UNION OF INDIA Vs. A.C.GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON March 06, 2013, we had passed the following order:-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Union of India states that bringing the said order to the notice of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, an opinion was sought from the said department and the opinion rendered by the Deputy Legal Advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice is that the view expressed by this Court in the order dated March 06, 2013 is correct. Indeed, a taint has been found by the Deputy Legal Advisor in the order dismissing A.C.Gangadharan from service.

(3.) SUFFICE would it be to state that where the President or a Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry into a misdemeanour or a wrong committed by a Government servant, reason for the satisfaction need not be recorded in the order and services can be terminated. But, where the decision taken is that the inquiry is being dispensed with because it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry, reason thereof has to be recorded; as contemplated by clause (b). The reason as to why, a reason need not be recorded, while exercising power under clause (c) is that the very recording of the reason as to why in the interest of State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry may jeopardize the very security of the State for the reason the recording of the reason itself may bring into public domain something which is not in the interest of the security of the State. But, this would not be applicable to clause (b) because of the reason said clause has nothing to do with the security of the State, but empowers a decision to be taken to penalize a Government servant without an inquiry if it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry.