VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

220 DECISION - 22
were to ignore the result of an earlier departmental enquiry then there
will be nothing to prevent a superior officer if he were so minded to order
a second or a third or a fourth or even a fifth departmental enquiry if the
earlier ones had resulted in the exoneration of a public servant.
(22)
Safeguarding of National Security Rules
Railway Services (Safeguarding of National
Security) Rules, 1949, held valid.
P. Balakotaiah vs. Union of India,
(1958) SCR 1052
The services of the appellants who were Railway servants,
were terminated for reasons of national security under sec. 3 of the
Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949.
The Supreme Court held that the words ‘subversive activities’
occurring in Rule 3 of the above-said rules in the context of the
objective of national security which they have in view, are sufficiently
precise in import to sustain a vaild classification and the Rules are
not, therefore, invalid as being repugnant to Art. 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court further held that the charge shows that
action was taken against the appellants not because they were
Communists or trade unionists but because they were engaged in
subversive activities. The orders terminating their services could
not, therefore, contravene Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution since they
did not infringe any of the rights of the appellants guaranteed by that
Article which remained precisely what they were before.
The Supreme Court further held that Art. 311 of the
Constitution can apply only when there is an order of dismissal or
removal by way of punishment. As the terms of employment of the
appellants provided that their services could be terminated on a proper
notice and Rule 7 of the Security Rules preserved such rights as
benefits of pension, gratuities and the like to which an employee
might be entitled under the service rules, there was neither premature
termination nor forfeiture of benefits already acquired so as to amount