VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

588 DECISION - 278
of inquiry on the basis of aid and advice of council of
Ministers, proper. Personal satisfaction not
necessary.
(ii) Where court quashed order of dismissal passed
dispensing with inquiry, on account of noncompliance
of requirements of law, employer can
issue fresh order in exercise of disciplinary
jurisdiction after removing defects, without any need
to leave of the court.
Bakshi Sardari Lal vs. Union of India,
1987(5) SLR SC 283
18 Policemen, three of them Sub-Inspectors and the
remaining either Head Constables or Constables, of the Delhi Armed
Police Force were dismissed from service by separate but similar
orders dated 14-4-67 by way of punishment. They challenged those
orders before the Delhi High Court contending that exercise of power
under clause (c) of the second proviso to Art. 311(2) of Constitution
was not upon President’s personal satisfaction and the dismissals
were bad. The High Court rejected the writ petitions. The dismissed
policemen carried appeals to the Supreme Court and by judgment
dated 21-1-71 in Sardari Lal vs. Union of India and ors. 1971(3)
SCR 461, a Constitution Bench quashed the orders of dismissal as
being illegal, ultra vires and void on the ground of non-compliance
with the requirements of law. Following this judgment, the dismissed
policemen were reinstated in service with effect from 16-4-71. On 5-
6-71, fresh orders of dismissal were served on the policemen again
invoking the power under clause (c) of the second proviso to Art.
311(2) for dispensing with the inquiry. Writ applications were again
filed before the High Court contending that the order of dismissal
without an inquiry vitiated as the order under sub-clause (c) of the
second proviso to Art. 311(2) had not been made upon personal
satisfaction of the President. The High Court rejected the contention
that the President himself did not pass the impugned orders and