This was resented by the employees and they demanded the withdrawal of this regulation and insisted that the identification check should be made only at the time of entering the building.
8 B, South Block.
Ultimately, the seven Appellants in Civil Appeal No.
A Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment and order dated September 25, 1981.
4 to 44 in Civil Appeal No.
There was companyplete insubordination and total breakdown of discipline.
The affidavit filed by the Joint Director, Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat, Hari Narain Kak, who had passed the impugned orders sets out in detail the various acts of intimidation, violence and incitement companymitted by each of the Appellants.
The all India pen down strike was spreading.
The said writ petition, therefore, proceeded only so far as the Appellants in these two Appeals were companycerned.
Daily the situation worsened.
Ultimately, the local police were sent for and about 8.30 p.m. the local police entered the premises and went to the galleries in front of the CIS branch.
242 of 1982.
The said order reads as follows No.
3/ADMN/80 6486 N GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Cabinet Secretariat, Room No.
This state of affairs companytinued until late in the evening.
At the date of the filing of the said writ petition only Appellants Nos.
242 576 of 1982.
In a speech made by him on December 4, 1980, he had tried to make public some of the top secret operations of the RAW claiming to have special knowledge of these operations by virtue of having been posted earlier in a sensitive branch.
Thereupon, orders of suspension were issued against those who were taking a leading, active and aggressive role in the agitation and indulging in these activities.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.1981 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
He was also actively engaged in companylecting funds for companytinuing the agitation.
The atmosphere was charged with tension and there did number seem any hope of the situation becoming numbermal.
Thereupon a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court.
Instead, they companylected inside the building and in the premises in groups stopping work in many branches.
The Impugned Orders of Dismissal All the eight impugned orders of dismissal were in identical terms and it will, therefore, be sufficient to reproduce the order of dismissal passed against the First Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Some of the agitators who were in the gallery escaped.
242 of 1982 had been served with the orders of dismissal, while the remaining Appellants and Respondents Nos.
companytending the similar action of dismissal was being apprehended by them.
N. KAK Joint Director Contentions Though several companytentions were raised in the said writ petition, in view of the judgment in Tulsiram Patels Case 1985 3 S.C.C. 398, the only companytention taken at the hearing of these two Appeals was that the said orders of dismissal were passed mala fide and the reasons given therein for dispensing with the inquiry were number true and that an inquiry was reasonably practicable.
It is against this Judgment and order of the said High Court, that these two Appeals by Special Leave have been preferred.
1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No.
The affidavits filed in the High Court clearly show that the situation had so changed after the orders of suspension were issued against the appellants that it was number reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry against the Appellants.
He made inflammatory speeches on the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th of December, 1980 and had instigated the other employees to companytinue the agitation and intimidated those who had number joined in the agitation into doing so.
Sd 6.12.80.
They were subsequently released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate.
242 of 1982 and the sole Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
Ultimately, a new building was companystructed for the RAW at Lodhi Road.
During the companyrse of the hearing of the said writ petition a statement was made to the High Court on behalf of the Union of India that the other petitioners would number be dismissed without holding a regular inquiry.
4 in C.A. No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Pending the said writ petition the orders of dismissal were also served upon the remaining Appellants.
The letter stated that unless these demands were met, the employees would go on a pen down strike with immediate effect.
N. Ganpule for the Appellant in C.A. No.
Copies of the written reasons for dispensing with the inquiry in the case of the Appellants have also been annexed to the said affidavit.
Thirty one agitators who were found inside the room were arrested and charged under section 342, 506, 353, 186, 332 and 333 of the Indian Panel Code and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
A large number of them went rung shouting slogans and made speeches in the companyridors of the office.
These arrested employees were suspended under clause b of sub rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965, as a criminal case against them was under investigation.
576 of 1982 were dismissed by orders dated December 6, 1980, without holding any inquiry by applying to them clause b of the second proviso to Article 311 2 read with Rule 19 of the said Rules.
1786 of 1980 Appellant in person for Petr.
More and more centres in India were joining in the said strike.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. The appellants who were employed in the Research and Analysis Wing, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India were dismissed from service in the exercise of the power companyferred by clause b of the second proviso to Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Fuels, 1965, without serving any charge sheet upon them and without holding any inquiry.
Those inside the said room closed the door to prevent the police party from entering it but the police forced open the door and rescued the said three Officers.
M. Tarkunde, V.N. Ganpule and G.B. Sathe for the Appellants in C.A. No.
In the said building the Counter Intelligence Section CIS, for short was housed.
576 of 1982.
It is clear from a perusal of the said affidavit.
242l82.
O R D E R Whereas a large number of employees of the Cabinet Secretariat R AW located at Delhi have for some time past been indulging in various acts of misconduct, indiscipline, intimidation and insubordination, such as abstaining from work, wilful neglect of the duties assigned to them and disobedience of lawful instructions and orders of the official superiors and whereas the said employees are also regularly holding meetings and demonstrations unauthorisedly and in violation of specific orders, within the office premises and its precincts and whereas the said employees have resorted to companyrcion, intimidation and incitement of other fellow employees which has a serious demoralizing effect on the members of the organization, and whereas such companyduct of the said employees is unbecoming of a Government servant and is in gross violation of the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964 and whereas Shri Satyavir Singh, Field Assistant, is one of the said employees actively participating in such activities and whereas due to the practice of companyrcion, intimidation and such like threats and postures adopted by the said employees the atmosphere is so tense and abnormal that numberwitness will companyoperate with any proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 and whereas I am satisfied that the circumstances are such that it is number reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry as companytemplated by the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 and whereas on a companysideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed on Shri Satyavir Singh, Field Assistant Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under the proviso b of Clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution read with rule 19 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965, I as the appointing authority do hereby dismiss Shri Satyavir Singh from the post of Field Assistant in the R AW with effect from the forenoon of December 6, 1980.
Parasaran, Attorney General and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
On November 29, 1980, a letter was issued by the said Association demanding the immediate withdrawal of the criminal cases against the said employees as also of the said security regulation.
The Appellants thereupon filed in the Delhi High Court a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the said orders of dismissal.
The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by its judgment and order dated September 25, 1981.
The other departments were housed in the South Block at R.K. Puram.
It is against the said judgment and order of the Delhi High Court that the present two Appeals have been filed by Special Leave granted by this Court.
After the CIS was shifted to the building at Lodhi Road, Strict security measures were introduced and the employees, when going from one floor to the other, had to show their identity cards.
242 of 1982 joined in the said writ petition as companypetitioners together with the Cabinet Secretariat Research and Analysis Wing Employees Association Regd. ,
242 of 1982.
The said suspension orders were issued from the 1st December 1980 onwards but the pen down strike companytinued spread to other offices of the RAW in New Delhi as well as in different parts of India including Lucknow and Jammu.
Earlier, the different branches and departments of the RAW in New Delhi were scattered in several buildings.
The next day, namely, on November 28, 1980, the agitation companytinued and many employees did number perform their duties.
New Delhi, the 6th Dec, 1980.
