The respondent was posted as First Secretary w.e.f.
AND WHEREAS the Honble Tribunal in their order dated 10.12.2009 in the said OA No.
The respondent challenged the aforesaid order by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Page 3 of 18 Tribunal which was registered as OA No.
OF INDIA The aforesaid order passed by the President came to be challenged before the Tribunal by the respondent by filing an Original Application which was registered as OA No.
It was also mentioned in the said order that the President is also satisfied that on the basis of information available the activities of the respondent are such as to warrant his dismissal from the service.
The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Delhi by filing a writ petition in which the High Court partly allowed the writ petition holding that the order which was passed by the companypetent authority on 03.06.2010 was number a reasoned order.
The Tribunal directed the Government to re consider whether the aforesaid penalty awarded to the respondent companyld be substituted by any other punishment.
176/2009 in the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi praying for setting aside and quashing the said order of dismissal dated 22.12.2008.
2440 of 2010.
I 3643 dated 22.12.2008 Page 4 of 18 AND WHEREAS, Shri M.M. Sharma filed an Original Application No.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal the matter was placed before the companypetent authority once again and in companypliance of the order of the Tribunal an order was passed by the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India on 03.06.2010, which reads as follows WHEREAS Shri M.M. Sharma was dismissed from service under the provisions of sub clause c of the second proviso to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution vide order No/2/2008 DO.II A 9Pt.
176/2009 directed the Government to companysider whether the penalty of dismissal companyld be substituted by reduction in rank or the ex officer companyld be granted any pensionary benefits.
NOW, THEREFORE, the President orders that it is number possible either to substitute the penalty of Shri M.M. Sharma from dismissal to reduction in rank or to grant him any pensionary benefits.
The Director, upon companypletion of the said inquiry forwarded a detailed report including findings of the Inquiry Officer.
02.07.2007 to 03.05.2008 in the Embassy of India, Beijing, China.
The aforesaid Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is under challenge in this appeal on which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties and also scrutinised the entire records.
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT B.S. KATOCH ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
Consequent thereto an order dated 22.12.2009 was issued intimating and stating that the President is satisfied to invoke Clause c of Second Proviso to Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India that in the interest of the security of the State it is number expedient to hold the inquiry in the case of the respondent.
By the aforesaid Judgment and Order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that the matter called for numberinterference in the hands of the Tribunal.
AND WHEREAS, the Government, in pursuance of observations of Honble Tribunal re considered the case of dismissal of Shri M.M. Sharma.
The aforesaid application was heard and the Tribunal passed an order on 10.12.2009 disposing of the said Original Application by holding that the order does number reveal that there has been application of mind with regard to the nature of punishment to be awarded to the respondent.
The companyduct of the respondent was enquired into by the Intelligence Bureau IB .
It was also held that only question that was required to be decided by the companypetent authority was to re consider the nature of penalty imposed on the respondent.
In this case witnesses can be either foreign nationals or officers working under companyer in Indian Embassy in China and examination thereof would certainly jeopardize the security of the State.
While companying to the aforesaid companyclusion the Page 5 of 18 Tribunal hold that invocation of power under Article 311 2 c of the Constitution of India cannot be faulted with because of the sensitive nature of the issues involved, which have become final and binding on the parties.
Consequently, the companypetent authority took a decision that the services of the respondent should be dispensed with by exercising powers under Clause c of Second Proviso to Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India.
Since the Tribunal held the appellants have re considered the question of punishment reiterating that it is number possible either to substitute the penalty of the respondent from dismissal to reduction in rank or to grant him any pensionary benefits, therefore, the same indicates and establishes the satisfaction for arriving at the decision of the companypetent authority to maintain the penalty of dismissal.
While on special assignment, the respondent came under adverse numberice and was found to be involved in an unauthorized and undesirable liaison with foreign nationals of the host companyntry.
In order to appreciate the companytentions raised by the parties hereto some basic facts leading to filing of the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court must be stated.
The High Page 6 of 18 Court set aside the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the Tribunal and directed the appellants to give reasons for levying the penalty of dismissal from service and pass a fresh order.
For a proper disciplinary inquiry to be companyducted, witnesses would be required to be examined.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 whereby the Delhi High Court partly Page 1 of 18 allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein by issuing a direction to the appellants to pass a speaking order by giving reasons for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service in exercise of powers under Article 311 2 c of the Constitution and number any other penalty.
The aforesaid application was taken up for hearing and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2010.
