Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARI PADA KHAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1995
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Petitioner was a permanent staff memver of the Indian
Oil Corporation. He along with others, is said to have been
involved in theft of oil from Haldia Dock Complex. An FIR
was lodged against all the persons who committed the theft
including the petitioner. On that basis, Criminal Case No.1
was registered and he was arrested on September 6, 1988 and
was subsequently released on Novemver 3, 1988. Relying upon
Station Order No.20-IV of the Corporation, he was dismissed
from service, which reads thus:
"Where a workman has been convicted for
a criminal offence in a Court of Law or
where the General Manager is satisfied
for reasons to be recorded in writing,
that there is neither expedient nor in
the interest of security to continue the
workman, the workman may be removed or
dismissed from service without following
the procedure laid down under III of
this clause."
When the services of the petitioner were terminated he
challenged the validity of the Rule in question by filing a
writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court in
W.P.C.O. No.1590 [W] of 1989 and on appeal from Original
Order Tender No.3066/92 by order dated 28th June, 1995
upheld the validity of the above rule and dismissed the
petition. Thus this special leave petition.
Shree M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rule is ex
facie arbitrary offending Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. This Court in Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd.
& Anr. v. Hindustan Steels Ltd. & Anr. [(1985) 2 SCR 428]
considered a similar provision made by the Hindustan Steels
Ltd. in its Standing Order. This Court struck down the
provision as violative of Article 14 and held that the
action violated the principle of natural justice offending
Article 14 of the Constitution. Same ration is applicable to
the facts in this case. Therefore, it is contended that the
view taken by the High Court is not correct in law. We find
no force in the contention.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
It is seen that the rule has been made by the
Corporation with the intention to prevent an employee of the
Corporation served with a charge-sheet and arrested in
furtherance thereof, from continuing in service. Of course
it would be subject to the result of the trail. Continuance
of the officer involved in an offence would be an affront to
good and disciplined conduct of workmen. His continuance in
service of the Corporation would demoralise the service.
Therefore, it was most expedient in the public interest not
to hold any further enquiry and terminate his services
forthwith. However, it would be subject to the result of the
trail.
The doctrine of principle of natural justice has no
application when the authority concerned is of the opinion
that it would be inexpedient to hold an enquity and that it
would be against the interest of security of the Corporation
to continue in employment the offender workman when serious
acts are likely to affect the foundation of the institution.
In Tulsi Ram patel v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 398], a
Constitution bench of this Court upheld the validity of the
similar provisions under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Recently, in SLP [C] No.11659/92 the matter had come up
before this Court on November 13, 1995, where the validity
of pari materia provision was questioned. This Court upheld
the validity stating that the above clause will operate
prospectively.
A contention has been raised by Mr. Krishnamani that in
Tulsi Ram Patel’s case [supra] this Court had upheld the
validity of the Rule subject to the principle of natural
justice. It is needless to mention that the principle of
natural justice requires to be modulated consistent with the
scheme of the Rules. It is settled law that the principle of
natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement the law.
In that view of the matter, the Rule having been made to
meet specified contingency the principle of natural justice
by implication, stands excluded. We do not think that the
Rule is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 as stated earlier.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.