# Muiei!Jal Board, Pus/J:.ar v. 81«/1 Transport 1.11/wil:] RajM than Sarlar, J - **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 404 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961-01-06 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/muiei-jal-board-pus-j-ar-v-81-1-transport-1-11-wil-rajm-than-sarlar-j-2779 - **Pages:** 13 ## Headnote 1962 Muiei!Jal Board, Pus/J:.ar v. 81«/1 Transport 1.11/wil:] RajM than Sarlar, J, 1962 Nrv111161r, 2 2 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. and under s. !HA that order could not be a~ec~e~ ~t all. In my yiew, the . appell~nt .\e made available to him so that on scrutinising them he might prove his innocence. On January 28, 1953, the second respondent examined the appellant in person, and thereafter on May 19, 1953, he was served a second show-cause notice, which is in these terms : "Memo No. STA-98-10/52/SEA Dated New Delhi, the 19th May, 1953. Shri V. S. Menon, Sub-divisional Officer, Telegraphs, Nagpur, was called upon to answer • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R.£PORTS 409 the following charges :- "Soon after your arrival in Nagpur important local Communists were reported to have contacted you and during the discussions you were reported to have interested yourself in the political activities of the Communist Party and other political organisations and groups, in Nagpur. You are also reported to be actively continuing your association with Shri B. N. Mukherjee and other prominent local Communists." 2. The Committee of Advisers have considered the defence submitted by Shri V. S. Menon and the record of the personal hearing and arc provisionally of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist to bring home these charges to Shri Menon, justifying his compulsory retirement from service under Rule 3 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. 3. Shri Menon is, therefore, called u~on to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of this Memorandum, why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. 4. A copy of the record of personal hearing granted to him is forwarded herewith. 5. If Shri Menon fails to submit his defence within the period stipulated above, orders will be passed ex parte. Sd/- Dircct<>r General." On August 28, 1953, the following order was passed against him : "Memorandum No. STA. 98-10/52/SEA Dated New Delhi, the 28th Aug. 53. llfl v..s: 11.- y, lf•iMef lo& SiolM, C. I 1962 V.S. M1nt1n v. Union of lridia Sio!i., C, /, 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. In the oflice Memo of the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs No. STA. !J8-10/52 dated the 3rd November 1952, Shri V. S. ·Menon, Officiating Sub Divisional Officer Telegraphs, Nagpur, was informed of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action for his compulsory retirement from service under Rule 3 of the Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, and was called upon to submit any representation he wished to make as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service under the said rules. Shri Menon submitted his statement in defence on November 17, 1952, in which he also expressed a desire for a personal hearing by the Director General. He was accordingly granted an oral hearing by the Director Geuernl on January 28, 1953. 2. The Committee of Advisers having considered the defence submitted by Shri V. S. ~~cnon, and the record of the personal hearing, were of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist justifying Shri Menon's compulsory retirement from service under Rule 3 of the said rules. Shri Menon was thereupon called upon in Director General, Posts and Telegraphs .Memo No. ST !\. 98-10/52-SEA, dated May HJ, 1953, to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired from service. Shri Menon submitted his representation on June 18, 1953. This representation has also been considered. 3. The competent authority (who in this case is the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs) after careful consideration of this case is of the opinion that Shri V. S. Menon has been associated with others in subversive activities 1n such a manner as to raise doubts about his reliability, ... 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R.EPOR TS 411 and is satisfied that his retention in the public service is prejudicial to national security. Shri V. S. Menon is hereby informed that the competent authority has accordingly decided, with the prior approval of the President, that Shri V. S. Menon should be compulsorily retired from service in accordance with the provisions of the Rule 3 of Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. (H. L. Jerath) Director General, Post and Telegraphs" The appellant moved the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Nagpur under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The case was heard by a Full Bench of three Judges consisting of Kausltalendra Rao, V. R. Sen and Bhutt, .IJ. The Court was agreed as to the order to be passed, namely, that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that no writ could issue against the respondents, though the Judges were not agreed on the merits of the controversy. Kaushalendra Rao, J.-was of the view that even on merits the Court could not grant any relief whereas Sen and Bhutt, JJ., took the view ~t it was not covered by Art. 310 of the Constitution, and that the allegations in the initial show·cause notice were vague, nor did they disclose any personal· association on the part of the appellant in any subversive activities, and that, therefore, there was no compliance with r. 4 of the Rules. As the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu - tion in the Nagpur High Court proved infructuous, the appellant moved the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi under the same Article. The ~tition was heard by a learned Single Judge (1''alshaw, .J.), who by his judgment and order dated September 10, 1957, disagreeing with the views of the majority of the Judges of the Nagpur High Court, 1912 t'.S.Mv. l!aiM ef Ill& Sia'-, C. J. 1962 V.S. M'no1t v. U11ion o/ /11ida · Sinha, 0. J. 412 SUPRE1\-1E COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. dismissed the petition holding that the charge laid against the app.ellant should not be too strictly construed, and that his compulsory retirement under the Rules did not amount to dismissal or removal from service under Art. 311 of the Constitution. From the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred a Letters Patent appeal, which was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Khosla, C.J., • and Shamsher Bahadur, J. The Bench dismissed the appeal, though in their view also the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner was "not entirely in accordance with the terms of rule 3". In their view, the enquiry was proper, and reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed action. The appellant moved this Court for special leave which was granted on February 21, 1961, and that is how the matter is before us. Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a number of contentions, namely, that (1) the Rules are a colourable exercise of the power conferred on the Governor-General to make rules under s. 241 (2). of the Government of India Act, 1935, because the purpose of the Rules is not regulation of conditions of service; (2) the Rules violate s. 241 (3) (c): (3) the Rules do not provide for or authorise the constitution of a Committee of Advisors; (4) the charge against the petitioner is outside the provisions of r. 3, which requires the participation of the officer proceeded_ against in subversive activities and not his association with persons who are concerned with such activities; (5) the appellant was not given reasonable opportunity of showing cause because, in the first instance, the charge and the allegations were vague without any particulars, and secondly, because the~ 'competent authority' withheld all evidence on the ground that it was contained in secret documents; (6) the appellant was not given any opportunity of hear· ing by the Committee of Advisors, for which he 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 413 had made a special request; and (7) compulsory retirement means premature termination of service, and is, therefore, a special penalty which could not be inflicted without appropriate enquiry and proper opportunity to show cause. It is not necessary to consider all the grounds ·of attack raised on behalf of the appellant because, in our opinion, the appeal must succeed on the ground that the charge against the appellant, as quoted above, is that "you have continued to associate with others engaged in subversive activities", which is not the gravamen of the charge as contemplated by r. 3, which is in these terms : r-- "3. A Government servant who, in the opinion of the Competent authority is engaged in or is reasonably suspected to be engaged in subversive activities or is associated with others in subversive activities in such a manner as to raise doubts about his reliability may be compulsorily retired from service; Provided that a Government servant shall not be so retired, unless the competent authority is satisfied that his retention in the public service is prejudicial to national security and unless, where the competent authority is a head of a department, the prior approval of the Governor General has been obtained." That rule contemplates compulsory retirement from service of a government servant who (a) is engaged in subversive activities, or (b) is reasonably 1 suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, or L (c) is associated with others in subversive activities. ·If any one of those three alternative conditions is fulfilled, then the competent authority has also to be satisfied that the manner of his activities is such as to raise doubts about his rdiability, as also that his retention in the public service is prejudicial to 1~2 J!.S. Mmon •• Union •f India SinM, C. J. 1962 I'.~- Alf!I'" v. Uni,. ,r l•4i4 SilAo, C. J. 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. national security. And, finally, where such an order is passed by a competent authority in his capacity as the head of dt>partment, the prior approval of the Governor-General (now the President) has to be obtained. It is manifest on the charge, as framed against appellant that he was not even alleged to have been engaged or to be reasonably · suspected to have been engaged in subversive activities or to be engaged in such activities in association with others. It was only alleged against him that he associated with others who were engaged in subversive activities. That is not a charge which could be subtained under r. 3. As the rule is of a penal character, it has to be very strictly construed. If the appellant was even suspected to have been engaged in subversive activities, the charge could have been in those terms. But it is not even alleged that he was suspected to be engaged in subversive activities, far less to have been engaged in such activities either by himself or in association with others. As the charge against the appellant did not strictly come within the purview of r. 3, there wns no basis for the procedure adopted in pursuance of r. 4. J t is not, therefore, necessary to pursue the enquiry as to whether the procedure actually adopted complied with that laid down in r. 4. Apart from the initial serious defect in the charge laid against the appellant, even in the allegations made against him it was only said that afterhis arrival in Nagpur important local communists were reported to have contacted him, and that he was interested in political activities of the Communist party and other political organisations and groups in Nagpur, and finally, that he was reported to be conti· _ nuing his association with Shri B. N. Mukherjee and other prominent local communists. But no where it is alleged that the appellant had taken any part in subversive activities by himself or alongwith others with whom he is said to have been associated. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 415 Taking interest in political activities of the Commu· nist party would not amount to taking part in subversive activities so long as the Communist party continued to be a recognised political organisation, which has not heed banned. It cannot be asserted that simply talking with members of the Communist party or associating with such members would amount to engaging in subversive activities. Subversive activity, in order to bring the person within the purview of the rule, must amount to actively pursuing such activities as are calculated to subvert the government established by law. No such allegations appear to have been made against the appellant. The question remains whether in the facts and circumstances disclosed in this case, the appellant has any just grievance which could be remedied by the High Court under Art. 226. The judgment under appeal has taken the view that this case is governed by the decision of this Court in P. Balakotaiah v. The Union of India ('). That was a case in which the services of the appellants who were railway servants had been terminated for reasons of national security under r. 3 of the Railway Service (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949. Rule 3 in that case was practically in tht;: same terms as r. 3 in this case. Rule 3 in that case was held to be constitutionally valid as not being repuimant to Art. 14 of the Constitution. But, in our opinion, the High Court was in error in holding that the decision of this Court in Balakotaiah's case el govemed the present case also. This Court held further that the charge drawn up against the railway servants concerned showed not only that they were communists or trade unionists but that they were engaged in subversive activities. Hence, it could not be said that the orden; terminating their services contravened Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution. It was also held by this Court that Art. 311 of the Constitution was not attracted to the case because (I) (1!158J l.C.R, ION. 1961 v. s. ,,,_ v. u.;.. •f 1rim. Sinlto, C. J. 1962 Y.S. M11111ri •• Union of lntli.J Sinlz•, C. J. 416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. that was not a case of dismissal or removal from service by way of punishment. It was also held in that case that the order terminating · the services under r. 3 of the Security Rules stood on the same footing as an order of discharge under r. 148 of the Railway Establishment Code, and was, therefore, outside tht> purview of Art. 3ll of the Constitution. It is not disputed that there is no provision in the Rules relating to Posts and Telegraphs Service corresponding to r. 148 of the Railway Establishment Code. In the instant case, therefore, the premature termination of service before the age of superannuation could be justified only by virtue of r. 3. As r. 3 had not been attracted to the appellant's case for reasons given above, it follows that the premature termination of the appellant's service would be tantamount to removal from service by way of penalty. In that view of the matter, the appellant certainly had a grievance which he could ventilate under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and on the findings arrived at by us on the main question he is entitled to the declaration that his service was not legally terminated in accordance with r. 3 of the Security Rules. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. Appeal allowed.