VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 279
589
held that no court has jurisdiction to examine the facts and
circumstances that lead to the satisfaction of the President and
dismissed the petitions. The appellants thereupon filed these appeals
before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the order of the President
was not on the basis of his personal satisfaction as required by the
rule in Sri Sardari Lal’s case but was upon aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers, as required in the case of Shamsir Singh & anr.
vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1974 SC 2192) and held that it is in order.
The Supreme Court also held that there was no force in the
second point that the appellants having been reinstated in service in
terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court, without leave of the
Court no second order of dismissal on the same material could have
been passed. They quashed the orders of dismissal on account of
non-complaince of the requirements of the law and when the police
officers returned to service it was open to the employer to deal with
them in accordance with law. No leave of the court was necessary
for making a fresh order in exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction
after removing the defects.
The Supreme Court also rejected the third contention of the
appellants that the High Court was wrong in holding that the sufficiency
of satisfaction of the President was not justiciable, drawing attention
to their decision in the case of Union of India and anr. vs. Tulsiram
Patel & ors. (1985(2) SLR SC 576).
(279)
(A) Suspension — for unduly long period
Keeping departmental proceedings alive for 20
years and not to have revoked order of suspension
for over 11 years, grossly unjust.