MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner wants that the order passed by the President of India on 5 November 1966 removing the petitioner from service be quashed.

(2.) THE petitioner was confirmed In the post of clerk, grade II, in the Accounts Department of the Northeastern Railway, Gorakhpur, in 1957. He was posted in the office of the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Gorakhpur, when he was served with the impugned order stating that he is being removed from service with effect from 22 November 1966. The impugned order reads as follows:

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the President hereby removes the and Muhammad Akhtar from service with effect from 22 November 1966. This order has been challenged on the ground that it levels a charge against the petitioner, namely, that the retention of his service is prejudicial to national security. The Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution provide that on such a charge an opportunity of explanation shall be given. The petitioner has not been given any such opportunity. The order hence is on that account Illegal. Learned Counsel has urged that the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution control the pleasure conferred on the President by Article 310. The pleasure can be exercised only in accordance with the rules framed under Article 309. He has placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in D. N. Dhar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir A. I. R. 1964 J. and K. 92, This decision does lend support to the submission of learned Counsel. But with respect it does not seem to lay down the correct law. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya A. I. R. 1961 B. C. 751, the Supreme Court laid down the following propositions (vide Para. 22): The discussion yields the following results: