Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in ISRO Security Case: Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar vs. Union of India (12 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 May 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 6301 of 2013

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can an employee of a sensitive government organization be dismissed without a full inquiry if their actions raise concerns about national security? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a scientist from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The core issue was whether the dismissal of Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar, an ISRO scientist, was justified under the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976, specifically Rule 16(iii), which allows for dismissal without inquiry in the interest of state security. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar was initially appointed as a Scientist/Engineer ‘SC’ in Group-A at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram, under ISRO on January 15, 1992. He was promoted to Scientist/Engineer ‘SD’ on July 1, 1999. On August 28, 2002, he received an invitation from Prof. H.D. Kim of Andong National University, South Korea, to work as a post-doctoral trainee. Dr. Kumar applied for sabbatical leave on July 18, 2003, which was denied. Subsequently, he applied for nine days of earned leave and traveled to South Korea. He then informed his Divisional Head via email on September 1, 2003, that he was in South Korea for postdoctoral research. He also applied for 89 days of leave, which was not sanctioned, and he was asked to report for duty by September 11, 2003. It was also discovered that he had published a technical paper with a foreign co-author without prior approval. Despite these issues, he rejoined duty on January 23, 2004, only to leave for South Korea again in March 2004 without permission. He was eventually suspended on July 13, 2004, and dismissed from service on August 11, 2007, effective from September 1, 2003, under Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed two Original Applications (O.A. Nos. 150/2004 and 529/2004) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which were unsuccessful. After his dismissal, he filed O.A. No. 653 of 2007, seeking to quash the dismissal order and reinstatement. The Tribunal partly allowed the O.A., sustaining the dismissal but annulling its retrospective effect from September 1, 2003, making it effective from August 11, 2007. Consequently, the order for recovery of subsistence allowance was also quashed. Both the appellant and the respondent organization challenged this order before the High Court. The respondent organization filed W.P. (C) No. 4918/2008, challenging the annulment of the retrospective effect of the dismissal, while the appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 33421 of 2008, seeking to quash the dismissal order and for reinstatement. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 33421 of 2008). Subsequently, the High Court also dismissed the respondent organization’s petition (W.P. (C) No. 4918 of 2008), leading to the modification of the dismissal order to be effective from August 11, 2007.

Legal Framework

The dismissal was carried out under clause (iii) of Rule 16 of the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 (CCA Rules). This rule outlines special procedures for certain cases, stating:

“16. Special Procedure in certain cases
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 11 to 15 –
(i)where any penalty is imposed on an employee on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii)where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules; or
(iii)where the President is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules,
the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the employee may be given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made in a case under Clause (i):
Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this Rule.”

This provision is similar to Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India, which allows for the dismissal of a government employee without a full inquiry in the interest of state security. The court noted that Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules is virtually a service rule reproducing the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, though the language used is not identical.

Arguments

The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, argued that:

• A departmental inquiry was initiated on December 19, 2003, under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules, with specific charges of unauthorized absence and publishing a technical paper without permission.
• The appellant participated in the preliminary hearing, but the matter was proceeded ex-parte.
• The inquiry report was served on him, and a copy was sent to the Union Public Service Commission, but the proceedings were not finalized.
• It was impermissible to abruptly invoke Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules to dismiss him without finalizing the ongoing inquiry.
• There was no justification for holding that it was not expedient to conduct an inquiry after initiating and conducting one.
• The dismissal order did not reflect the President’s satisfaction that it was not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of state security.
• The Tribunal and High Court failed to conduct a judicial review of the substantive satisfaction required under Rule 16(iii).

The respondent, represented by Shri Shailesh Madiyal, contended that:

• The Tribunal and High Court correctly upheld the dismissal under Rule 16(iii).
• The proceedings initiated under Rule 11 and the dismissal under Rule 16(iii) are distinct.
• Serious violations came to light subsequently, raising doubts about the appellant’s integrity and trustworthiness.
• The following facts were considered to invoke the power under Rule 16(iii):
  • The manner in which Korean authorities harbored him for almost two years.
  • His continued contacts and interactions with them despite orders to the contrary.
  • His method of leaving the country despite Look Out Notices.
  • The potential complications of his further exposure to ISRO’s critical rocket technologies.
• ISRO is a strategically important organization, and its employees are not allowed to go abroad without permission.
• The appellant’s unauthorized association with a foreign institution on a strategic research subject raised concerns about national security.
• The invocation of power under Rule 16(iii) was subjected to judicial review by the Tribunal and High Court.

The respondent argued that the appellant’s actions, including unauthorized foreign travel and collaboration, posed a risk to national security, justifying the dismissal without a full inquiry.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the dismissal of the appellant from service without any inquiry, invoking the power under Clause (iii) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, was justified.
2. Whether the Tribunal and the High Court had correctly appreciated the circumstances that led to the invocation of the power under Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules.
3. Whether the satisfaction of the President that “in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry” was based on relevant material.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the relevant legal precedents.

The Court also considered how each authority was viewed:

• Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. [(1985) 3 SCC 398]*: The court relied heavily on this case to establish that the principles of natural justice can be excluded when national security is at stake.
• Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rly. & Anr. v. T.R. Chellappan [1976 3 SCC 190]*: The court overruled the interpretation of the word ‘consider’ in this case, holding that the disciplinary authority’s consideration must be ex parte.
• Union of India v. Balbir Singh [(1998) 5 SCC 216]*: The court reiterated the limits of judicial review in such cases, emphasizing that the court cannot substitute its satisfaction for that of the President.
• A.K. Kaul v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 73]*: The court used this case to define the scope of judicial review in matters of national security.
• Union of India v. M.M. Sharma [(2011) 11 SCC 293]*: The court cited this case to support the position that there is no obligation to communicate reasons for dispensing with the inquiry in the interest of national security.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect national security. The Court emphasized the strategic importance of ISRO and the potential risks associated with the appellant’s unauthorized actions. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• The appellant’s unauthorized absence and travel to South Korea.
• His continued association with a foreign university involved in rocket research.
• The potential for compromising sensitive information.
• The need to maintain the integrity and trustworthiness of ISRO employees.

The Court’s sentiment analysis indicates a strong emphasis on national security concerns, followed by the gravity of the unauthorized foreign collaboration and the breach of trust.

The ratio of fact to law shows that the Court was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the appellant’s actions and their potential implications for national security, than by purely legal considerations.

The Court’s logical reasoning followed a clear path, starting with the central issue of whether the dismissal was justified. It then examined if Rule 16(iii) was correctly invoked, whether the President had sufficient material to conclude that an inquiry was not expedient, and finally, whether the dismissal order was based on relevant facts.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing the gravity of the situation and the need to protect national security. The final decision was based on the factual circumstances, the legal framework, and the need to maintain the integrity of sensitive government organizations.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the reasoning and the outcome.

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment include:

• Government organizations dealing with sensitive information have the authority to dismiss employees without a full inquiry if their actions pose a threat to national security.
• Employees of strategic organizations must adhere strictly to conduct rules, especially regarding foreign travel and collaboration.
• The courts will not interfere with the subjective satisfaction of the President if it is based on relevant material.
• The decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of employees in sensitive positions.

The potential future impact of this judgment includes:

• It may set a precedent for similar cases involving national security concerns.
• It reinforces the government’s power to act swiftly in cases that threaten national security.
• It may lead to stricter enforcement of conduct rules in sensitive government organizations.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matters of national security, the government has the power to dismiss employees without a full inquiry, based on the satisfaction of the President that such an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of state security. This judgment reaffirms the principles established in Tulsiram Patel and clarifies that the disciplinary authority’s consideration of the penalty can be ex parte. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment reinforces the importance of national security in service law jurisprudence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar, an ISRO scientist, without a full inquiry, emphasizing the paramount importance of national security. The Court found that the invocation of Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules was justified, given the appellant’s unauthorized actions and the potential risks to state security. The judgment reinforces the government’s power to act decisively in cases involving national security and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.