DR.V.R.SANAL KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA, SECRETARY, DEPAR

COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.06.1998 OF SRI.B.N.RAGHUNANDAN, ASSOCIATE CONVENER, INDIAN ISTITUTE OF SCIENCE. DG --3-- WPC.No. 33421 of 2008 (S) --3-- EXT.P21 : COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR, FOR PUBLISHING THE PAPER AT THE 35TH AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE JOINT ROPULSION CONFERENCE HELD AT USA DURING 20-24 JUNE 1999. EXT.P22 : COPY OF THE PUBLICATION THE PETITIONER HAD PRESENTED BEFORE THE 35TH IAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE JOINT PROPULSION CONFERENCE HELD AT USA DURING 20-24 JUNE, 1999. EXT.P23 : COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR TO THAT EFFECT CONTAINED IN THE LETTER DATED 16.07.1999, ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GROUP DIRECTOR. EXT.P24 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.99, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY ONE SRI.KENNETH K.KUO. EXT.P25 : COPY OF THE REVIEW REPORT FROM, WHEREBY DR.G.MADHAVAN, THE THEN DIRECTOR, VSSC HAD APPROVED IN 2000. EXT.P26 : COPY OF THE PAPER PRESENTED AT THE 36TH AIAA, JOINT PROPULSION CONFERENCE HELD AT USA ON JULY 17-19, 2000. EXT.P27 : COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R-1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2007 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2004. EXT.R-2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.11.2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30969 OF 2007. EXT.R-3 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE 7(1) OF CCS (LEAVE) RULES, 1972. EXT.R-4 : COPY OF THE MESSAGE (LETTER) NO.VSSC/EST/D/HTR/27197 DATED 05.09.2003 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (Est). EXT.R-5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE DATED 23.01.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R-6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2004 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2004. EXT.R-7 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.07.2004 ISSUED BY SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN. DG //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 33421 of 2008 - z ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2012 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This original petition is filed challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing to interfere with an order of ISRO, by which the petitioner, an ISRO employee stands dismissed as per an order issued invoking Rule 16(iii) of the Department of Space Employees (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1976 which provides that where the President is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any enquiry in the manner provided in those Rules, the disciplinary authority may consider circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. That provision is analogous W.P.(C) No.33421/2008-S -2- to the 2nd proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, except that, in this rule, there is no restriction as to the penalty that could be imposed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner streneously argued that the scope of judicial review as noted by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Balbir Singh [(1998) 5 SCC 216] has not been appropriately applied by the Tribunal.

3. Adverting to the afore-noted precedent, it can be seen that the principles emanating out of the decisions in A.K.Kaul v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 73], S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1] and Union Territory, Chandigarh v. Mohinder Singh [(1997) 3 SCC 68] were referred to in Balbir Singh (supra) to state the law that if order passed under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution is assailed before a W.P.(C) No.33421/2008-S -3- court of law on the ground that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is not based on circumstances which have a bearing on the security of the State, the Court can examine the circumstances on which the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is arrived at and if it finds that those circumstances had no bearing whatsoever on the security of the State, the Court can hold that the satisfaction of the President or Governor, which is required for passing such an order, has been vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrelevant consideration.

4. With the aforesaid principles of law in mind, we see that the undisputed facts as are relevant for our reconsideration include that the petitioner was engaged and working with ISRO, a sensitive organization of national importance and sensitivity, including, from the angle of the security of the State. W.P.(C) No.33421/2008-S -4- He applied for Sabbatical leave. That was rejected by ISRO Chairman on grounds of exigencies of service.

5. Yet the petitioner availed few days of earned leave on personal grounds and went off to South Korea. He, thereafter, sent an e-mail that due to the delay in processing the proposal, he had reached South Korea to carry on his post doctoral research in a University in South Korea. Then, he was again specifically informed that his request for leave was not sanctioned.

6. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner published a technical paper as first author with a foreigner as one of the co-owners in the IAA Propulsion Conference, U.S.A. held during July, 2003, without obtaining the approval of the competent authority as required by the sovereign rules. To our query, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not W.P.(C) No.33421/2008-S -5- point out that these facts are denied.

7. The only plea is that the petitioner was permitted by Dr.Kasthurirangan, the then Chairman of ISRO to do so. There is nothing on record, even in the files of the establishment that Dr.Kasturirangan had granted this as claimed by the petitioner. Establishments in a democracy and governance work through files. Their decisions shall be reflected in the files. They cannot and are not expected, to be heard that they acted merely through words of mouth. At any rate, we are unable to countenance such a plea in relation to a very sensitive organization of national importance with security purposes i.e. ISRO.

8. In the aforesaid back drop of facts, applying the ratio of Balbir Singh (Supra), we find that there was no ground for the Tribunal to interfere with the W.P.(C) No.33421/2008-S -6- order impugned before it. We also do not see that any dichotomy of reasoning that could criticize the Tribunal's order based on the quality of appreciation of all the disciplinary proceedings which were going on. Independent exercise of authority under Rule 16(iii) of the Department of Space Employees (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1976 make no difference. The contention of the petitioner to the contra, is repelled. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE W.P.(C) No.33421/2008-S -7-