HAZARA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a former Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force challenges an. order dismissing him from service purported to have been made by the President of India in exercise of power conferred by Section 18 of the Air Force Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act'.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he. was granted commission on November 4, 1949 and appointed in the rank of pilot officer on January 26, 1949 under Warrant of Appointment signed by the then President of India, that since then on account of his hard work, devotion to duty, efficiency and calibre, the petitioner earned his usual promotions and was at the material time working as Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force, that by his communication of March 16, 1971, the Air Vice Marshal, A.O.A. Air H. Qr., New Delhi required the petitioner to explain certain allegations with regard to the alleged contact of the petitioner with a foreign mission in Delhi and to give details of the alleged acceptance of invitations by the petitioner from foreigners, that by his communication of March 23, 1971, the petitioner denied that he had any contact with any foreign missions or had accepted any invitation from any foreign diplomat, that the petitioner was subsequently interrogated by an officer of the Intelligence Bureau, that on June 9, 1971, the petitioner's son-in-law Flt. Lt. I. S. Grewal was also interrogated by the same intelligence officer, that subsequently the petitioner was asked to give details about certain deals of properties and of certain transactions and that in the course of the investigation, it appeared that it was alleged that the petitioner had been using a scooter at various times of meetings and for visiting foreign missions and had in fact visited the foreign missions on a number of occasions and that the foreigners had visited his residence a number of times. It is alleged that the petitioner was being unduly harassed and the petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the Minister of Defence on June 18, 1971 and instead of any reply to the representation, the petitioner received a letter on September 21, 1971 purporting to inform the petitioner that the President of India was pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service with immediate effect under Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of dismissal, inter alia, on the ground that no order of dismissal could be made under Section 18 of the Act, that the order militates against the mandatory requirements of natural justice in that the petitioner was never given any opportunity of being heard, that the purported order of dismissal had not been passed by the President of India and that neither the order nor the material on which it purports to be based was ever placed before the President of India and was instead made by the Defence Minister, that the impugned order is not properly authenticated, that the order is discriminatory and mala fide and a result of the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4 at the instance and with the -connivance of respondent No. 5, who had manipulated and engineered the action on account of personal bias. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the impugned order be quashed by appropriate writs, orders and directions. The petitioner has impleaded Union of India, the Defence Minister, Chief of the Air Staff, Director, Intelligence Bureau and the Joint Asstt. Director, Intelligence Bureau, as. respondents.

(3.) In the return to the rule, the respondents have filed an affidavit of Air Commodore, H. S. Keshub. Shri H. S. Virk, Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau, respondent No. 5 has filed a separate affidavit. In the affidavit of Air Commodore H. S. Keshub, it is admitted that the petitioner was serving in the Indian Air Force as Wing Commander when he was dismissed from service by an order under Section 18 of the Act. It is further stated that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the recommendation of the Chief of the Air Staff. It was also admit ed that the Director, Intelligence Bureau, respondent No. 4 had brought to the notice of the Union of India, respondent No. 1 certain activities of the petitioner impinging on the security of the State. The allegation tha' the action against the petitioner was based on incorrect reports by the Director of Intelligence Bureau, respondent No. 4 and the Joint Assistant Director, respondent No. 5 were, however, denied. It was further stated that the President has absolute authority to put an end to the service of the petitioner, that it was not necessary for the President to personally sign the order of dismissal, that the ministerial order was co-extensive with the Presidential order because under the Constitution, the President exercises his power and functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and the Constitution did not require personal satisfaction of the President in all matters and that the impugned order had been duly authenticated and the authentication could not be called in question. It was further stated that the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to show cause against his dismissal and it Was denied that there has been any violation of the principle of natural justice. It was further stated that by the communication referred to by the petitioner and the communication that followed, the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his conduct in relation to the allegation that he had come into contact with foreign missions, had been exchanging hospitalities with them without specific approval of the appropriate authority and that the explanation submitted by the petitioner had been duly considered. The interrogation of the son-in-law of the petitioner was also admitted and it was stated that the said statement was duly considered before action was taken against the petitioner. The allegations of harassment or of mala fides were denied. The various grounds on which the impugned order was sought to be challenged were controverted.