Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of ISRO Scientist Without Inquiry for Security Reasons: Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar vs. Union of India (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 12, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 526

Judges: Hon’ble Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar

Can a government employee be dismissed from service without a formal inquiry if their actions are deemed a threat to 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 court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the paramount importance of national security over individual employment rights in certain circumstances. This judgment clarifies the extent to which the government can bypass standard disciplinary procedures when national security is at stake.

Case Background

Dr. V.R. Sanal Kumar, the appellant, was initially appointed as a Scientist/Engineer at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), a part of ISRO, in 1992. He was promoted to Scientist/Engineer ‘SD’ in 1999. In 2002, he received an invitation from Prof. H.D. Kim of Andong National University, South Korea, for a post-doctoral research position, recognizing his expertise in solid rocket motors.

In July 2003, Dr. Kumar applied for a sabbatical leave, which was denied due to service exigencies. Despite the denial, he took 9 days of earned leave and went to South Korea. He then informed his superiors via email that he was conducting post-doctoral research. He applied for 89 days of additional leave, which was also denied, and was instructed to return to duty.

Further, it was discovered that Dr. Kumar had published a technical paper with a foreign co-author without obtaining prior approval. Consequently, a disciplinary action was initiated against him in December 2003 for unauthorized absence and unauthorized publication.

Dr. Kumar rejoined duty in January 2004, but left again for South Korea in March 2004 without informing or seeking permission from ISRO. He returned to India and rejoined duty in May 2004, only to leave again for South Korea without permission. Subsequently, he was suspended in July 2004 and finally dismissed from service in August 2007, effective from September 1, 2003, under Rule 16(iii) of the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976, which allows dismissal without inquiry in the interest of state security.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of clause (iii) of Rule 16 of the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 (CCA Rules), which states:

“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 rule is substantially similar to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which allows for the dismissal of a government employee without an inquiry under specific circumstances, including when it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

Arguments

The appellant’s arguments focused on procedural lapses and the lack of substantive justification for dispensing with the inquiry.

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 11 of the CCA Rules should have been completed. The initiation of a departmental inquiry with specific charges should have been brought to a logical end.
• The appellant contended that invoking Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules to dismiss him without an inquiry was a shortcut, especially after initiating a formal inquiry.
• The appellant argued that the dismissal order did not explicitly reflect the President’s satisfaction that an inquiry was not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.
• The appellant contended that the Tribunal and the High Court did not conduct a proper judicial review of the substantive satisfaction required to pass an order under Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the proceedings under Rule 11 and Rule 16(iii) of the CCA Rules are distinct. The initial inquiry was for specific charges, while the dismissal under Rule 16(iii) was based on subsequent serious concerns.
• The respondent submitted that the appellant’s actions, including his unauthorized stay in South Korea, his contacts with a foreign university involved in rocketry research, and his disregard for instructions, raised serious doubts about his integrity and trustworthiness.
• The respondent contended that ISRO is a strategically important organization, and the appellant’s actions were a matter of concern for the security of the State.
• The respondent argued that 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.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the dismissal of the appellant from service without holding an inquiry, by invoking the power under Clause (iii) of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, is legally sustainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities to reach its decision:

Cases:

• Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. [1985] 3 SCC 398 – This Constitution Bench decision clarified that when the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution applies, the principles of natural justice, including the right to an inquiry, are excluded. The court also held that the satisfaction of the President or Governor regarding the expediency of not holding an inquiry is based on public policy and public interest.
• Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rly. & Anr. v. T.R. Chellappan [1976] 3 SCC 190 – This case was discussed and partly overruled by Tulsiram Patel. The Supreme Court in *Tulsiram Patel* held that the interpretation of the word “consider” in the context of disciplinary rules, as given in *Chellappan*, was not correct.
• Union of India v. Balbir Singh [1998] 5 SCC 216 – This case examined the extent of judicial review permissible in respect of an order of dismissal passed under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It held that the President’s satisfaction can be examined for mala fides or extraneous grounds, but the court cannot substitute its own satisfaction.
• A.K. Kaul v. Union of India [1995] 4 SCC 73 – This case was referred to in *Balbir Singh* and it outlined the scope of judicial review of the President’s satisfaction under Article 311(2)(c).
• Union of India v. M.M. Sharma [2011] 11 SCC 293 – This case held that dismissal without an inquiry in the interest of national security does not require recording reasons for dispensing with the inquiry, and it is not necessary to communicate the reasons for imposing the penalty of dismissal.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India – This article provides safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. However, the second proviso to this article allows for dispensing with an inquiry under certain conditions, including when it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.
• Rule 16(iii) of the Department of Space Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 – This rule mirrors the second proviso to Article 311(2) and allows for dismissal without inquiry when the President is satisfied that it is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. [1985] 3 SCC 398: The Supreme Court heavily relied on this case, stating that it settled the law on the applicability of the second proviso to Article 311(2). The Court stated that the principles of natural justice are excluded when the second proviso is invoked.
• Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Rly. & Anr. v. T.R. Chellappan [1976] 3 SCC 190: The Supreme Court referred to this case to highlight the factors to be considered while imposing a penalty. However, the Court clarified that the interpretation of the word “consider” in this case was not correct and was overruled on this point by the Tulsiram Patel case.
• Union of India v. Balbir Singh [1998] 5 SCC 216: The Supreme Court used this case to define the limits of judicial review in cases of dismissal under Article 311(2)(c). The Court held that the President’s satisfaction can be examined for mala fides or extraneous grounds, but the court cannot substitute its own satisfaction.
• A.K. Kaul v. Union of India [1995] 4 SCC 73: The Supreme Court referred to this case through *Balbir Singh* to further clarify the scope of judicial review.
• Union of India v. M.M. Sharma [2011] 11 SCC 293: The Supreme Court relied on this case to support the view that reasons for dispensing with the inquiry and for imposing dismissal need not be communicated.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect national security, given the sensitive nature of ISRO’s work and the appellant’s actions.

The court emphasized that the appellant’s unauthorized absence, his association with a foreign university involved in rocketry research, and his disregard for instructions created a situation where the security of the state was at risk. The court was also influenced by the fact that ISRO is a strategically important organization, and its employees are expected to maintain the highest standards of integrity and trustworthiness. The court also observed that the appellant himself admitted to being a high-profile scientist in ISRO, which is a highly sensitive and strategic research and development organisation.

The court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the need to protect national security outweighed the procedural lapses. The court held that the satisfaction of the President that it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the interest of state security was based on materials and hence, did not warrant any interference.

The Supreme Court stated:

“The question under clause (c), however, is not whether the security of the State has been affected or not, for the expression used in clause (c) is “in the interest of the security of the State.” The interest of the security of the State may be affected by actual acts or even the likelihood of such acts taking place.”

“The satisfaction of the President or the Governor must, therefore, be with respect to the expediency or inexpediency of holding an inquiry in the interest of the security of the State.”

“When such acts/conduct occur/occurs from a scientist in a sensitive and strategic organization, the decision to impose dismissal from service cannot be said to be illegal or absolutely unwarranted.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the ISRO scientist without a formal inquiry, emphasizing the importance of national security.
• The judgment clarifies that the government can dispense with standard disciplinary procedures when national security is at stake, under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and corresponding service rules.
• The court reiterated that the satisfaction of the President regarding the expediency of not holding an inquiry is based on public policy and public interest.
• The case highlights the need for government employees in sensitive positions to adhere to conduct rules and maintain high standards of integrity and trustworthiness.
• This judgment may have implications for future cases involving national security concerns and the dismissal of government employees.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the dismissal of a government employee without a formal inquiry is justified when the President is satisfied that such an inquiry is not expedient in the interest of the security of the State. This case reinforces the principles laid down in *Tulsiram Patel* and clarifies that in matters of national security, the government can bypass standard disciplinary procedures. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the dismissal of the ISRO scientist without a formal inquiry. The court emphasized that the need to protect national security outweighed the procedural lapses. The judgment reinforces the principle that in matters of national security, the government can dispense with standard disciplinary procedures. The court also reiterated that the satisfaction of the President regarding the expediency of not holding an inquiry is based on public policy and public interest.