appeals that they fall to be decided in the light of what was held in Union of India and another v.Tulsiram Patel and other connected lllattezs. [1985) 3 s.c.c. 398. By the decision in Tulsiram Patel's Case a large Dlllllber of writ petitions either filed in this Court or in various High Courts and transferred to this Court and several Appeals by Special Leave, all involving the interpretation of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution and in particular of the second proviso to Article 311 (2), were disposed of by a five-judge Constitution tench of this Court,· with one learned judge dissenting except as regards the interpretation to be . placed upon clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2). A large number of points fell for decision in . Tulsirais Patel's case. (1985] 3 s.c.i::. 398. It will, therefore, be convenient first to summarize topic-wise the conclusions reached by the majority in that · case and then to emphasize the important· rights conferred by the majority judgment upon persons who are members of a civil service of the Union of India or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or hold a civil post under the Union of India or a State, 1n other words, upon civil servants, and thereafter to deal with the facts of the present **Appeals** **and** **the** **contentions** **raised** **at** **the** **hearing** **thereof.** The conclusions reached by the majority in Tulsiram Patel's **Case were:** I. The Pleasure Doctrine in the United Kil'&dom (l).The pleasure doctrine relates to the tenure of a **government** **servant,** **that** **is,** **his** **right** **to** **continue** **to** hold office. Under it all public officers and servants of the Crown in the United Kingdom hold their appointments at the pleasure of the Crown and their services can be terminated at will without assigning ar.y cause. ' SATYAVIR SINGH v. U .Q. I. [MADON, J.] 803 (2) The pleasure doctrine is not based upon any A special prerogative of the Crown but is based on public poiicy and is in public interest and for public good. The basis of the pleasure doctrine is that the public is vitally interested in the efficiency and integrity of civil services and, therefore public policy requires, public interest needs and public good li **demands** **that** **civil** **servants** **who** **are** **inefficient,** **dis-** **honest or corrupt or have** **become** **a** **security** **risk** **should not** **continue** **in** **service.** (3) In the United Kingdom, Parliament is sovereign and **can** **make** **any law whatever** **and** **the** **courts** **have no power** <.: to declare it void. In the United Kingdom, therefore, **the** **pleasure** **doctrine** **is** **subject** **to** **what** **may** **be** expressly provided otherwise by legislation. II. The Pleasure Doctrine in India (4) In India the pleasure doctrine has received Constitutional sanction by being enacted in Article 310 (1) of the ConstitutJ.on of India. Under Article **310** **(1),** **except** **as** **expressly** **provided** **in** **the** **Constitu-** **tion,** **every** **person** **who** **is** **a** **member** **of** **a** **defence** **service** **or** **of** **a** **civil** **serv:!.ce** _**oi**_ **t'he Union** **of** **India** **or** ll **of** **an** **all-India** **service** **or** **holds. any** **post** **connected** **E** **wj** **th** **defence** **or any** **civil** **post** **under** **the** **Union** **of** India holds office during the ple&sure of the **President,** **and** **every** **per.son** **who** **is** **a** **member** **of** **a** **civil** service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State. F (5) Thus, unlike in the Untied Kingdom, in India the **pleasure** **doctrine** **is** **not** **subject** **to** **any law** **made** **by** **Parliament** **or** **a** **State** **Legislature** **but** **is** **subject** **to** only what · i.s expressly provided in the Constitutfon. **In** **India,** **the.refore,** **the** **exceptions** **to** **the** **pleasure** **G** **doctrine** **can** **only** **be** **those** **which** **are** **expressly** **provi-** **ded** **in** **the** **Constitution.** **(6)** **There are** **several** **exceptions** **to** **the** **pleaGure** **doctrine** **expressly** **provided** **in** **the** **Constitutione** **(7)** **Article** **3li,** **being** **an** **express** **provision** **of** **the** **Constitution,** **is** **an** **exception** **to** **the** **pleasure** **doctrine** 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. contained in Article 310 (1) of ·the Constitution. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 311 restrict the operation of the pleasure doctri1le so far as civil servants . are concerned by conferring upon civil servants the safeguards provided in those clauses. (8) Under clause (1) of Article 311 no civil servant can be dismissed or removed f ram service by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (9) Under Clause (2) of Article 311 no civil servant can be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank except after an inquiry :i.n which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of such charges. By reason of the amendment made by the Constitution (Forty-second A'!lendment) Act, 1976, in clause (2) of Article 311 it is now not necessary to give to a civil servant an opportunlty of making a represent:atio~ with respect to the penalty proposed to be i.rnposed upon him. (10) An order of compulsory retiren:ent from service :i.1tposed upon a civil servant by way of pE·nalty amounts to "removal"'from service and attracts the provisions of Article 311. A _B_ c D E F G H (11) Restrictions on the operation of the pleasure doctrine contained in legislation Il'iade by Parli.ament ~i.n the Uni.ted Kingdom and· in clauses (1) and (2) of "Article 311 in India are aJ,so based on pobli ... ;. policy and are in public tnterest and for public good in.asmuch ar. they give to c.ivtl servants a feeling of security of tenure. ·· (12) The clause (.2) safeguard provided to civil servants by of ArticJe 311. is t;-;kcu away when any of clauses of the second proviso (origin.:ilJy the thret the only app1 ir:rtr.1 p" pt'O'/iso) to i\rt.ic1f::· 3li (2) becomes (13) lr: l~ ir1correct t:o sf!y that tl1e pleasure doctrine is a -prero5ative of the British Crown lj,'hic\i haH heen SATYAVIR SINGH v. U .o. I. [!'.AIXJN, J.] 805 inherited by India and transposed into its Constitu-. tion, adapted to suit the Constitutional. set up of the Republic of India. Author.itative jUdicial dicta both in England and in India, for instance, Shenton v. Smith, L.R. [1895] A.C. 229 J.C. Dunn v. The Queen, L.R. [1896] Q.B.D. 116, 119-120; s.c. [1895-96] 73 L.T.R. 695 and sub oomine Dunn v. Regeni in [1895-1899] All E. R. Rep. 907. n,.; State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Babu Ram Upadhya, [1961] 2 s.c.R. 679, 696. Motl. Ram Ueka etc. v.· General l1anager N.E.F. Railways, Maligaon, Pando, etc. [1964] 5 s.c.R. 683, 734-5 and Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, [1968] 1 s.C.R. 185, 195, have laid down that the pleasure doctrine and the protection afforded - to civil servants by legislation in the United Kingdom and by clauses ( 1) and (2) of Article 311 in India are based on public policy and are in public interest and for·public good. Similarly, the withdrawal of the safeguard contained in clause (2) of Article 311 by the second proviso to that clause is also based. on public policy and is in public interest and for public good. (14) Neither Article 309 nor Article 310 nor Article 311 8ets out the grounds for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or for imposition of any other penalty upon a civil servant. These Articles also d(,. not specify what the - other penalties are. Tqese matters are left to be dealt with by rules made under the proviso to Article 309 or by Acts referable to that Article or rules ~de under such.·Acts. (15) The pleasure of the ·President or the Governor is not to be exercised by him personally. It is to be exercised by the appropriate . authotity specified in rules made.under the proviso to Article 309 or by Acts referable to that Article "Or rules made under such Acts. \..There, however, the President _or the Governor, as the.- case m.B.y . be, e:Xertise hi!? -pleasure -under Article 310 (1), it is not required that such act of exercise of the pleasure under Article 310 (1) 1m1st be an act of the President (lr the Governor himself but it must be an act of __ the President or the Governor in the Constitutional sense, that is, with the" aid and on the advice of the Council of Ministers. A B c D E _F_ G H 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985j SUPP.2 s.c.R. III. The Inquiry under Article 311 (2) (lb) Clasue (2) of Article 311 gives a Constitutional mandate to the principles of natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule by providingthat a civil **servant** **shall** **not** **be** **dismissed or** **removed** **from** **service** **or** **reduced** **in** **rank** **until** **after** **an** **inquiry** **in** **which** **he** has been informed of the charges against him and has **been** **given** **a** **reasonable** **opportunity** **of** **being heard** **in** **respect** **of** **those** **charges.** (17) The nature _ot_ this inquiry has been elaborately set out by this Court in Khan Chand v. The Union of India and others [195tiJ s.c.R. 10~0, 1005-97 and even **after** **the** **Constitution** **(Forty-second** **AP.lendment)** **Act,** 197b, the inquiry required by clause (2) of Article 311 would be the same except that _it_ would not be **necessary** **to** **give** **to** **a** **civil** **servant an opportunity to** **make** **a** **representation** **with** **respect** **to** **the** **penalty** **proposed** **to** **be** **imposed upon him.** (18) As held in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and others [1969J s.c.R. 317,326-7. and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. T.C. Shrivast,,va and others, [1984] 3 S.C.R. 361, 369. apart from Article 311 prior to its amendment by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, it is not necess**ary** **either** **under** **the** **ordinary law** **of** **the** **land or under** **industrial** **law** **to** **give** **a** **second opportunity** **to** **show** **casue** **against** **the** **penalty** **proposed** **to** **be imposed** **upon** **an employee.** **(19)** **If** **an** **inquiry** **held** **against** **a** **civil** **servant** **under** Article 311 (2) is unfair or biased or has been **conducted** **in** **such a** **manner** **as** **not** **to** **give** **him** **a** **fair** **or** **reasonable** **opportunity** **to** **defend** **himself,** **the** **principles** **of** **natural** **justice** **would be** **violated;** **but** **in** **such** **a** **case** **the** **order** **of** **di.Smissal, removal** **or** **reduction** **in** **rank** **would** **be** **bad** **as** **contravening** **the** **express** **provisions** **of** **Article** **Jll** **\2)** **and** **there** **is** **no** **scope** **for** **having** **recourse** **to** **Article** **14** **for** **the** **purpose** **of** **invalidating** **it.** IV. The Second Proviso to Article 311 (2) A B c _D_ E Ii _)_ SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. [MADON, J.] 807 (20) The language of the second proviso to Article 311 A (2) is plain and unambiguous. The keywords in the second proviso are "this clause shall not apply". There is no ambiguity in these words. Where, there**fore,** **a** **situaion** **envisagea** **in** **any** **of** **the** **three** **clauses** of the second proviso arises, the safeguard provided to a civil servant by clause (2) of Article 311 is B taken away. (21) The second proviso to Article 311 (2) becomes applicable in the three cases mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of that proviso, namely, (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground C of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; (b) where the authority empowered to dis**miss 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;· and (c) where the Ptesident or D the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedieat to hold such inquiry. (22) The governing words of the second proviso to clause (2) of Article 311, namely, "this clause shall **not** **apply",** **are** **mandatory** **and** **not** **directory** **and** **are** **in** **E** ·the nature of a Constitutional prohibitory injunction restraining the disciplinary authority from holding an inquiry under Article 311 (2) or from giving any kind of opportunity to the concerned civil servant in a **case** **where one** **of** **the** **three** **clauses** **of** **the** **seco!ld** **proviso** **becomes** **applicable.** **There** **is** **thus** **no** **scope** **for** **F** introducing into the second proviso some kind of inquiry or opportunity to show cause by a process of **inference** **or** **implication.** **The** **maxim** **"expressum** **fac!t** cessare **tacitum"** ("when there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded") applies to the case. ThiS well-known maxim G **is** **a** **principle** **of** **logic** **and** co~n **sense** **and** **not** **merely a** **technical** **rule** **of** **construction** **as** **pointed** **out** in **B.Sbankara** **Rao** **Badami.** **and** **others** **v.** **State** **of Mysore** **and** **another** [1969] 3 s.c.R. 1, 12. (23) The second proviso to Article 311 (2) has been in H **the** **Constitution** **of** **India** **since** **the time** **the** **Constitu-** 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. ti.on was originally 12:nacted. It was not blindly or slavJshly copied from section 240 (3) of the Government of lnciia Act, 1935. There was a considerable debate on this proviso i.n the ConstjtutEnt Assembly as shown by the Offici.al Ri::-port of the Constituen,t ·Assembly Debates, vo.l. IX, pages 1099 to 1116. The majority of the members of the Consti.tuent Assembly had fought for freedom and had suffered imprisonment in the cause of liberty and were, therefore, not likely to introduce into our Constitution any provision fron; the earlier Government of India Act which had been enacted purely for the benefit of a foreign i.mperalistic power. They retained the second proviso as a matter of public policy and as being in the public interest and for public good. They further inserted clause (c) in the second proviso dispensing with the inquiry under ArtiCJe 311 (2) in a case where the Presidtnt 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 1.nquiry as also ,added a new clause, namely, clause (3), in Article 311 gjving finality to the decision of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry under Article 311 (2). Section 240 cf ·the Government of India Act, 1935, did not contain any pr0vision similar to clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or clause (3) of Article 311. V. Article 14 and the Secorul Proviso (24) The principles of natural justice are not the creatoon of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 is not the begetter of the principles of natural - justice but if.J their Constitutionnl guardian. (25) Tht: principles of natural justice consist prirr.arily of two main rules, nen~ely, "nemojudex in causa sua ("no man shall be a judge .inhis own cause")8nd "audi atleram parterrt ("hearthe other side"). The coWllary deduced from the above two niles and parti.cularly the audi alterampartemrule was "qui aliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera, aequum licet dixerit, haud aequum fecerit" ("he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, A B c D E F G H SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [MADON, J.] 809 although he may have said what is right will not have done what is right" or as is now expressed "justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen A to be done"). These two rules and their corollary are neither new nor were they the discovery of English judges but were recognized in many civj lizations and B over many centuries. (26) Art.icle 14 applies not only to d.iscrirr,.inatory cl.ass legislation but also to arbitrary or discriminatory State action. Violation of ;;i rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as C discrim:i_nati.on, and where ·discrimination is the result of a State action, it is a .violation cf Article 14. Therefore, a violation of a princi.ple of natural justice by "a State action is a .violation of Article 14. (27) The principles of natural justice apply both to quasi-judicial as well as administrative inquiries entailing civil consequences. (28) It is well established both in England and in India that the principles of natural justice yield to E and change with the exigencies of different situation.s and do not apply in the £ame manner to situations which are not alike. They are neither cast- in & rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal strait-ja_cket. They are not immutable but flexihle and can be adapted, mOdlfied or excluded by statute and statutory rules a_s also by· the constitution of the tribunal _F_ which has to decide _a_ particular matter and the rules by which such. tribunal is governed. I.nstcinces of cases _i.n_ which it has been so held are **Norwest** **Holst** **Lt:d.** **v.** Secretary of State for T~ade and others, L.R. [1978] 1 Ch. 201, 227. Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala and others, [1969] 1 s.C·R· 317, 322. A.K. \. Kraipak and others· etc. v. Union of India and others, [1970] l s.c.R. 457, 469. Uni.on of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha and. another, [1971] 1 s.c.R. 791, 694-5. Swadeshl Cotton.Mills v. Union of India, [1981] 2 s.c.R. 533, 591. J. M()ha(l2tra & Co. and another v. State of Orissa and another, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 322, 334-5. and ~.ianeka **Gandhi.** **v.** **Union** **of** **India.** [1978] 2 H s.c.R. 621, 681. 810 SUPREME COURT KEPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. (29) If legislation and the necessities of a situation **can** **exclude** **the** **principles** **of** **natural** **justice** **includ-** ing the audi alterai:i partem rule, a fortiorari so can **a** **provision** **of** **the** **constitution** **such** **as** **the** **second** proviso to Article 311 (2). (30) The audi alteram partem rule having been excluded **by** **a** **Constitutional** **provision,** **namely,** **the** **second** proviso to Article 311 (2), the.re is no scope for reintroducing it by a side-door to provide once again **the** **same** **inquiry** **which** **the** **Constitutional** **provision** has expressly prohibited. (31) A rigllt of making a representation after an Court **action** in **is** Maneka **taken** **against** Gandhi's Case, **a person has been** 0 [1978] 2 S.C.R. **held** **by** 621, **this** 681, and in Liberty Oil Mills aod others v. Union of India and others, [19811j 3 s.c.R. 465. to be a suffi**cient** **compliance** **with** **the** **requirements** **of** **natural** **justice.** **In** **the** **case** **of** _**a**_ **civil** **servant** **to** **whom** **the** provisions of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) have been applied, he has the right of a departmental appeal in which he can show that the charges made **against** **him** **are** **not** **true,** **and** **an appeal** **is** **a wider** **and** **more** **effective** **remedy** **than a** **right** **of** **making** **a** **representat.ion.** (32) The majority view in A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 88, namely, that parti.cular **Articles** **governing** **certain** **Fundamental Rights** **operate** **exclusively** **without having any** **interrelation** **with** **any** **other** **Article** **in** **the** **Chapter on Fundamental Rights** **was** disapproved and held to be not correct in llustom Cawasji Cooper v. Union of India. [1970] 3. s.C.R. 530. The position that the majority view in Gopalan's case [1950] S.C.R. 88, was overruled in R.C. Cooper's Case [1970 j 3 s.c.R. 530, was reiterated in Sambbu Nath Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal aod others [1974] 1 s.C.R.l. Hardball Saha and another v. The st.~te of West ll2ngal and others, 11975] 1 s.c.R. 832. Klwdiram Das v. The State of West Bengal and others, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 832 and Hanek.a Gandhi's Case [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621, 681. Thus, the majority view in Gopalan's Case [1950] S.C.R.88, was buried In R.C. Cooper's Case A B c D E F G H # SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. [MADON, J.] 811 [1970] 3 S.C.R •. 530. its burial service was read in Samblm Nath Sarkar Vo 'lbe State of· West Bengal and others, [1974] 1 s.c.R. 1. llardhan Saha and another Vo The State of West Bengal and others [1975] 1 s.c.R. 832 and Khudiram Das Vo The State of West Bengal and others [1975] 2 s.c.R. 832 and its funeral oration was delivered in Maneka Gandhi's Case [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621,681 and it is to be hoped that the ghost of that **majority** **view** **does** **not** **at** **some** **future** **time** **rise** **form** **its** **grave and** **stand,** **clanking** **its** **chains,** **seeking** **to** **block** **the** **onward** **march** **of** **our country** **to** **progress,** prosperity and the establishment of a Welfare State. (33) The decisions in RoC. Cooper's Case [1970] 3 s.c.R. 530 and the other cases which followed it do **not,** **however, apply where a Fundamental Right,** **includ-** ing the audi alteram partein rule comprehended !'ithin the guarantee of .Article 14, is excluded by the Constitution itself. Instances of such express **exclusionary** **provisions** **contained** **in** **the** **Constitution** are Article 31A (1), Article 31B, Article 31C, Article 22 (5), and the second proviso to Article 311 (2) as regards the audi alteram partem rule, namely, afford**ing** **an** **opportunity** **of** **a** **hearing** **to** **a** **civil** **servant** before imposing the penalty of dismissal, removal or **reduction** **in** **rank** **upon** **him.** (34) The principles of natural justice must be confined within their proper limits and not allowed to run wild. The concept of natural justice is a magnificient thoroughbred on which this nation gallops forwards towards its proclaimed and destined goal of "JUSTICE, social, economic and political". This **thoroughbred must** **not** **be** **allowed** **to** **turn** **.into** **a** **wild** **and** **unruly** **horse,** **careering** **off** **where** **it** **lists,** unsaddling its rider, and bursting into fields where the sign "no pasaran" is put up. VI. Service Rules and Acts (35) Article 309 is expressly made subject to the **provisions** **of** **the** **Constitution.** **Rules** **made** **under** **the** **proviso** **to** **Article** **309 Acts- referable** **to** **that** **Article,** **and** **rules** **made** **under such** **Acts** **are,** **therefore,** **subject** both to Article 310 (1) as also to Article 311. If any A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R. such rule or A~t impinges upon or restri'cts the operation of the pleasure doctrine exbodied in Article 310 (l) except as expressly provided in the Constitution or restricts or takes away the safeguards provl.ded to civil servants by clauses (1) and (2) of Article 311, it would be void.and unconstitutional as contravening the provisions of Article 310 (1) or clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 311, as the case may be. Any such Act or rule which provides for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a civil servant without holding an inquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 except in the three cases specified in the second proviso to that clause would, therefore, be unconstitutional and viod as contravenfog Articte 311 (2). (36) In the same way, for an Act or a rule to provide that in a case where the second proviso to Article 311 (2) applies, any of the safeguards excluded by that proviso will be available to a civil servant would be void and unconstitutional as impinging upon the **pleasure** **of** **the** **President** **or** **the** **Governor,** **as** **the** **case** ' may be. (37) A well-settled rule of construction of statutes **is** **that** **where** **two** **interpretations** **are** **possible,** **one** **of** which would preserve and save the constitutionality of the particular statutory provision while the other **'4** **would render** **it** **unconstitutional** **and** **void,** **the** **one** which saves and preserves its constitutionality should be adopted and the other rejected. (38) Where an Act or a rule provides that in a case in which the second proviso to Article 311 (2) applies any of the safeguards excluded by that proviso will be available to a civil servant, the constitutionality of **such** **provision** **would be** **preserved** **by** **interpreting. it** **as** **being** **directory** **and** **not** **mandatory.** **The** **breach** **of** **such** **directory** **provision** **would** **not,** **hov.:-ever,** **furnish** **any** **cause** **of** **action** **or** **ground** **of** **challenge** **to** **a** **civil** **servant** **because** **at** **the** **threshold** **such cause** **of** **action** or ground of challenge would be barred by the second proviso to Article 311 (2). SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [MADON, J.] 813 (39) Service rules may reproduce the provisions of the A second proviso to Article 311 (2) and authorize the disciplinary authority to dispense with the inquiry as contemplated by clause (2) of Article 311 in the **three** **cases** **mentioned** **in** ~he **second** **proviso** **to** **that** **clause or** **any** **one** **or** **more** **of** **them.** **Such** **a provision,** **however*** **is** **not** **valid** **and** **constitutional** **without** **B** reference to the second proviso to Article 311 (2) and **cannot be read** **apart** **from** **it.** **Thus,** **while** **the** **source** **of** **authority** **of** **a** **particular** **officer** **tO** **act** **as** **a** disciplinary author.tty and dispense with the inquiry **is** **deri.ved from** **the** **ser\r.ice** **rules,** **the** **soucre** **of** **his** power to dispense with the inquiry is derived.from the c second proviso to Article 311 (2) and not from any **service** **rule.** (40) The omission to mention in an order of dismissal, **removal or** **reduction** **in** **rank** **the** **relevant** **clause** **of** the second proviso or the relevant service rule will not have the effect of invalidating the order imposing such penalty, and the order rust be read as having been made unde< the applicable clause of the second proviso to Article 311. (2) read wi~h the relevant **service** **rule.** (41) Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, J.969, is clumsily worded and makes little **sense.** **To** **provide** **that** _**a**_ **member** **of** **the Central** **Industrial** **Security** **Force** **who** **has .been** **convicted** **to** rigorous imprisonment on a criminal charge "shall be **dismissed** **from** **service"** **and** **at** **the** **same** **time** **to** **provide** **that** **"only** **a** **notice** **shall** **be** **given** **to** **the** party charged proposing the penalty of dismissal for **his** **having been** **convicted** **to** **rigourous** **impri$9nme.nt** and asking him to explain as to why the proposed penalty of dismissal should not be imposed" is a **contradiction** **in** **teruiB.** **To** **read** **these** **provisions** **as** **mandatory would be to render** **them** **unconstitutlonal** **and** **void.** **These** **provisions** _**TID..lSt,**_ **therefore,** **be** **read** **as** **directory** **in** **order** **to** **preserve** **their** **constitu-** tionality. (42) Rule 19 (Classification, identical with **of** **the.** **Central** Control and Appeal) Rule 14 of the **Civil** **Services** Rules, 1965, is **Railway** **Servant** E F .G H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP;2 s.c.R. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and the interpretation of the said Rule 19 would be the same as that of the said Rule 14. VII. Challappan's Case (43) The three-Judge Bench of this Court in Divisiotial Persoonel Officer, Southern Railway and anotber v. T.R. Challappan, [1976] 1. S.C.R. 783, was in error in interpreting Rule 14 of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, by itself and not in conjuction with the second proviso to Article 311 (2). (44) The Court in Challappan [1] s Case, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 783, also erred in _holding that the addition of the words "the disciplinary authority may consider the **circumstances** **of** **the** **case** **and** **make** **such order thereon** as it deems fit" in the siad Rule 14 warranted an interpretation of the said Rule different from that to be placed upon the second proviso to Article 311 (2). (45) The Court in Challappan's Case, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 783, also erred in the interpretation placed by it upon the word "consider" occurring in the above phrase in the said rule 14. The view taken by the Court in **that** **case** **that** **a** **consideration** **of** **the circumstances** **of** the case cannot be unilateral but llllst be after hearing the delinquent civil servant would render this part of the said Rule 14 unconstitutional as restricting the full exclusionary operation of the second proviso to Article 311 (2). ( 46) The word "consider" in its ordinary and natural sense is not capable of the meaning assingned to it in Challappan's Case., [1976] 1 s.c.R. 783. (47) The consideration of the circumstances under the said Rule 14 must, therefore, be ex parte and without **affording** **to** **the** **concerned** civ~l **servant** **an** opportunity of being heard. ( 48) The decision in Challappan 's Case, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 783, never held the field for the judgment in ## that case was delivered on September 15, 1975, it was [•] A B c D E F G H SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [MADON, J.] 815 reported in [1976] l ·s.c.R. at page 783ff., and hardly **was** **that** **case** **reported,** **then** **in** **the** **next** **group** **of** appeals in which the same question was raised the matter was ref erred to a larger Bench by an order made on November 18, 1976, in view of the earlier decision of another three-Judge Bench in **M.** **Gopala** **Krislma** **Naidu** **v.** **State** **of Madhya** **Pradesh.** [1968] l s.c.R. 355. The correctness of·Cballappan's Case, [1976] l s.c.R. 783, was, therefore, doubted from the very beginning. Vlll. **Ezecutive** **Instructions** (49) Executive Instructions stand on a lower footing than a,· statutory rule. Executive instructions which provide that in a case where the second proviso to Article. 311 (2) applies, any safeguard excluded by that proviso would be available to a civil servant would,only be directory and not mandatory. IX. The Scope of the Second **Proviso** (50) The three clauses of the second proviso to Article 311 are not intended to be applied in normal **and** **ordinary** **situations.** **The** **secOnd** **proviso** **is** **an** exception to the normal rule and before any of the three clauses of that proviso is applied to the case of a civil servant, the conditions laid down in that clause 111USt be satisfied. (51) Where a situation envisaged in one of the clauses of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) exists, it is not mandatory that the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank should be imposed upon a civil servant. The disciplinary atuhority will first have to decide what punislunent is warranted by the **facts** **and** **circlDllBtances** **of** **the** **case.** **Such** **considera-** **tion** **would, however,** **be** **ex** **parte** **and** **without** **hearing** the concerned· civil servant. If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the plmishment which is called for is that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, it must dispense with the inquiry and then decide for its elf which of the aforesaid three penalties should be imposed. A B c D E F G H 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. x. Clause (a) **of** ~ **Second** **Proviso** (52) In a case whete clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) applies the disciplinary authority is to take the conviction of the concerned civil servant as sufficient proof of misconduct on his part. It has thereafter to decide whether the conduct which had led to the civil servant's conviction on a criminal charge was such as to warrant the imposition of a penalty and, if so, what that penalty should be. For this purpose it llllSt persue the judgment of the criminal Court and take into conaideration all the facts and circumstances of ·the case and the various factors set out in **a.allappan'a** **Case,** [1976] 1 s.c.R. 783, suCb as, the· entire conduct of the civil servant, the gravity of the offence committed by him, the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration, whether the offence for which he was convicted was of a technical or trivial nature, and the extenuating circumstances, if any, present in the case. This, however, has to be done by the disciplinary authority ~ parte and without hearing the concerned civil servant. (53) The penalty imposed upon the civil servant should not be arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence cOlllllitted or one not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. (54) Where a civil servant goes to the office of his superior office whom he believes to be responsible for stopping his increment and hits him on the head with an iron rod, so that the superior officer falls down with a bleeding head, and the delinquent civil servant is tried and convi~ted under section 332 of the. Indian Penal Code but th~ Magistrate, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, applies to him the provisions of section 4 of the Ptobation of Offendets Act, 1958 and after such conviction the d!.sciplinary authority, taking the above facts into consideration, by way of punishment compul~orily retires the delinquent civil servant under clarlse (i) of section 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, it cannot be said that the punishment ' inflicted upon the civil servant was excessive or arbitrary. I I ! A B c D E F G H 5A'IYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. (MADON, J.] 817 XI. Clause (b) of the Second Proviso (55) There are two conditions precedent which urust be satisfied before clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) can be applied. These conditions are: A ' (i) there must exist a situation which makes . the B holding of an inquiry contemplated by Article 311 (2) not reasonably practicable, and (ii) the disciplinary authority should record in writing its reason for its satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. C (56) Whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. (57) It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required by clause (b) of the second proviso. What is requisite is that the holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing siuation. (58) The reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be ·made by the disciplinary authority and must be judged in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. The disciplinary authority is generally on the spot and knows what is happening. It is because the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the prevailing situation that clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the discip­ linary authority on this question final. (59) It is not possible to enumerate the cases in which it would not be. reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Illustrative cases would be (a:) where a civil servant, particularly through or together with his associates, so terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are going to give evidence A�Ainst him with fear of repr1ei [ae ] [to ] prevent them from doing so, or D E F G H A B c H indiscipline and insubordination prevails, it being immaterial whether the concerned civil servant is or is not a party to bringing about such a situation. In all these cases. it must be remembered that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual may not. (60) The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order ·to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the civil servant is weak and must fail. (61) The word "inquiry" in clause {b) of the second proviso includes a part .of an inquiry. It is, there­ fore, not [.] necessary that the situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist before the inquiry is instituted against the civil servant. Such a situation can also come into existence subsequently during the course of the inquiry, for instance, after the service of a charge­ sheet upon the civil servant or after he has filed his written statement thereto or even after evidence has been·led in part. (63) The recording of the reason for dispensing with the inquiry is a condition precedent to the applica­ tion of clause (b) of the second proviso. This is 11 t Constitutional obligation and. if such reason is not SA'IYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [!'.ADON, J.] 819 recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the A inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon would both be void and unconstitutional. It is, how ever, not necessary that the reason should find a place in the final order but it would be advisable to record it in the final order in order to avoid an allegation that the reason was not recorded in writing B before passing the final order but was subsequently fabricated. / // ( 64) The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particulars but it cannot be vague or just a repetition of' the language of clause C (b) of the second proviso. (65) It is also not necessary to coinmunicate the reason for di&pensing with the inquiry to the concerned civil servant but it would be better to do so in order to eliminate the posibility of an allega- D tion being . made that the reason was subsequently fabricated. (66) The obligation to record the reason in writing is provided in clause (b) of the second proviso so that the superiors of the disciplinary authority may be E able to judge whether .such authority had exercised its power under clause (b) properly or not with a view to judge the performance and capacity of that officer for the purposes of promotion etc. (67) 'It is, however, better for the disciplinary authority to conmrunicate to the concerned civil F servant its reason for dispensing with the inquiry because such comnunication.would eliminate the possibility of an allegation being mae that the reason had been subsequentiy fabricated. It would also enable the civil servant to approach·the High Court under Article 226 or, in a fit case, the Supreme Court under Article G .32. (68) Th~ submission that where a delinquent government servant so terrorizes the disciplinary authority that **neither** **that** **officer** **nor any** **other** **officer** **stationed** at thiit place is willing to hold the inquiry,,some senior officer can be sent from outside to hold the H 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. ' ' inquiry cannot be 'accepted. This subnission itself shows that in such a case the holding of an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. It 'WOuld be illogical to hold that administrative work carried out by senior officers should be paralysed just because a delinquent civil servant either by himself or along with or through others makes the holding of an inquiry by the . designated disciplinary authority or inquiry officer not reasonably practicable. I (69) In a case falling under clasue (b) of the second proviso it is not necessary that the civil servant should be placed under suspension until such time as the situation improves and it becomes possible to hold the inquiry because in such cases neither public interest nor public good requires that salary or subsistence allowanl:e should be continued to be paid out of the public exchequer to the concerned cl vil servant. It would also be difficult to foresee how long the situation would last and when.normalcy would return or be restored. In certain cases, the exigencies of a situatioJ'l would require that prompt action should be taken and suspending a civil servant "WOuld not serve the purpose and sometimes not taking prompt action might result in the trouble spreading and the situation worsening' and at, times becoming uncontrolable. Not taking prompt action msy also be construed by the trouble makers as a sign of weakness on the part of the authorities and thus encourage them to step up their activities or agitation. Where such prompt action is,taken in order to prevent this happening, there is!an element of deterrence in it but this is an unavoidable and I necessary concomitance of such an action resulting from a situation which is not of the creation of the authorities. (70) The contention that where an inquiry into the charges against a civil servant is not reasonably practicable, none the less before dispensing with the inquiry there should be a preliminary inquiry into the question whether the disciplinary inquiry should be dispensed with or not is illogical and is a contradiction in terms. If an inquiry into the charges against a civil servant is not reasonable practicable, it A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G ##### • SATYAVIR SINGH v, U .o .I. [MADON, J • J 821 stands to reason that an inquiry into the question whether· the disciplinary inquiry .should be dispensed with or not is equally not ressonably practicable. (71) Where a large group of members of the Central Industrial Security Force Unit posted at the plant of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. indulged in acts of insubordination, indiscipline, dereliction of duty, abstention from physical training and parade, taking out processions, shouting inflamatory slogans, participating in the 'gherao' of supervisory officers, going on hunger strike and 'dharna' near the Quarter Guard and Adminsitrative Building of the Unit, indulging in thrests of violence, bOdily harm and other acts of intimidation to supervisory officers and.loyal members of the said Unit, and thus created a situation whereby the normal functioning of the said Unit of the Central Industrial Security Force was made difficult and impossible, the disciplinary authority was justified in applying clause (b) of the second proviso to those who were consid~red responsible for such acts. Clasue (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) was also properly applied in the cases of those members of the Central Industrial Security Force who were considered responsible for creating a similar situation at Hoshangabad. (72) In cases such as the above, it is not possible to state in the order of dismissal the particular acts done by each of the members of the concerned group as such cases are very nruch like a case under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. (73) In situations such as the one where a large group acting collectively with the common object of coercing those in charge of the administration of the Central Industrial Security Force and the Government to compel them to grant recoginition to their Association and to concede their demands, it is not possible to particularize in the orders of dismissal the acts of each individual member who participated in the commission of these· acts. The participation of each individual might be of a greater or lesser degree but the acts of each individual contributed to the creation of a **situation** **in** **which a** **security** **fprce** **itself** **became** a R **security** **risk.** 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. (74) Railway service is a public utility service within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the proper running of the railway service is vital to the country. (75) Where, therefore, the railway employees went on an illegal all-India strike without complying with the provisions of section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and thereby committed an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine under section 26 (1) of the , · said Act and the situation became such that the railway services were paralysed, loyal workers and superior officers assaulted and intimidated, the country held to ransom, and the economy of the country and public interest and public good prejudicially ' affected, prompt and iI'!IOOdiate action was called for ·.in order to bring the situation to normal. In these , circumstances, it cannot be said that an inquiry was reasonably practicable or that clause (b) of the second proviso was not properlyapplied. The fact that the railway employees may have gone on strike with the . object of forcing the Government to meet their demands **is** **not** **relevant** **because** **their** **demands** **were** **for** **their** private gain and in their private interest and the railway employees were not entitled in,seekiug to have their demands conceded to cause untold hardship to th~ public and prejudicially affect public good and public interest and the good and interest of the nation. (76) The quantum and extent of the penalty to be imposed in cases si.ich as the above would depend upon the gravity of the situation at a particular centre and the extent to which the acts said to be committed by particular civil servants, even though not serious in themselves, in conjunction with acts committed by others contributed to bringing about the situation. The fact, therefore, that at a particular centre certain civil servants were dismissed from service - while at some other centres they were only removed from service does not mean that the penalties were arbitrarily imposed. XII. Clause ( c) of the Second Proviso (77) ·The expression "security of the State" in clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) does not A B c D E F G H SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.I. [MADCN, J • l 823 mean security of the entire country or a whole State but includes security of a part of a State. A (78) Security of the State cannot be confined to an armed rebellion or revolt for there are various ways in which the security of the State can be affected such as by State secrets or information relating to defence production or similar matters being passed on li to other countries, whether inimical or not to India, or by secret links with terrorists. (79) The way in which the security of the State is · affected may be either open or clandestine. (80) One of the obvious acts which would affec.t the security of the State would be disaffection in the armed forces or paramilitary forces or the police force. The importance of the proper discharge of the duties by members of these Forces and the maintenance c of discipline among them fs emphasized in Article 33 D of the Constitution. (81) Disaffection in any armed force or para-military force or police force is likely to spread because dissatisfied and disaffected ·member of such a Force spread dissatisfaction and disaffection among other members of the · Force and thus induce them not to E discharge their duties properly and to commit acts of indiscipline, insubordination or disobedience to the orders of their superiors. Such a situation cannot be a matter affecting only law and order or Pubic order but is a matter vitally affecting the security of the State. F (82) The interest of the security of the State can be affected by actual acts or even ·by the likelihood of such acts taking plsce. (83) In·an Inquiry into acts affecting the interest of the security of the State, several matters not fit or proper to be made public, including the source of information involving a civil servant in such acts, would be disclosed and thus in· such cases an inquiry into sets prejudicial to the interest of the security G H 824 SUPREME COUIIT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. of the State would as much prejudice the interest of the security of the State as those acts themselves would. (84) The condition for the application of clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is the satisfaction of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, that it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State to hold a disciplinary inquiry. (85) Such satisfaction. is not required to be that of the President or the Governor personally but of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, acting in the Constitutional sense. (86) ''Expedient" means "advantageous, fit, proper, suitable or politic". Where, therefore, the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that it will not be advantageous or fit or proper or suitable or politic in the interest of the security of the State to hold an inquiry, he would be entitled to dispense with it under clause (c) of the second proviso. (87) Under clause (c) of the second proviso the satisfaction reached by the President or the Governor, as the case may be, must necessarily be a subjective satisfaction because expediency involves matters of policy. (88) Satisfaction of the President or the Governor under clause (c) of the second proviso may be arrived at as a result of secret information received by the Government about the brewing danger to the security of the State and like matters. There are other factors wh:tch are also required to be considered, weighed and balanced in order to reach the requisite satisfaction whether holding an inquiry would be expedient or not. If the requisite satisfaction has been reached as a result of secret information received by the Government, making known such information may very often result in disclosure of the source of such information and once known the particular source from which the information was received would no more be available to A I! c D F G Ii SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.Q.I. [MADON, J.] 825 the Government. The reason for the satisfaction A reached by the President or the Governor under clause (c) of the second proviso cannot, therefore, be required to be recorded in the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank nor can it be made public. ( 89) The police are the guardians of law and order. They stand guard· at the border between the green valleys of law and order and the rough and hilly terrain of lawlessness and public disorder, and . if these guards turn law-breakers and create violent B public disorder and incite others to do the same, one C can only exclaim with Juvenal, ·~ **custodietilllsoa** **I** **CustodeaY-** ''Who is to guard the guards themselves?" (Satires, VI, 347). In such a situation prompt and urgent action becomes necessary and the holding of an inquiry into D the conduct of each . individual member of the police force would not be expedient in the interest of the security of th~ State. (90) When, therefore, a number of members of the Madhya Pradesh District Police Force and the Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force, in order to obtain the E release on bail of two of. their colleagues who had been refused bail and remanded into judicial custody because of an incident which took place at the annual Mela held at Gwalior in which one man was burnt alive, indulged in violent demonstrations and i;ioted at the Mela ground, attacked the police station at the Mela F ground, ransacked it and forced the wireless operator to close down the wireless set and the situation became so dangerous that senior district and police officers had to approach the Judicial Magistrate at night to get the two arrested constables released on bail and, after discussion at a Cabinet meeting, a G decision was taken and the advice of the Council of Ministers was tendered to the Governor of Madhya Pradesh who accepted it and issued orders of dismissal of these persons by applying clause (c) of the second proviso to them, it cannot be said that the provisions of the said clause ( c) were not properly applied. II #### ' 826 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. (91) Similarly, when after these members of the Madhya Pradesh Dietrict Police Force and the Madhya Pradesh - ·Special Armed Force were dlsmissed, some ohter members of these Forces began carrying on an active propaganda against the Government, visiting various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh, holding secret meetings, distributing leaflets and inciting the constabulary in these places to rise against the administration as a body in protest against the action taken by the Government and, on such information being received, - they were also dismissed by applying clasue (c) of the second proviso to them, it cannot be said that the said clause (c) was not properly applied. XIII. **Remedies** **available** **to** **a** **Civil** **Servant** (92) A civil servant who has been dismissed, removed ,or reduced in rank by applying to his case one of the clauses of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule has two remedies available to **him.** **These remedies are:** (i) the appropriate departmental remedy provided for **rin the relevant** **service** **rules,** **and** (li) if still dissatisfied, invoking the court's power of judicial revieY. , XIV. **Departmental** **Remedies** (93) Service rules generally provide for departmental remedies by way of an appeal, revision and review in the case of disciplinary action taken against a civil **servant.** (94) Sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of the first proviso to Rule 25 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and. Appeal) Rules, 1968, **inter** **a1ia** provides that where an inquiry has not been held, the revising authority shall itself hold such inquiry or direct such inquiry to be held, subject to the provisions of Rule 14 of the said Rules which is analogous to the second proviso to Article 311 (2). Thus, under the said Rules a railway servant has a right to demand A ll c D G H SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.Q.I. [MADON, J.] 827 in rev1s1on an inquiry into the charges against him A subject to a situation envisaged in l<ule 14 of the said Rules not prevailing at that time. ' (95) Although a provision similar to sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of the first proviso to Rule 25 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 196ti, does not exist in the rules relating to appeals in the said Rules, having regard to the factors set out in Rule 22 (2) of the said Rules which are to be considered by the appellate authority in deciding an appeal, a provision similar to the said sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of the first proviso to Rule 25 (1) should be read and imported into the provisions rel~ting to appeals in the said Rules. B c \ 9b) Where service rules do not contain a provision similar to sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of the first proviso to Rule 25 ( 1) of the Hallway Servants D (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, having regard to the factors to be taken into accour,t by the appellate authority in deciding an appeal, a provision similar : to the said sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Rule 25 (1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Hules, 1968, should be read and imported into the provisions relating to appeals and.revision contained E **in** **such** **service** **rules.** **This would, however,** **be** **subject** to a situation envisaged by . the second proviso to Article 311 (2) not existing at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision. (97) Even in a case where at the time of the hearing F **of** **the** **appeal** **or** **revision,·** **as** **the** **case** **may** **be,** **a** situation envisaged by the second proviso to Article 311 (2) exists, as the civil servant, if dismissed or **removed,** **is** **not.continuing** **in** **service** **and** **if** **reduced** **in** **rank·,** **is** **continuing** **in** **service** **with** **the** **reduced** **rank,** **the** **hearing** **of** **the** **appeal** **or** **revision,** **as** **the** **G** **case** **may** **be,** **should** **be postponed** **for** **a** **reasonable** length of time to enable the situation to return to normal. (98) An order imposing penalty passed by the President **or** **the** **Governor,** **as** **the** **case** **may** **be,** **cannot be** H challenged in a departmental appeal or revision. 828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. _(99)_ A civil servant who has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying to his case one of the clauses of the second proviso of Article 311 (2) or of an analogous service rule has, therefore, the right in a departmental appeal or revision to a full and complete inquiry into the allegations made against him subject to a situation envisaged in the second proviso to Article 311 (2) not existing at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision application. Even in a case where such a situation exists, he has the right to have the hearing of the appeal or revision application postponed for a reasonable length of time for the situation to become **normal.** (100) In an appeal, revision or review by a civil **servant** **who** **has been dismissed or** **removed** **from** **service** or reduced in rank by applying to his case clause (a) **of** **the second proviso or** **an** **analogous** **service** **rule,** **it** is not open to the civil servant to contend that he was wrongly convicted by the criminal Court. He can, however, contend that the penalty imposed upon him is **too** **severe** **or** **excessive** **-or** **was** **one** **not** **warranted** **by** the facts and circumstances of the case. If he is in **fact** **nqt the** **civil** **servant** **who** **was** **actually** **convicted** on a criminal charge, he can contend in appeal, revision or review against such order of penalty that it was a case of mistaken identity. (101) A civil servant who has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying to his case clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule can claim in appeal or revision that an inquiry ~hould be held with respect to the charges on which such penalty has been **imposed upon him** **unless** **a** **situation** **envisaged** **by** **the** second proviso is prevailing at the hearing of the **appeal** **or** **revision** **application.** **Even** **in** **such** **a** **case** the hearing of the appeal or revision application should be postponed for a reasonable length of time **for** **the** **situation** **to** **return** **to** **normal.** (102) In a case where a civil servant has been **dismissed** **or** **removed** **from** **service** **or** **reduced** **in** **rank** .bY applying clause (b) of the second proviso or an A B c D E F G Ii SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.l., [MADON, J.] 829 analogous service rule to him, by reason .of clause (3) A of Article 311 it is not open to him to contend in appeal, revision or review that the inquiry was ~ongly dispensed with. B c D E F G H . I , ( 103) In a case ~ere a civil servant has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying clause (c) of the second proviso or an **analogous** **service** **rule** **to** **him,** **no** **appeal** **or** **revision** will lie if the order of penalty was passed by the President or the Governor. If, hwever, the inquiry has been dispensed with by the President or the Governor and the order of penalty has been passed by the disciplinary authority (a position envisaged by clause (iii) of Rule 14 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, and clause (iii) of Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965), a departmental appeal or revision will lie. In such an appeal or revision, the civil servant can ask for an inquiry to be· held into his alleged conduct unless at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision a situation envisaged by the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is prevailing. Even in such a situation the hearing of the appeal or revision application should be postponed,for a reasonable length of time for the situation to become normal. The civil servant, how**ever,** **cannot contend** **in** **such appecll** **or** **revision** **that** the inquiry was ~ongly dispensed with by the **President or the** **Governor •** XV. **Judicial** **Review** (104) Where a clause of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule is applied on an extraneous ground or a ground having no relation to **the** **situation** **envisaged** **in** **such** **clause** **or** **rule,** **the** action of the disciplinary authority in applying that clause or rule would be mala fide and, therefore, bad in law and the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would strike down both the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following thereupon. l!30 SUPREME COUR:r REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. (105) Where a civil servant has . been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule and he invokes the Court's power of judicial review, if the Court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all porportion to the offence comnitted or was not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of the particular government service to which the concerned civil servant belonged, the Court will 1 strike down the impugned order. In such a case, it is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. ·The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. If, however, the Court finds that he was not in fact the civil ser'1ant who was convicted, it will strike down the impugned order of penalty and order his reinstatement. ( 106) In the case of a civil servant who has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule, the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 will interfere on grounds well-established in law for the exercise of its power of judicial review in matters where administrative discretion is exercised. (1U7) The finality given by clause (3) of Article 311 to the disciplinary authority's decision that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry is not binding upon the court and the court would consider whether clause (b) of the second proviso or an analogous service rule had been properly applied or **not.** (108) In examining the relevancy of the reasons given for dispensing - with the inquiry, the Court will ·consider the circumstances which, accroding to the disciplinary authority, made it C:lllle·to the conclusion that it ·was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. If the court finds that the reasons are irrelevant, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following upon it would be void , A _B_ c D E F G H I ~ ### • SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. [MADON, J.] 831 and the Court will strike them down. In considering the relevancy of the reasons given by the disciplinary authority, the Court will not, however, sit in judgment over the reasons like a Court of first appeal in order to decide whether or not the reasons are germane to clause ( b) of the second proviso or an analogous service rule. The Court must put itself in the place of the disciplinary authority and consider what in the then prevailing situation a rasonable man acting in a reasonable manner would have done. It will judge the matter in the light of the then prevailing situation and not as if the disciplinary authority was deciding the question whether the inquiry should be dispenaed with or not in the cool and detached atmosphere of a Court-room,,removed in time from the situation in question. Where two views are posssible, the Court will decline to interfere. A B c (109) Where it is alleged that clause (b) of the D **second proviso or** **an** **analogous** **service** **rule** **was** applied mala fide, the Court will examine the charge of mala ffdes. A mere bare allegation Of mala fides without any particulars .of mala fides will not:, how ever, amount to a plea of mala fides and requires to be ignored. E F i 1 (110) If the reasons for dispenaing with the inquiry are not c~cated to the concerned civil servant and the matter comes to Court, the Court can direct the reasons to be prc:iduced arid furnished to the civil servant and if still not produced, a presumption should be drawn that the reasons were not recorded in writing and the impugned order would then stand invalidated. 'Such presumption can, however, be rebutted by a satisfactory explanation for the nonproduction of the written reasons. (lll) Where a civil servant is dismissed or removed G from service or reduced in rank by applying clause (c) of the second proviso or an analogous service rule to his case, the· satisfaction of the President or the Governor that it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the ~tate to hold an inquiry being a subjective satisfaction would not be a fit matter for H . judicial review. 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPP.2 S.C.R. (112) It is not necessary for the Cou~t to decide the question whether the satisfaction of the President or the Governor has been reached mala fide, or is based on **wholly extraneous or** **irrelevant** **grow'ld.s** **in** **a** **case** where all the materials including the adi vce of the Council of Ministers have been produced and .such materials show that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor was neither reached mala. fide nor was it based on any extraneous or irrelevant ground. (113) By reason of the express provision of Article 74 (2) and Article 163 (3) of the C'.onstitution the question whether any, and if so what,. advice was tendered by the Ministers to the Presldent or the Governor, as the case may be, cannot be ii.nquired into by any Court. (114) Whether the Court should order production of the materials upon which the advice of the Council of Ministers to the Prsident or the Governor, as the case may be, was based in order to determine whether the satisfaction of the President or - the Governor was **arrived** **at** **mal.a** **fide** **or** **was** **based** **on** **wholly extraneous** A B c D '· or irrelevant grounds would depend upon whether the documents fall within the class of privileged documents and whether in respect of them privilege has E been properly claimed or not. In Tulsiraa Patel's Case [1985j 3 s.c.c. 398, where appeals filed by certain dismissed members of the Central lnduatrial Security Force had not been disposed of by the appellate authority, the majority judgment directed the· appellate authority to F dispose of such appeals as expeditioualy as possible· In those matters where civil servants had been dismissed or removed from service by applying to their cases clauae (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule, the Court gave such civil servants time to file appeals and directed the concerned appellate authority to condone, in the exercise of G its power under the relevant service rule, the delay in filing such appeals. It is important to note that the majority judgment in Tulsiraa Patel's Case [1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, is more beneficial to civil servants .and confers greater rights upon them than Ii a.allappan's Case did. According to Qvillappan's Case a civil SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.I. [MADON, J.] 833 servant to whom a service rule analogous to the second proviso to A Article 311 (2) is sought to be applied has only the right to be heard with respect to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him. The majority judgment in 'l.\Jlsiram PAi:el. 's Case [1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, has, however, conferred upon the civil servants who have been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank bY applying the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous B service rule ·the right to a full and complete inquiry in an appeal or revision unless a situation envisaged bY the second proviso is prevailing at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision application. Even in such a case under the majority judgment the hearing of the appeal or revision application is to be postponed for a reasonable length of time for the situation to C become normal. The Facts of the Two Civil Appeals Having seen what.· was decided in 'l.\Jlsiram PAtel 's Case, [1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, we now turn to the facts of the i:wo Civil D Appeals before us. The facts of both these Appeals are com11•:m. All the Appellants were employees of the Research and analysis Wing ("RAW", in short). Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. In 1904 an Intelligence Bureau had been formed which was reorganized in 1948. Originally the Intelligence Bureau was concerned both with domestic and international intelligence. In E 1968, a branch of the Intelligence Bureau was set up as a separate department and the Intelligence Bur~au since that time was concerned with only domestic affairs While the RAW was concerned with international affairs .and under-cover .a~tiviti~s pertaining to national security. Certain cadres of employees of the RAW formed an Association under the riame of "The Cabinet .F Sectetariat (Research and Analysis Wing) Employees Ass6ciation (Regd.)" The said Association submitted a charter of demands. We are not concerned in these Appeals with the reasonableness or otherwise of the said demands. Earlier, the different branches and departments of the RAW G in New Delhi were scattered in several buiidings. Ultimately, a new building was constructed for the RAW at Lodhi Road. In the said building the Counter Intelligence Section ("CIS", for short) was housed. The other departments were housed in the South Bolek at R.K. PUram. After the CIS was shifted to the building at Lodhi Road, Strict security mea8ures were introduced and the employees, H when going from one floor to the other, had to show their A B c D E G 834 SUPKEME COUKT REPORTS [19B5j SUPP.2 s.c.R. identity cards. This was resented by the employees and they demanded the withdrawal of this regulation and insisted that the identification check should be made only at the time of entering the building. This demand can only be characterized as wholly unreasonable. The RAW is a security and intelligence section the Government of India dealing with many sensitive matters ·affecting national. security and relations with other countries including counter intelligence. The basic rule of intelligence work is that no person engaged in it should know more than what he needs to know. It is for this reason that when an outside agent is employed for espionage, care is taken to see that he does not know who his real employers are but knows only the name of his contact maa which name is generally an ali.as. Employees of an intelligence service cannot, 'therefore, be the best .judges of what security measures should be adopted to prevent secrets from leaking out. ' To return to our narrative, in the forenoon on November 27, 198U, a· number of stat£ members collected in t~e galleries leading .to the ClS rooms, protesting against the said security regulation and demanding its immediate· withdrawal. All attempts to pacify them proved unsuccessful. More and more employees Joined them and they turned aggressive, breaking into the various· roomS of the CIS unit. Several persons forced their ·entry into the room of the Director ( _CIS)_ and forced him as also the Assistant Director and the Secruity Field Officer who were in the room to stand in a corner·and did not ·allow them to move from the spot but kept them as hostages in order to have their demand conceded. The employees who had gathered there shouted slogans against the organization and its officers. These slogans were obscene, abusive, threa"tening, and personal in nature. All attempts made by Senior officers to pacify them proved unsuccessful and the employees made it clear that they would not let the said . three officers go unless the Director of the Counter Intelligence Section anaounced the withdrawal of the said security regulation. This st"ate of affairs continued until late in the evening. Ultimately, the loCal police were sent for and about 8.30 p.m. the local police entered the premises and went to the galleries in front of the CIS branch. Some of the agitators who were in the gallery escaped. Those inside the said room closed the door to prevent the police party from entering it ~ut the police forced open. the door and ·rescued the said three Officers. Thirty-one agitators who were fowid inside the room were arrested and charged under section 342, 506, 353, 186, 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7 of the Criminal SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.I. [MADON, J.] 835 Law Amendment Act, 1952. They were subsequently released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate. These arrested employees were suspended under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as a criminal case against them was under investigation. The next day, namely, on November 28, 1980, the agitation **continued** **and** **many** **employees** **did** **not perform** **their** **duties.** Instead, they collected inside the building and in the premises in groups stopping work in many branches. A large number of them went rung shouting slogans and made speeches in the corridors of the office. On November 29, 1980, a letter was issued by the said Association demanding the immediate withdrawal of the criminal cases against the said employees as also of the said security regulation. The letter stated that unless these demands were met, the employees would go on a pen-down strike with immediate effect.' Thereupon, orders of suspension were issued,against those who were taking a leading, active and aggressive role in the agitation and indulging in these activities. The said suspension orders were issued from the 1st December' 1980 onwards but the pen-down strike continued spread to other offices of the RAW in New Delhi as well as in different, parts of India including Lucknow and Jammu. Daily the situation worsened. There was complete insubordination and total breakdown of discipline. The **atmosphere was charged** **with** **tension** **and** **there** **did** **not** **seem any** hope of the situation becoming normal. Ultimately, the seven Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982 and the sole Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1982 were dismissed by orders dated December 6, 1980, without holding any inquiry by applying to them clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) read with Rule 19 of the said Rules. Thereupon a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court. At the date of the filing of the said writ petition only Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982 had been served with the orders of dismissal, while the remaining Appellants and Respondents Nos. 4 to 44 in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982 joined in the said writ petition as co-petitioners together with the Cabinet Secretariat (Research and Analysis Wing) Employees Association (Regd.), contending the smimilar action of dismissal was being apprehended by them. Pending the said writ petition the orders of dismissal were also served upon the remaining Appellants. Doring the course' of the hearing of the said writ petition a statement was made to the, High Court on behalf of the Union, of India that the other petitioners would not be dismissed without holding a regular A B c D E F G H 836 SUPill:l'lli COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. ~ inquiry. The said writ petition, therefore, proceeded only so far **as** **the** **Appellants** **in** **these** **two** **Appeals were concerned. A** **Division** Bench of the said High Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated September 25, 1981. It is against this Judgment and order of the said High Court, that these two Appeals by Special Leave have been preferred. 'llle Jmpigoed Orders of Dhwi ssal c D E If All the eight impugned orders of dismissal were in identical terms and it will, therefore, be sufficient to reproduce the order of dismissal passed against the First Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982. The said order reads as follows: "No. 3/AU1N/80-6486(N) WWI<NMENT OF lNDlA **Cabinet** **Secretariat,** Room No. 8-B, South 8lock. New Delhi, the 6th Dec, 1980. ORDKR Whereas a large number of employees of the Cabinet Secretariat (R & AW) located at Delhi" have for some time past been indulging in various acts of mis**conduct,** **indiscipline,** **intimidation** **and** **insubordina-** **tion,** **such** **as** **abstaining** **from work,** **wilful** **neglect** **of** the duties assigned to them and disobedience of lawful **instructions** **and** **orders** **of** **the** **official** **superiors;** and whereas the said employees are also regularly holding meetings and demonstrations unauthorisedly and **in** **violation** **of** **specific** **orders,** **within** **the** **office** **premises** **and** **its** **precincts;** **and** **Whereas** **the** **said** **employees have** **resorted** **to** **coercion,** **intimidation** **and** **incitement** **of** **other** **fellow** **employees which has a** **serious** **demoralizing** **effect** **on** **the** **members** **of** **the** **organization,** **and whereas** **such** **conduct** **of** **the** **said** **employees** **is** **unbecoming** **of** **a** **Government** **servant** **and** **is** **ill** **gross** **violation** **of** **the** Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964; **and whereas·** **Shri** **Satyavir** **Singh,** **.Field** **Assistant,** **is** **one** **of** **the** **said** **employees** **actively** **participating** **in** **such** **activities;** SATYAVIR SINGH v. u.o.r. '[MADON, J • l 837 and whereas due to the practice of coercion, intimidation and such like threats and postures adopted by the said employees the atmosphere is so tense and abnormal that no witness will c?i-operate with any proceedings in accordance .with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and AP,peal) Rules, 1965; **and** **whereas I** **am** **satisfied** **that** **the circumstances are** such that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry as contemplated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; and whereas on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed on Shri Satyavir Singh, Field Assistant; **Now,** **therefore,** **in** **exercise** **of** **the** **powers under -the** proviso (b) of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution read with rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, I as_the appointing authority do hereby dismiss Shri Satyavir Singh from the post of Field Assistnat A B c D in the R & AW with effect from the forenoon of E December 6, 1980. **Contentions** Sd/6.12.80. (H.N. KAK) Joint Director Though serveral ·contentions were raised in the said writ petition, in view of the judgment in **Msiram** **Patel's** **Case** [1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, the only .contention taken at the hearing of **these** **two** **Appeals** **was** **that** **the** **s·a1d** **orders** **of** **dismissal** **were** passed **mala** **fide** and the reasons given therein for dispensing with the inquiry were noi: true and that an inquiry wa.s reasonably practicable. Several points were urged in support of this **contention.** The first . pol.nt was that the orders of suspension showed that a disciplinary inquiry was in fact contemplated and, if so., nothing had happened between the date of the orders of suspension F G **H** A B c D E F G H 838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS tl985j SUPP.2 s.c.R. atld the date of the orders of dismissal to come to the conclusion that the inqyiry was not reasonably practicable. (Each order or suspension stated that the concerned employee was being suspended in the exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10 (1) of tl1e said Hules because a disciplinary proceeding against him under Kille 14 of the said Rules "Was contempiated.) Clause _(a)_ of Rule lU (l) confers power upon a disciplinary authority to place the government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proce~d­ ing against him is contemplated or is pending. Rule 14 prescribes the procedure for imposing maJor penalties. Upe of. the major penalties set out in Rule 11 is the penalty or dismissal from service, lt is thus clear that at the date of the orders ot suspension disciplinary proceedings against the Appellants was in contemplation. This however, does not mean that the situation will continue to be the same and that at no time thereafter will the holding of the inquiry become "not reasonably practicable". As pointed out in Tulsir- Patel's Case [1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, it is not necessary that a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable should exist .before the disciplinary inquiry is initiated, because a situation which renders the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable can come into being even during the course of an inquiry. The affidavits filed in the High Court clearly show that the situation had so changed after the orders of suspension were issued against the appellants that it was not reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry against the Appellants. The all-India pen-down strike was spreading. More and more centres in India were joining in the said strike. The postition was fast deteriorating. Employees were being instigated into further acts of indiscipline and insubordination and loyal employees and senior officers were being intimidated. Meetings and demonstrations were regularly. being held within the office premises and their precincts and there was no possibility of any witness coming forward. to give ·evidence against the Appellants who were said to have taken a~leading part in this agitation. It is also pertinent to note that when the first batch of dismissal orders was served uvon some of the Appt!llants .on l.Jecember 8, 1980, the pen-down strike was called otf on December _Y,_ 198U. In such a situation as was then prevailing, prompt and urgent action was required to bring the situation under control. As pointed out in Tulsiraa Patel's Case, t1985] 3 s.c.c. 398, sometimes not taking prompt action may result ·in the trouble "spreading and the situation worsening and at times becoming uncontrolable, and may at times be also construed by the trouble-makers and agitators as a sign of weakness on the part of the authorities and encourage SATYAVIR SINGH v. U .O. I. [MADON, J.] 839 them to step up the tempo of their activities or agitation. The affidavits filed in the High Court clearly show that this is exactly what happened when the suspension orders were issued and that what was required was prompt and urgent action agianst those who were considered to be the ring leaders and that once such action was taken the situation improved and started becoming normal. The next point which was urged was that while eight employees were dismissed for their part in the agitation which took place in Delhi, in respect of the agitation which took place in the Lucknow office of the RAW only two employees of that off ice were dismissed and, therefore, there was no application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority. It is very difficult to understand this argument. We do now how what precisely the situation at Lucknow was and how many employees were actively engaged in leading the agitation, and the fact that it was thought fit to dismiss only two employees of the Lucknow Office cannot lead to the conclusion that the Appellants were wrongly dismissed without any application of mind. **The** **next** **point** **which** **was** **.'.lrged** **was** **that** **even on** **December** **6,** **1980, a suspension order** **was** **issued** **against** **one** **of** **the** **employees·** **and** **that** **on** **December** **9,** **1980, suspension orders were** **issued** **against** **two** **other** **employees, and** **that** **the** **issuance** **of** **these** suspension orders on the 6th and 9th December show what the holding of the inquiry was reasonably practicable. As the charge**sheets** **issUed** **against** **these** **three** **employees show,** **these** **employees** were working in the R.K. PUram Offiee and are not alleged to have taken any leading part in the agitation or in bringing about the atmosphere of violence, insubordination and indiscipline. The next point was that it was not alleged by the authorities that anyone was physically injured in the agitation. This is another. argument which is difficult to understand. As held in Tulsiram Patel's case, it will not be reasonably practicable to. hold an inquiry where an ·atmosphere of violence or ·of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails. It is, therefore, not necessary that the disciplinary authority should wait until incideats take place in which physical injury is caused to others before dispensing with the inquiry. **It** **was** **next** **submitted** **that** **after** **the** **suspension** **orders,** **the** **appellants** **were** **prohibited** **from.** **visiting** **any** **of** **the** **Cabinet** **Secretariat** **Offices** **except** **fol-** **the** **purpose** **of** **collecting** **their** A B c D E F G H 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985j SUPP.2 s.c.R. A they could not have held any meeting or demonstration inside the **office** **premises.** **There** **is** **no** **substance** **in** **this** **submission.·** **The** admitted position is that the Appellants were regularly coming to the officce building and talking with other employees over the wall and at the gate twice a day at 11.30 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. and were making inflamatory speeches and holding out threats. B The point which was next urged in support of the contention that the impugned orders were passed mala fide was that even though co-workers may not have been available as witnesses, there were policemen and police officers posted inside and outside the building and they were available to give evidence and that superior officers were also available to give evidence. The C crucial and material evidence against the Appellants would be that of their co-workers for these co-workers were directly **concerned** **in** **and were** **eye-witnesses** **to** **the** **various** **incidents.** Where the disciplinary authority feels that crucial and material evidence will not be available in an inquiry because the witnesses who could give such evidence are intimidated and would not come forward and the only evidence which would be available, D namely, in· this case, of policemen, police officers and senior officers, would . only be peripheral and cannot relate to all the ·charges and that, therefore, leading only such evidence may be assailed in a court of law as being a mere farce of an inquiry and a deliberate attempt to keep back material witnesses, the disciplinary authority would be justified in coming to the E conclusion that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The affidavit filed by the Joint Director, Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat, llari Narain Kak, who haci passed the impugned orders sets out in detail the various acts of intimidation, violence and incitement committed by each of the Appellants. Copies of the written reasons for dispensing with the F inquiry in the case of the Appellants have also been annexed to the said affidavit. It is clear from a perusal of the said affidavit. It is clear from a perusal of the said affidavit and **its** **annexures** **that** **the** **police** **officers,** **policemen** **and** **senior** officers could not have possibly given evidence with respect to all these acts. The said affidavit further states that the senior G officers of the RAW in the said charter of demands submitted by the said Association and the evidence of senior officers would bave been attacked as being biased and partisan. Ther!' is thus no substance in this point also. The last point which was urged that D.P. Vohra, th~ Ii Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1982 was posted at Jammu and could not, therefore, have taken any active part in the agitatior SATYAVIR SINGH v. U.O.I. [MADON, J.] 841 which took place in Delhi. This .submission is completely bt..Lied A by the said affidavit of Hari Narain Kak. The said affidavit shows that during the relevant time Vohra had taken leave for personal reasons and have come down to Delhi and had played on active role in the said agitation. He made inflamatory speeches on the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th of December, 1980 and had instigated the other employees to continue the agitation and intimidated B those who had not joined in the agitation .into doing so. In a speech made by him on December 4, 1980, he had tried to make public some of the top secret operations of the RAW claiming to have special knowledge of these operations by virtue of having been posted earlier in a sensitive ·oranch. He was also actively engaged in collecting funds for continuing the agitation. C We are, therefore, of the opinion that clause ( b) of the second proviso to. Article 311(2)·and Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, control and .Appeal) Rules, 1965, were properly applied to the case of each of the Appellants and the impugned orders of dismissal were validly passed against them. D **Final Orders** In the result, both these Appeals fail and are dismissed and the interim orders passed in these Appeals are hereby vacated. If any payment has been made to any of the Appellants in. the pursuance of any interim order, such" Appellant will not be liable E to refund such amount or any part thereof. The Appellants have a right to file a departmental appeal under the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965• .In case they desire to file such an appeal, we give them time until October 31, 1985, to do so and we direct the appellate authority to condone in the exercise of its power under the proviso to Rule F 25 of.the said Rules the delay in filing the appeal and to hear and dispose of such appeals expeditiously subject to what has been laid down in **Tulsir- Patel's** **case** and summarized in the earlier part of this judgment. There will be no order as to the costs of these Appeals. G S.R. Appeals dismissed.