Rupraj Nandy Vs Union of India

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Rupraj Nandy challenging the order dated 15.02.2018 passed by the Government of India in dismissing him from service as well as the order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter “Tribunal”) in dismissing the Original Application which was filed challenging the dismissal order.

¶18

The Original Application was filed by the petitioner seeking for following relief:-

¶19

“8.1. Rule Nisi may be issued Calling upon the respondents to show-cause as to why the reliefs sought for herein shall not be granted in favour

¶20

Page 1 of 13

¶21

of the applicant and upon showing their no cause and/or insufficient cause, the said rule may be made absolute;

¶22

8.2. The impugned order vide Annexure-A/12 may be quashed;

¶23

8.3. The Applicant may be reinstated in his service With effect from the date of his dismissal i.e. from dated 15.02.2018 and may be paid with all his service benefits including full back wages; AND

¶24

8.4. Any other consequential relief(s) as would be deemed just and proper may be granted in the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case”.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that he was holding the post as Asst. Director in the ARC establishment at Charbatia of Odisha in the Aviation Research Centre (ARC) under the Government of India. One first information report was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge, Baguiati Police Station on 16.12.2016 against the petitioner alleging his involvement for commission of offences under sections 370/370A(2)/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 3/4/5/5A/5B/ 5C/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Pursuant to such first information report, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody and since the judicial remand period was beyond 48 hours, he was placed under orders of suspension by the competent authority. After being released on bail on 23.12.2016, the petitioner stated to have resumed his service being stationed at ARC, Charbatia, Choudwar, Cuttack. It is the further case

¶26

Page 2 of 13

¶27

of the petitioner that no departmental proceeding was initiated against him and no enquiry report was communicated to him at any point of time. But all of a sudden, he received an order dated 31.10.2017 to explain his conduct in relation to the first information report lodged against him as aforesaid. After receiving such order, the petitioner submitted his reply and then the petitioner was asked to furnish some documents with reference to his explanation, which also the petitioner complied with. Then on 15.02.2018, the petitioner was dismissed from the service in exercise of extra-ordinary powers conferred upon the President of India under article 311(2) proviso (i) r/w Rule 19 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 without holding any enquiry or Disciplinary Proceeding and permanently withholding all pensionary benefits and compassionate allowances. The order of the President of India is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

“To,

¶30

Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, Through SS (ARC) Hqrs. New Delhi

¶31

WHEREAS the President is satisfied under clause (c) of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 that, in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry in the case of Shi Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC.

¶32

Page 3 of 13

¶33

AND WHEREAS the President is satisfied that, on the basis of the information available, the activities of Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC, are such as to warrant his dismissal from service.

¶34

Accordingly, the President hereby dismisses Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC, from service with immediate effect.

¶35

The President further orders that the said Shri Rupraj Nandy, Assistant Director, ARC, will not be paid any pensionary benefits or compassionate allowance consequent to his dismissal from service.

¶36

Sd/- (Kalpana Mittal Baruah) Add. Secretary to the government of India.”

¶37

Grounds have been taken in the Original Application that the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble President is palpably illegal, arbitrary and without due application of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. It was further a ground that there was absolutely no material available on records to enable the opposite parties to invoke their extra-ordinary powers in case of the petitioner as the F.I.R. transpires involvement of the offences which no way relate to the situation, gravity or exigency contemplated under Rule-19(iii) of the Central Civil Service, CCA Rules of 1965. Some other grounds have also been taken.

¶38

The Union of India filed the counter affidavit to the original application wherein it is contended thus:-

¶39

“21) After taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and secret and sensitive

¶40

Page 4 of 13

¶41

materials made available after investigating the whole issue, a proposal was forwarded to DoP&T for placing it before the Advisory Committee and taking action against Shri Rupraj Nandy under Proviso(c) of the Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India as laid down in OM No.34012/1(S)/79-Estt.(B) dated-26.07.1980 read with OM No. 34102 /1(S)/75 Estt(B) dated 27.08.1975 [Annexure-R/10 & Annexure-R/11]. 22) Vide memo No. ARC/Genl/264/96. VOI III9338 dated 31.10.2017 Shri Nandy was directed to explain his conduct in the case within 15 days of receipt of the Memorandum (Annexure-R/12). Shri Nandy had submitted the detailed reply vide letter dated 14.11.2017. There were inconsistencies in the statement initially submitted by him vide application dated 24.12.2016 and the explanation dated 14.11.2017 submitted by him [Annexure-R/13) 23) Based on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee the Competent Authorities approved dismissal of Shri Rupraj Nandy from service without grant of any pensionary benefits of Compassionate allowance in light of commission which have an adverse impact on national security.

¶42

24) All the materials on the basis of which decision to dismiss Shri Rupraj Nandy was taken shall be placed before this Hon'ble Tribunal as and when directed by it for its perusal.

¶43

27) In reply to the averment made by the applicant in Para-4.2, the respondent submit that Shri Nandy, Asst. Director had proceeded on CL one (01) day CL on 16.12.2016 along with Suffix on 17.12.2016 & 18.12.2016 (being Saturday & Sunday). His contention that registration of FIR and falsely implicating the applicant is false and misleading. The raid on the said date was conducted by Shri Aninda Sundar Bhattacharya,

¶44

Page 5 of 13

¶45

ACP, Bidhannagar Police Commissionrate on specific information. He was caught red-handed in the immoral act of prostitution, human trafficking, exploitation of trafficked persons in connivance with an organized gang. Thereafter, FIR No.1419/16 dated 16.12.2016 was registered against him and other persons involved in the said crime under sections 370/370A(2)/120B/34 IPC read with Sections 3/4/5/5A/5B/5C/7/9 of IT(P) Act, 1956. 28) That in reply to the averment made by the applicant in Para-4.3 of the O.A., the respondents submit that in terms of Rule 10(2)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, "A government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority (a) With effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours: (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such convection.

¶46

In terms of the said Rule, Shri Rupraj Nahdy was placed under deemed suspension with the approval of the Competent Authority w.e.f. the date of detention i.e. 16.12.2016, until further orders, vide Order No.9/1/2016-DO.II(B)-(1)-92 dated 03.02.2017”.

¶47

The petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit controverting the stand of Union of India by urging as under: “8. That in reply to paras-21 to 27 of the Counter it is humbly submitted that the respondents have

¶48

Page 6 of 13

¶49

utterly failed to produce any incriminating materials in consonance with their contentions raised under the aforesaid paragraphs with regard to secret and sensitive materials inasmuch as the respondents have chosen to withhold such materials to produce subsequently before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Such conduct on the parts of the respondents are unknown to the Laws of pleadings and therefore, in the absence of any materials on record and in the absence of any opportunity being afforded to the applicant to defend himself against any such material being used against the applicant, the impugned action vide Annexure-A/12 admittedly having been based upon such concealed materials, would be hit by Articles-14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and would make the impugned action vide Annexure-A/12 thoroughly vulnerable and susceptible under law.”

¶50

The learned Tribunal after considering the averments taken in the Original Application, the counter affidavit, the rejoinder so also hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, has been pleased to hold as follows:-

¶51

“16. We have considered the rival submissions in threadbare. Admittedly, the applicant was a senior officer handling personnel issues relating to ARC personnel base in Charbatia. His direct involvement in a criminal activity like, illegal trafficking of women and their sexual exploitation as part of an organized criminal racket is undoubtedly an unbecoming on the part of a Government servant. The applicant is also well

¶52

Page 7 of 13

¶53

aware of the Preamble of Intelligence Organization (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1985, providing restriction of certain rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution the members of certain organizations established by the Central Government for purposes of intelligence or counter-intelligence so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline. It is an admitted fact that on 16.12.2016, an FIR was lodged against the applicant by the A.C.P., BDNPC, Air Port Zone-II for applicant's involvement of offences under sections-370/370B(2)/120-B/34 of IPC read with sections 3/4/5B/5C/7/9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and this being the subject matter of Baguiati PS Case No.1491/2016, the applicant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and subsequently released on bail on 23.12.2016. From the above, it is clear enough that the applicant being a responsible officer of an organization which has a formidable role concerning security perception of the country. The potentiality of the above act on the part of the applicant being prejudicial to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of the country intelligence organization and there is every likely hood of the security being vulnerable in case the applicant is allowed to continue in the Organization. In such an eventuality, there was every reason for the respondents to do away with the departmental enquiry under the relevant rules of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and to this extent, they have not acted de hors the rules and thus, the point in issue is answered. Last but not the least, we have gone through the report of Committee shown by the respondents during hearing of this O.A. and upon perusal of the same, we found the reasons recorded for dispensing with the regular inquiry under

¶54

Page 8 of 13

¶55

CCS(CCA) Rules are wholesome.

¶56

17. In the conspectus of facts enumerated above, we do not find any flaw with the action of the respondents which necessitates intervention of this Tribunal. In the result, the O.A. being devoid of merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.”

¶57

When the matter was taken up on 06.08.2025, we were apprised that in Baguiati P.S. Case No.1491 of 2016, which was instituted against the petitioner, charge sheet has already been submitted and the case is under midst trial, we asked the learned counsel to obtain the status of the trial.

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo today in Court wherein it is stated that out of fifteen charge sheet witnesses, five witnesses have already been examined by the President in the learned trial Court. The memo is taken on record.

¶59

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the F.I.R. or the charge sheet laid down against the petitioner has remitly no connection with the security of the State. Therefore, it was uncalled for on the part of the authority to invoke Clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 19 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶60

Union of India and another -Vrs.- Balbir Singh reported in A.I.R. 1998 Supreme Court 2043 wherein in paragraph no.8, it has been held as follows:-

¶61

“8. If an order passed under Article 311(2) Proviso (c) is assailed before a Court of law on the ground that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is not based on

¶62

Page 9 of 13

¶63

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 based; and if it finds that the said circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on the security of the State, the Court can hold that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor which is required for passing such an order has been vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations.”

¶64

Article 311 of the Constitution of India deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or the State without resorting to the normal procedure of inquiry, departmental proceeding etc. The relevant provision of Articles 311 (2) (c) is quoted hereinbelow:

¶65

“(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry”.

¶66

Rule 19 (iii) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 reads as follows:

¶67

“(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:

¶68

Provided that the Government servant 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):

¶69

Page 10 of 13

¶70

Provided further that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.”

¶71

When a submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such material was placed before the Hon’ble President to attain subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned order under Annexure-12, learned counsel for the Union of India controverted the same by drawing our attention to the counter affidavit particularly to paragraph nos. 21 to 23 as reproduced in the preceding para 4 of this order. Precedes the impugned dismissal order, investigation was carried out, proposal was forwarded to DoP&T and it was placed before the Advisory Committee and the petitioner was asked to explain his conduct to which he submitted the detailed reply. The authority found inconsistencies in the statement which was initially submitted by the petitioner in his application dated 24.12.2016 and the application dated 14.11.2017. Following the above procedure, recommendation was made by the Advisory Committee to the competent authorities, which in turn, approved the dismissal of the petitioner from service without grant of pensionary benefits of Compassionate allowance. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no material was placed before the authority at the time of passing Annexure-12 is devoid of merits.

¶72

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the counter affidavit, it has been merely stated that the materials on the basis of which, the decisions to dismiss

¶73

Page 11 of 13

¶74

the petitioner was taken could be placed before learned Tribunal as and when directed for its perusal but it should have been annexed to the counter affidavit instead of withholding the same and reasonable opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to controvert the same. True that principle of natural justice demand that every document relied upon to pass the impugned dismissal order ought to have been given to the delinquent officer, however, we cannot shut our eyes to the stand taken by the respondent that the documents cannot be brought to a public domain in view of the nature of documents, which may cause detriment to the national security. Hence, we do not agree with the contentions raised by the petitioner. 10. It is not just a case where the first information report was lodged but after due investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Court took cognizance of the offences on receipt of the charge sheet, no challenge has been made by the petitioner to the same even at the stage of framing of charge, no discharge petition was also filed or the charge was challenged before the higher forum and now the trial is under progress.

¶75

In the factual scenario, we are of the view that the authority concerned has rightly applied Article 311(2) proviso (c) of the Constitution of India and since we are satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it was not expedient to hold such enquiry as contemplated under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons which reflect in paragraph no.16 of the impugned judgment. The reasons

¶76

Page 12 of 13

¶77

that have been recorded for dispensing with the regular inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 are wholesome and therefore, we find no illegality or impropriety in the same.

¶78

Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has been removed from service, some pensionary benefits should have been granted to him.

¶79

Neither any such prayer was made before the learned Tribunal under the heading of relief sought for nor on the interim relief and even before this Court in the writ petition, no such ground is taken. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to make such prayer before the appropriate forum which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶80

In view of the foregoing discussions, since we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶81

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

¶82

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

¶83

( S. S. Mishra) Judge

¶84

Pravakar

¶85

Signature Not Verified

¶86

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 18:33:50