The orders for dismissal of appellants, Verghese Joseph and B.B. Raval are in the same terms.
Without prejudice to the said claim of privilege, the respondents had, however, stated that they had numberobjection whatsoever to the said documents relating to the dismissal of the appellants and those portions of documents that relate to the said dismissal orders being produced for perusal of the Tribunal in order to satisfy it that the claim of privilege against disclosure of the said official records is bona fide and genuine.
1 and 2/92 and Miscellaneous Petition No.
3/92 whereby they prayed for directions to the respondents to produce the records specified in the said applications for inspection of the Tribunal and or by the appellants and their companynsel.
Whereas the President is satisfied under sub clause c of the proviso to clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution that in the interest of the security of the State it is number expedient to hold an inquiry in the case of Shri A. K. Kaul.
On May 3, 1980, the Joint Director of the Intelligence Bureau issued, a Circular Memorandum declaring that the formation of the IBEA was in violation of the Civil Services Conduct Rules and that those who take part in the activities of the IBEA will attract disciplinary action.
Tribunal the ap pellants moved Misc.
This Court, on July 21, 1980, issued an order for issue of rule nisi on the said writ petitions and also passed an interim order directing that during the pendency of the writ petitions in this Court numberdisciplinary action shall be taken against any member of the IBEA for reasons mentioned in the circular.
During the pendency of the applications before the.
On the basis of the said records the Tribunal has further found that the material companysidered by the President relate to the activities of the appellants which would prejudicially affect the security of the State and that the materials relied upon or the satisfaction of the President have numberhing to do with the appellants activities in relation to the IBEA.
And whereas the President is satisfied that on the basis of the information available, the activities of Shri A.K. Kaul are such as to warrant his dismissal from service.
Writ petitions Civil Nos.
Appellants, A.K.Kaul and Verghese Joseph, were elected as the General Secretaries of IBEA and appellant, B.B. Raval, was elected as the President.
Accordingly, the President hereby dismisses Shri A.K. Kaul from service with immediate effect.
The said applications were companytested by the respondents who pleaded that the orders of dismissal had been passed by the President on being satisfied on the basis of the material available that the activities of the appellants were such as to warrant their dismissal from service by dispensing with the requirements of Article 311 2 of the Constitution in the interest of security of the State.
It was denied that the authorities of the Intelligence Bureau have a hostile attitude towards IBEA and it was stated that punitive action was taken on merits of each case and number because of the participation of the appellants in the activities of the IBEA.
It was submitted that they were recipients of companymendation certificates, appreciation letters and cash awards from time to time.
By judgment dated December 18, 1993 the Tribunal, after perusing the records that were placed for perusal of the Tribunal, upheld the claim of privilege and dismissed ,the applications filed by the appellants for inspection and production of the documents.
1,2 and 3 of 1992.
The said applications were opposed by the respondents who claimed privilege invoking Article 74 2 of the Constitution and Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act and for that purpose affidavit of Mr. Madhav Godbole, Secretary to the Government of India, Min istry of Home Affairs, New Delhi the Head of the Department was filed before the Tribunal.
1117 1119 were filed in this Court challenging the said circular.
Before the Tribunal the case put for ward by the appellants was that they have been picked and chosen for punitive action for dismissal from service for the reason that they were important members of the IBEA, being office bearers as General Secretaries and the President, and that the real motive to pass the orders of dismissal was to penalise them for the active part they had taken in ventilating the grievances of the employees through the IBEA.
On December 26, 1980, orders were passed dismissing the appellants from service.
732/92 in T.A. No.
1897/ 92 in T.A. Nos.
The Tribunal was of the view that the satisfaction had been arrived at after application of mind to the relevant materials without taking into companysideration irrelevant factors and that the impugned orders of dismissal from service dated December 26, 1980 arc number liable for interference.
Hence these appeals.
One such order regarding the dismissal of appellant, A.K. Kaul, is in the following terms Shri A.K. Kaul, Deputy Central Intelligence Officer, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi.
The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the applications of the appellants.
The appellants also pleaded that they had an excellent record of service and that they had number companyducted themselves in such manner as to warrant their dismissal from service.
It was also stated in the applications that they had number acted companytrary to the interest of national security at any time.
By order and in the name of President Sd Mahadevan Under Secretary to the Govt.
C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.
After the companystitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal the said writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication and they were registered as T.A. Nos.
The appellants were employed as Deputy Central Intelligence Officers in the Intelligence Bureau in the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India.
On July 23, 1979, the employees of the Intelligence Bureau formed an Association called the Intelligence Bureau employees Association IBEA for the purpose of ventilating their grievances.
of India Ministry of Home Affairs.
It was also pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the details of the material on the basis of which the satisfaction had been reached cannot be disclosed without detriment to public interest.
Petitions Nos.
The appellants filed separate writ petitions Nos.
205 207/81 1 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the said orders of dismissal.
