{"id":216481,"date":"1987-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987"},"modified":"2017-12-05T15:28:04","modified_gmt":"2017-12-05T09:58:04","slug":"bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987","title":{"rendered":"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2106, \t\t 1987 SCR (3) 704<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBAKSHI SARDARI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRs& ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 2106\t\t  1987 SCR  (3) 704\n 1987 SCC  (4) 114\t  JT 1987 (3)\t180\n 1987 SCALE  (2)147\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of India, 1950: Article  311(2)(c)  Police\npersonnel--Dismissed  from service--Enquiry dispensed  with-\nSatisfaction  of  President--Whether  personal\tsatisfaction\nnecessary-Communication of reasons-- Whether obligatory.\n    Practice  and procedure: Order of  dismissal--Set  aside\nfor  noncompliance of requirements of law--Whether  employer\nentitled  to pass fresh order of dismissal after  reinstate-\nment--Leave of Court--Whether necessary.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n   The Supreme Court having quashed in appeal the  dismissal\norders\tdated April 14, 1967 passed against  the  appellant-\npolicemen,  they  were served fresh orders of  dismissal  on\nJune 5, 1971 In exercise of the power conferred under clause\n(c) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution.\nThe  appellants\t challenged that these\torders,\t without  an\ninquiry\t as envisaged in Ariticle 311(2), were\tvitiated  as\nthe power under sub-clause (c) of the second proviso to that\nArticle had not been exercised upon personal satisfaction of\nthe  President. On behalf of the respondent-Union of  India,\nit  was contended that the President had personally  consid-\nered all the facts and circumstances of each case and, after\nhaving\tsatisfied  himself,  passed the order  that  in\t the\ninterest  of the security of the State it was not  expedient\nto hold the inquiry.\n    The\t High Court held that the exercise of the  power  by\nthe  President\tunder clause (c) to the proviso\t to  Article\n311(2)\twas fully covered by clause (1) of Article  361\t and\nthe President was not answerable to any court for the  exer-\ncise  and  performance of his powers and duties\t under\tthis\nclause of the proviso to Article 311 and no court had juris-\ndiction\t to examine the facts and circumstances that led  to\nthe  satisfaction of the President envisaged in\t clause\t (c)\nexcept\tprobably on the ground of mala fide,  and  dismissed\nthe Writ Petitions.\n705\n    In\tthe appeals before this Court, it was  contended  on\nbehalf of the appellant that the impugned order of dismissal\nin 1971 which was claimed to have been passed on the person-\nal satisfaction of the President was vitiated in view of the\nrule  laid  down in the case of Shamsher Singh and  Anr.  v.\nState of Punjab, that the appellants having been  reinstated\nin service in terms of judgment of this Court, without leave\nof  the\t Court,\t no second order of dismissal  on  the\tsame\nmaterial could have been passed, and that the High Court was\nwrong in holding that the sufficiency of satisfaction of the\nPresident was not justiciable.\nDismissing the appeals, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.1\tThe order of the President was\tnot  on\t the\nbasis  of his personal satisfaction as required by the\tRule\nin Sardari Lal's case but was upon the aid and advice of the\nCouncil of Ministers, as required in Shamsher Singh's  case.\nThe  dismissal\torder was, therefore, not  vitiated.  [711H,\n712A]\n    1.2\t This Court quashed the orders of dismissal  earlier\non  account of non-compliance of the requirement of law\t and\nwhen the police officers returned to service it was open  to\nthe  employer to deal with them in accordance with  law.  No\nleave  of  Court was necessary for making a fresh  order  in\nexercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after removing the\ndefects. [712B]\n    1.3\t There was a constitutional obligation to record  in\nwriting\t the  reason for the satisfaction that\tone  of\t the\nsub-clauses  was applicable and if such reason was  not\t re-\ncorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and\nthe order of penalty following thereupon would both be\tvoid\nand unconstitutional, and the communication of the reason to\nthe  aggrieved\tGovernment servant was\tnot  obligatory\t but\nperhaps advisable. [712D]\n    In\tthe instant case, the record of the  case  indicates\nthat  the reason has been recorded though not  communicated.\nThat would satisfy the requirements of law. [712E]\n    Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel & Ors.,<\/a> [1985] 3\nSCC 398, followed.\n    1.4\t No  malafides could be attributed to  the  impugned\norder  of dismissal. The President's order is dated  2nd  of\nJune and the typed orders of dismissal bear the date of\t the\nfollowing day. There is, there-\n706\nfore,  no  scope to suggest that typed\torders\trepresenting\nGovernment's  decision were available on the record  by\t the\ntime the matter was placed before the President. [712F]\n    [This  Court  has no sympathy for  indiscipline.  In  an\norderly\t force\tlike police, indiscipline is bound  to\tgive\nrise  to serious problems of administration. The  Government\nhad  made  it known that they intended to treat\t even  these\npolicemen liberally by giving them compassionate aliowances.\nThe situation would be met in a just way if lump-sum amounts\nare  paid  to the dismissed policemen who are  alive  or  to\ntheir  legal  representatives in the case of those  who\t are\ndead, at the rate of Rs.60,000 to Sub-Inspectors,  Rs.50,000\nto Head Constables and Rs.40,000 to Constables.] [713B, D-F]\n    Sardari  Lal v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1971] 3 SCR\t 461\nand  Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 1\t SCR\n814, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  Nos.\t 149
\n1–1501 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.1973 of the High
\nCourt  of Delhi in C.W. Nos 954\/71, 211 to 218 and  249\t and
\n251 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
    F.S.  Nariman, U.S. Prasad, S.K. Mehta, M.K.  Dua,\tS.M.
\nSarin, Aman Vachhar and R. Jagannath for the appellants.
\n    Anil Dev Singh, Miss Halida Khatoon. P. Parmeswaran\t for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RANGANATH  MISRA,  J.These appeals\tare  by\t certificate
\nunder  Article\t132  and involve the  determination  of\t the
\namplitude contained and nature of the power conferred on the
\nPresident  by  clause (c) of the second proviso\t of  Article
\n311(2) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
    18\tpolicemen—Sardari  Lal and two others\t being\tSub-
\nInspectors and the remaining being either Head Constables or
\nConstables–of\tthe Delhi Armed Police Force were  dismissed
\nfrom  service  by  separate but similar\t orders\t dated\t14th
\nApril,\t1967,  by way of punishment. They  challenged  those
\norders before the Delhi High Court mainly contend-\n<\/p>\n
707<\/span><\/p>\n
ing  that  the\texercise of power under clause\t(c)  of\t the
\nsecond\tproviso to Article 311(2) was not  upon\t President’s
\npersonal  satisfaction and as there had been no\t inquiry  as
\nmandated  by  Article 311(2), the dismissals were  bad.\t The
\nHigh  Court did not accept the contention and  rejected\t the
\nwrit  petitions. The dismissed policemen carried appeals  to
\nthis  Court  and by judgment dated 2 1st  January,  1971  in
\nSardari\t Lal  v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> [1971] 3 SCR  461  a
\nConstitution  Bench of this Court set aside the judgment  of
\nthe High Court in each of the writ petitions and quashed the
\nseveral orders of dismissal on the ground that each of\tthem
\nwas illegal, ultra vires and void. This Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On the principles which have been  enunciated
\n\t      by  this Court, the function in clause (c)  of
\n\t      the proviso to Article 311(2) cannot be  dele-
\n\t      gated by the President to any one else in\t the
\n\t      case of a civil servant of the Union. In other
\n\t      words, he has to be satisfied personally\tthat
\n\t      in the interest of the security of the  State,
\n\t      it  is not expedient to hold the inquiry\tpre-
\n\t      scribed by clause (2). In the first place, the
\n\t      general  consensus  has  been  that  executive
\n\t      functions\t of  the  nature  entrusted  by\t the
\n\t      Articles,\t some of which have  been  mentioned
\n\t      before  and  in particular those\tArticles  in
\n\t      which  the President has to be satisfied\thim-
\n\t      self  about the existence of certain  fact  or
\n\t      state of affairs cannot be delegated by him to
\n\t      any  one\telse. Secondly even with  regard  to
\n\t      clause (c) of the proviso, there is a specific
\n\t      observation  in  the passage  extracted  above
\n\t      from   the  case\tof  Jayantilal\t Amrit\t Lal
\n\t      Shodban–[1964] 5 SCR 294–that the powers  of
\n\t      the  President under that provision cannot  be
\n\t      delegated.  Thirdly, the dichotomy  which\t has
\n\t      been   specifically  introduced  between\t the
\n\t      authority\t mentioned  in clause  (b)  and\t the
\n\t      President\t mentioned  in\tclause\t(c)  of\t the
\n\t      proviso  cannot be without  significance.\t The
\n\t      Constitution  makers  apparently felt  that  a
\n\t      matter  in which the interest of the  security
\n\t      of  the  State  had to  be  considered  should
\n\t      receive  the personal attention of the  Presi-
\n\t      dent or the head of the State and he should be
\n\t      himself  satisfied that an inquiry  under\t the
\n\t      substantive part of clause (2) of Article\t 311
\n\t      was  not expedient for the reasons  stated  in
\n\t      clause  (c)  of the proviso in the case  of  a
\n\t      particular servant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Following the judgment of this Court, the dismissed  police-
\nmen were reinstated in service with effect from 16th  April,
\n1971.  On 5th of June, 1971, fresh orders of dismissal\twere
\nserved on these policemen again
\n708<\/span>
\ninvoking the power under clause (c) of the second proviso to
\nArticle\t 311(2) for dispensing with the inquiry. One of\t the
\nrepresentative orders is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Whereas you, Shri Sardari Lal,\tsub-
\n\t      Inspector being No. D-331 (present No. D-1177)
\n\t      of  Delhi Police, held your office during\t the
\n\t      pleasure of the President.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       “And  whereas  the  President,  after
\n\t      considering all the facts and circumstances of
\n\t      your  case, is satisfied under sub clause\t (c)
\n\t      of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 of
\n\t      the Constitution, that in the interest of\t the
\n\t      security\tof the State it is not expedient  to
\n\t      hold,  in relation to you, such inquiry as  is
\n\t      referred to in clause (2) of the said  Article
\n\t      311 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t“Now,  therefore, the  President  is
\n\t      pleased  to  dismiss  you\t from  service\twith
\n\t      immediate effect.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Several  writ applications were again flied\t before\t the
\nHigh  Court. It was inter alia contended that the  order  of
\ndismissal without an inquiry aS envisaged in Article  311(2)
\nwas vitiated as the power under sub-clause (c) of the second
\nproviso\t to Article 311(2) had not been made  upon  personal
\nsatisfaction of the President.\n<\/p>\n
    In the returns made to the Rule to two separate  affida-
\nvits-one by the Inspector General of Police and the other by
\na Joint Secretary to the Union Government in the Ministry of
\nHome  Affairs–it  was\tmaintained that\t the  President\t had
\npersonally  considered\tall the facts and  circumstances  of
\neach  case  and after having satisfied himself,\t passed\t the
\norder that in the interest of the security of the State,  it
\nwas  not expedient to hold the inquiry. The original  orders
\nof the President along with the connected papers were placed
\nbefore the High Court and the High Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The contention, therefore, that the President
\n\t      himself  did not pass the impugned  orders  is
\n\t      rejected.\t The question for decision  then  is
\n\t      whether  the court can scrutinize and  examine
\n\t      the  facts  and  circumstances  that  led\t the
\n\t      President\t to arrive at the satisfaction\tthat
\n\t      it  was not expedient in the interest  of\t the
\n\t      security\tof  the State to  hold\tthe  inquiry
\n\t      envisaged\t in  Article  ,311(2)  against\t the
\n\t      petitioners, and if so, to what extent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      709<\/span><\/p>\n
While  examining this aspect of the matter, the\t High  Court
\nrelied on the ratio of the decision of this Court in Sardari
\nLal’s  case (supra) and examining the second aspect  of\t the
\ncontention, the High Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  result, therefore, is that the  exercise
\n\t      of power by the President under clause (c)  to
\n\t      the proviso to Article 311(2) is fully covered
\n\t      by clause (1) of Article 361 and the President
\n\t      is  not answerable to any court for the  exer-
\n\t      cise and performance of his powers and  duties
\n\t      under  this clause of the proviso\t to  Article
\n\t      311  and no court has jurisdiction to  examine
\n\t      the  facts and circumstances that led  to\t the
\n\t      satisfaction  of\tthe President  envisaged  in
\n\t      clause  (c) except probably on the  ground  of
\n\t      mala fide.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  plea  of mala fides is based upon the  alleged  factual
\nsituation  that the respective impugned orders\thad  already
\nbeen  taken by the Government and the President\t simply\t en-
\ndorsed them was not entertained by the High Court and  ulti-
\nmately each of the writ petitions was dismissed.
\n    Mr. Nariman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\t the
\nappellants  has\t advanced three contentions  in\t support  of
\nthese appeals:-\n<\/p>\n
    (1)\t the  impugned order of dismissal in 1971  which  is
\nclaimed to have been passed on the personal satisfaction  of
\nthe President is vitiated in view of the rule in the case of
\nShamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 1 SCR 814.
\n    (2)\t appellants  having been reinstated  in\t service  in
\nterms  of the judgment of this Court, without leave  of\t the
\nCourt,\tno  second order of dismissal on the  same  material
\ncould have been passed; and
\n    (3) the High Court was wrong in holding that the  suffi-
\nciency of satisfaction of the President was not justiciable.
\n    The\t first aspect argued by Mr. Nariman is on the  basis
\nof  the\t reversal  of the view expressed by  this  Court  in
\nSardari Lal’s case (supra) by a later larger Bench  judgment
\nof  this  Court. The ratio in Sadari Lal’s case came  to  be
\nconsidered in Shamsher Singh’s case (supra) by a seven-Judge
\nBench. Ray, CJ., who spoke for five members of the bench and
\nwith  whom  by\ta separate judgment,  the  remain-  ing\t two
\nlearned Judges agreed spoke thus:-\n<\/p>\n
710<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “The  decision in Sardari Lal’s case that\t the
\n\t      President\t has to be satisfied  personally  in
\n\t      exercise\tof executive power or  function\t and
\n\t      that the functions of the President cannot  be
\n\t      delegated\t is  with respect  not\tthe  correct
\n\t      statement\t of  law and is against\t the  estab-
\n\t      lished  and  uniform  view of  this  Court  as
\n\t      embodied in several decisions to which  refer-
\n\t      ence  has already been made.  These  decisions
\n\t      are  from the year 1955 up to the years  1971.
\n\t      The decisions are Rai Saheb Ramjawaya Kapur v.
\n\t      State of Punjab, [1955] 2 SCR 225; A. Sanjeevi
\n\t      Naidu v. State of Madras, [1970] 3 SCR 505 and
\n\t      U.N.R.  Rao  v.  Smt.  Indira  Gandhi,<\/a>  [1977]
\n\t      Suppl.  SCR  46. These decisions\tneither\t re-
\n\t      ferred  to  nor considered  in  Sardari  Lal’s
\n\t      case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The President as well as the Governor is\t the
\n\t      Constitutional  or formal head. The  President
\n\t      as  well as the Governor exercises his  powers
\n\t      and functions conferred on him by or under the
\n\t      Constitution  on\tthe aid and  advice  of\t his
\n\t      Council  of Ministers, save in  spheres  where
\n\t      the  Governor  is\t required by  or  under\t the
\n\t      Constitution to exercise his functions in\t his
\n\t      discretion. Whoever the Constitution  requires
\n\t      the  satisfaction\t of  the  President  or\t the
\n\t      Governor for the exercise by the President  or
\n\t      the  Governor  of any power or  function,\t the
\n\t      satisfaction  required by the Constitution  is
\n\t      not the personal satisfaction of the President
\n\t      or  the Governor but the satisfaction  of
\n\t      the President or Governor in the Constitution-
\n\t      al sense in the cabinet system of\t Government,
\n\t      that is, satisfaction of his Council of Minis-
\n\t      ters on whose aid and advice the President  or
\n\t      the Governor generally exercise all his powers
\n\t      and functions. The decision of any minister or
\n\t      officer under rules of business made under any
\n\t      of these two Articles 77(3) and 166(3) is\t the
\n\t      decision\tof  the President  or  the  Governor
\n\t      respectively.  These Articles did not  provide
\n\t      for any delegation. Therefore, the decision of
\n\t      Minister\tor Officer under the rules of  busi-
\n\t      ness  is the decision of the President or\t the
\n\t      Governor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In their writ petitions, each of the appellants had contend-
\ned  before  the High Court, following the  ratio  of  Sadari
\nLal’s  case which was then the law, that the  President\t had
\nnot  been personally satisfied before exercise of the  power
\nunder  the  proviso  to dispense with the  inquiry  and\t the
\nrespondents  had  taken pains to establish by  pleading\t and
\nproducing the original records that the President had satis-
\nfied himself person-\n<\/p>\n
771<\/span><\/p>\n
ally  before be made the order dispensing with the  inquiry.
\nTo  reduce the argument on this aspect and to have an  exact
\nimpression of how the impugned orders were made, we directed
\nlearned counsel appearing for the Union of India to  produce
\nthe  original record and the same has been put\tbefore\tthis
\nCourt.\tIt transpires therefrom that the papers were  placed
\nby the Ministry of Home Affairs for the consideration of the
\nPresident  by the Joint Secretary of the Union Territory  of
\nDelhi on 22nd of March, 1971, and were returned with a\tnote
\nof  20th  of April, 1971, to the effect that  the  President
\nwould like to have the advice of the Council of Ministers in
\nthe matter. A draft note for the Cabinet was prepared relat-
\ning to the matter and as the record indicates it got through
\nthe  Cabinet and the Prime Minister recorded  her  approval.
\nThereafter,  it was again placed before the President  along
\nwith  a\t note prepared on 25th May, 1971. The  note  clearly
\nindicated:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “President’s Secretariat may kindly see  their
\n\t      note extracted at pre-page 7\/n. As desired  by
\n\t      the  President, the matter was  placed  before
\n\t      the  Council of Ministers. A copy of the\tNote
\n\t      submitted to the Cabinet may kindly be seen at
\n\t      flag ‘H’. The Cabinet has approved the propos-
\n\t      al  contained in paragraph 6 thereof.  Minutes
\n\t      of  the  Cabinet meeting may be seen  at\tflag
\n\t      `I’.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “It  is requested that the matter may  now  be
\n\t      placed\t before\t   the\t   President\t for
\n\t      consideration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      On  2nd  June, 1971, the\tPresident  made\t the
\n\t      following order:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “I  have considered the cases of the  eighteen
\n\t      Police officers, whose names are given in\t the
\n\t      list  appended  to  this order.  I  have\talso
\n\t      considered all the facts and circumstances  of
\n\t      their cases stated in the notes of the  Minis-
\n\t      try of Home Affairs, dated March 22, 1971, and
\n\t      May 25,1971.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “I  am satisfied, under paragraph (c)  of\t the
\n\t      proviso  to clause (2) of Article 311  of\t the
\n\t      Constitution,  that  in the  interest  of\t the
\n\t      security\tof the State it is not expedient  to
\n\t      hold  an inquiry into the case of any  one  of
\n\t      these  Police  Officers. I  accordingly  order
\n\t      that  these eighteen Police Officers  be\tdis-
\n\t      missed from service with immediate effect.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tclear from what has been extracted  above  that\t the
\norder of the President was not on the basis of his  personal
\nsatisfaction as required
\n712<\/span>
\nby  the Rule in Sardari Lal’s case but was upon the aid\t and
\nadvice of the Council of Ministers, as required in  Shamsher
\nSingh’s\t case.\tIn view of this\t factual  position,  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellants fairly stated that there was  no
\nforce in his first contention.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tsee  no force in the second point canvassed  by\t Mr.
\nNariman.  This\tCourt  quashed the orders  of  dismissal  on
\naccount of noncompliance of the requirements of the law\t and
\nwhen the Police Officers returned to service it was open  to
\nthe  employer to deal with them in accordance with  law.  No
\nleave  of this Court was necessary for making a fresh  order
\nin exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction after  removing
\nthe defects.\n<\/p>\n
    Now\t coming to the third contention of Mr. Nariman,\t the
\nmatter\tappears\t to have been concluded by the\tjudgment  of
\nthis Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Tulsirara
\nPatel  &  Ors.,<\/a> [1985] 3 SCC 398. Those were also  cases  of
\nstriking  railwaymen  against whom orders of  dismissal\t had
\nbeen  made after dispensing with the inquiry by exercise  of
\npowers\tunder the same proviso. Four learned  Judges  repre-
\nsenting the majority spoke through Madon, J. and this  Court
\nheld that there was a constitutional obligation to record in
\nwriting\t the  reason for the satisfaction that\tone  of\t the
\nsub-clauses  was applicable and if such reason was  not\t re-
\ncorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and
\nthe order of penalty following thereupon would both be\tvoid
\nand unconstitutional. The Court further stated that communi-
\ncation of the resaon to the aggrieved Government servant was
\nnot obligatory but perhaps advisable. The record of the case
\nproduced  before  us clearly indicates that the\t reason\t has
\nbeen  recorded though not communicated. That  would  satisfy
\nthe requirements of the law as indicated in Tulsiram Patel’s
\ncase.  The plea of mala fides as had been  contended  before
\nthe High Court and casually reiterated before us arises\t out
\nof the fact that typed orders dated 3rd of June, 1971,\twere
\nalready\t on record in the file when the papers\twere  placed
\nbefore\tthe  President;\t such a contention  is\twithout\t any
\nsubstance.  The President’s order is dated 2nd of  June\t and
\nthe typed orders of dismissal bear the date of the following
\nday.  In  this setting, there is no scope  to  suggest\tthat
\ntyped orders representing Government’s decision were  avail-
\nable on the record by the time the matter was placed  before
\nthe President.\n<\/p>\n
    All\t the  legal contentions have failed.  Ordinarily  in
\nsuch  a\t situation, the appeals have to\t be  dismissed.\t Mr.
\nNariman,  however, has placed before us for consideration  a
\nstatement made by the Home Minister before the Lok Sabha  on
\n18th of December, 1978. Therein he had stated:-\n<\/p>\n
713<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ”\t  …………..  18 persons who  have\tbeen
\n\t      dismissed by invoking clause (c) of the provi-
\n\t      so  to Article 311(2) will be  considered\t for
\n\t      grant of compassionate allowances.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  statement\t was also reiterated in\t the  papers  placed
\nbefore\tthe President. Obviously the Government intended  to
\npay  them compassionate allowances. We have no sympathy\t for
\nindiscipline. In fact, in an orderly force like the  Police,
\nindiscipline  is bound to give rise to serious\tproblems  of
\nadministration. It is, however, unnecessary to go into\tthat
\naspect\tof  the matter as the Government had made  it  known
\nthat they intended to treat even these 18 policemen liberal-
\nly  by giving them compassionate allowances. The matter\t has
\nbeen  sufficiently protracted, the first order of  dismissal
\nwas  made a little more than 20 years back and in the  mean-
\ntime  some  of the policemen out of this group\tof  18\thave
\ndied.  In  such\t circumstances to leave this  matter  for  a
\nfuture date for fixing compassionate allowance would not  be
\njust  and  proper. We had suggested to the  learned  counsel
\nappearing  for the Union of India to have  instructions\t and
\ngive us an indication of what was in view of the  Government
\nwhen compassionate allowance was thought of. There has\tbeen
\nno  response yet. We are not prepared to detain delivery  of
\nthe  judgment on that ground. In our opinion, the  situation
\nwould be met in a just way if instead of paying a  recurring
\nallowance,  a lump sum amount is paid to the  policemen\t who
\nare alive or their legal representatives in the case of\t the
\npolicemen  who are dead. We accordingly direct that  in\t the
\ncase of Sub-Inspectors who were dismissed, a lump sum amount
\nof  Rs.60,000 (Rupees Sixty Thousand only), in the  case  of
\nHead-Constables\t who  were  dismissed  a  sum  of  Rs.50,000
\n(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and in the case of Constables a
\nlump sum of Rs.40.000 (Rupees Forty Thousand only) should be
\npaid within one month from today.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appeals are dismissed subject to the direction\t for
\npayment\t of the lump sum amounts indicated above in lieu  of
\ncompassionate allowance. There would be no orders for costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeals\tdis-\nmissed.\n714<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2106, 1987 SCR (3) 704 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: BAKSHI SARDARI LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRs& ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1987 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-05T09:58:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T09:58:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2947,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\",\"name\":\"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T09:58:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-05T09:58:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987","datePublished":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T09:58:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987"},"wordCount":2947,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987","name":"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T09:58:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bakshi-sardari-lal-dead-through-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-31-july-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) Through … vs Union Of India & Anr on 31 July, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}