If holding of an enquiry against a government employee involved in espionage has the potential to jeopardise national security and the country's relations with a neighbour, he could be sacked by dispensing with it, the Supreme Court has held, upholding the dismissal of M.M. Sharma, then First Secretary in the Indian embassy in Beijing.
While Article 311 of the Constitution provides for protection from punitive action without an enquiry, there are exceptions under Article 311 (2) in clauses a, b and c which say the protection will not apply to employees who have been punished after conviction in a criminal case or where an enquiry is not practicable or not possible to be held in the interest of the security of the state, said a Bench.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Mukundakam Sharma and Anil R. Dave, pointed out that the authority while dispensing with the enquiry should record the reasons in writing.
When Mr. M.M. Sharma held the post of First Secretary in the embassy in Beijing between July 2, 2007 and May 3, 2008, he came under adverse notice and was found involved in an unauthorised and undesirable liaison with foreign nationals of the host country.
His conduct was inquired into by the Intelligence Bureau. After considering the IB Director's report and in view of the seriousness of the case and adverse implications for security, the government dispensed with an enquiry and Mr. Sharma was dismissed on June 3, 2010.
The Central administrative Tribunal, Delhi, dismissed his petition.
The Delhi High Court, while setting aside the Tribunal's order, partly allowed his appeal by directing the government to pass a reasoned order showing application of its mind.
The Centre filed the present appeal against this judgment.
Writing the judgment, Justice Sharma pointed out that records indicated that there were sufficient reasons and material on record to show why the respondent was dismissed, without holding an enquiry in the interest of the security of the state.
The Bench said: “The allegations against the respondent are very serious which could jeopardise the sovereignty and integrity of India. The records also disclose highly objectionable activities and conduct which are unbecoming of a responsible government servant.”
The Inquiry Committee decided not to disclose the grounds for taking action against the delinquent officer under clause C of Article 311 (2). For, disclosure of the grounds or holding of an inquiry had the potential to jeopardise national security and relations with a neighbouring country. Moreover, such disclosure could lead to acute embarrassment to the Government of India, the Bench pointed out.“
The charges against the delinquent officer being very serious and also in view of the fact that the respondent was working in a very sensitive post, it cannot be said to be a case of disproportionate punishment.”
