http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HARI PADA KHAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/12/1995

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Petitioner was  a permanent  staff memver of the Indian Oil Corporation.  He along with others, is said to have been involved in  theft of  oil from  Haldia Dock Complex. An FIR was lodged  against all  the persons who committed the theft including the  petitioner. On that basis, Criminal Case No.1 was registered  and he was arrested on September 6, 1988 and was subsequently  released on Novemver 3, 1988. Relying upon Station Order  No.20-IV of the Corporation, he was dismissed from service, which reads thus:      "Where a  workman has been convicted for      a criminal  offence in a Court of Law or      where the  General Manager  is satisfied      for reasons  to be  recorded in writing,      that there  is neither  expedient nor in      the interest of security to continue the      workman, the  workman may  be removed or      dismissed from service without following      the procedure  laid down  under  III  of      this clause."      When the  services of the petitioner were terminated he challenged the  validity of the Rule in question by filing a writ petition  in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court in W.P.C.O. No.1590  [W] of  1989 and  on appeal  from Original Order Tender  No.3066/92 by  order  dated  28th  June,  1995 upheld the  validity of  the above  rule and  dismissed  the petition. Thus this special leave petition.      Shree  M.N.   Krishnamani,   learned   senior   counsel appearing for  the petitioner  contended that the Rule is ex facie  arbitrary   offending  Articles  14  and  16  of  the Constitution. This Court in Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd. & Anr.  v. Hindustan  Steels Ltd.  & Anr. [(1985) 2 SCR 428] considered a  similar provision made by the Hindustan Steels Ltd. in  its Standing  Order. This  Court  struck  down  the provision as  violative of  Article 14  and  held  that  the action violated  the principle  of natural justice offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Same ration is applicable to the facts  in this case. Therefore, it is contended that the view taken  by the High Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    It  is  seen  that  the  rule  has  been  made  by  the Corporation with the intention to prevent an employee of the Corporation served  with  a  charge-sheet  and  arrested  in furtherance thereof,  from continuing  in service. Of course it would  be subject to the result of the trail. Continuance of the officer involved in an offence would be an affront to good and  disciplined conduct of workmen. His continuance in service of  the Corporation  would demoralise  the  service. Therefore, it  was most expedient in the public interest not to hold  any further  enquiry  and  terminate  his  services forthwith. However, it would be subject to the result of the trail.      The doctrine  of principle  of natural  justice has  no application when  the authority  concerned is of the opinion that it  would be inexpedient to hold an enquity and that it would be against the interest of security of the Corporation to continue  in employment the offender workman when serious acts are likely to affect the foundation of the institution. In Tulsi  Ram patel  v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 398], a Constitution bench  of this Court upheld the validity of the similar provisions  under Article  311 of  the Constitution. Recently, in  SLP [C]  No.11659/92 the  matter had  come  up before this  Court on  November 13, 1995, where the validity of pari  materia provision was questioned. This Court upheld the validity  stating that  the above  clause  will  operate prospectively.      A contention has been raised by Mr. Krishnamani that in Tulsi Ram  Patel’s case  [supra] this  Court had  upheld the validity of  the Rule  subject to  the principle  of natural justice. It  is needless  to mention  that the  principle of natural justice requires to be modulated consistent with the scheme of the Rules. It is settled law that the principle of natural justice  cannot supplant but can supplement the law. In that  view of  the matter,  the Rule  having been made to meet specified  contingency the principle of natural justice by implication,  stands excluded.  We do  not think that the Rule is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 as stated earlier.      The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.