DHIRAJ MOHALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated August 25, 2010 passed in OA No.1492/2008 whereby the challenge of the petitioner to the order of the President dated May 28, 2008 by which he has been dismissed from service under sub-clause (c) to second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India has been rejected.

(2.) The brief facts are the petitioner while working as JIO-II/WT of SIB Raipur Chattisgarh was arrested by the local police along with two other persons in March 2008 in connection with a criminal case No.58/2006 under Sections 365/420/395/120-B/34 of IPC registered against them. He was put under deemed suspension and remained under suspension till his dismissal from service vide order dated May 28, 2008. The challenge to the order dated May 28,2008 by the petitioner was primarily on the ground that sub-clause (c) to second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India of the Constitution of India could not have been invoked only because an FIR is registered against him. According to him he is not involved in any activity which would consider prejudicial to the security of the State.

(3.) The case of the respondents in their reply is that the petitioner was involved in subversive activities by establishing contacts with anti-social and anti-national elements during his detention in Central Jail, Raipur. A committee of advisors consisting of home Secretary, Director Intelligence Bureau, Secretary (Pers), DOP&T and Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs was formed as per DOP&T OM dated July 26, 1980 for taking action against the petitioner under Article 311(2) (c) of the Constitution of India. Based on the recommendation of the committee, which recommended dismissal of the petitioner from service under sub-clause (c) to second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the President, who is the competent authority, after considering the material on record being satisfied that in the interest of security of State it was not expedient to hold enquiry imposed a punishment of dismissal of service on the petitioner.