R.K. CHAUHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, MCD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Robert Bolt's play 'A Man For All Seasons' refers to an incident when Sir Thomas More was urged by his daughter, Margaret, and his sonin-law, Roper, to arrest a man they regarded as evil. Margaret said : 'Father, that man's bad'. More replied : 'There is no law against that'. Roper said : 'There is! God's law!'. More said : 'Then God arrest him. I know what's legal, not what's right. And I'll strict to what's legal. I am not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which u find such plane sailing, I can't navigate. I'm not a voyager. But in the thickets of the law, Oh, there I'm a forester.' Roper was not appeased and he levelled the charge that More would give even the Devil the benefit of law. More said : 'Yes. What would you do' Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ? Roper retorted : 'I'd cut down every law in England to do that!? This drew More to say : 'Oh' And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you, where would you hid, Roper, the law's from coast to coast Man's law, Not God's and if you cut them down D'you really think you could stand apprived in the winds that would blow them? Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety's'.

(2.) The dialogue between Sir Thomas More, his daughter Margaret and his son-in-law Roper bring out the importance of adhering to the rule of law. Howsoever depriving may be the charge against a person, he would be entitled to the benefit of such due process of law which the law itself has enacted. Under Article 311(2)(b) and (c) a person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or of an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State can be dismissed or removed without any inquiry upon the authority empowered to dismiss or remove the person or 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 or where the President 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 inquiry.

(3.) The latter part i.e. the situation contemplated by Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India does not find its reflection under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, but the first part i.e. the situation contemplated by Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India finds a reflection in Section 95 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 inasmuch as clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 95 empowers the authority which is competent to remove or dismiss a municipal employee from service without any inquiry, provided the authority is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by the authority, it is not reasonably practicable to give the municipal employee an opportunity of showing cause.