UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. MAJOR S.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

59Copy pinpoint59. The aforesaid two Sections i.e. 18 and 19 are distinct and apply in two different stages. Section 18 speaks about the absolute discretion of the President exercising pleasure doctrine. No provisions in the Army Act curtail, control or limit the power contained in Article 310( 1) of the Constitution. Article B 309 enables the legislature or executive to make any law, rule or regulation with regard to condition of services without impinging upon the overriding power recognized under Article 310 of the Constitution. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Babu Ram Upadhayay, C (1961) 2 SCR 679, held that the Constitution practically incorporated the provisions of Sections 240 and 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 in Articles 309 and 310 of the Constitution. But the Constitution has not made "the tenure of pleasure" subject to any law made by the legislature. On the other hand, Article 309 is expressly made subject to the provisions of Article 310 which provides for pleasure doctrine. Hence, it can safely be concluded that the Army Act cannot in any way override or stand higher than Constitutional provisions contained in Article 309 and consequently no provision of the Army Act could cut down the pleasure tenure in Article 310 of the Constitution. In another Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Moti Ram Deka case (1964) 5 SCR, 683, their Lordships observed that Article 309 cannot impair or affect the pleasure of the President conferred by Article 310. There is no doubt, Article 309 has to be read subject to Articles 310 and F 311 and Article 310 has to be read subject to Article 311.

60Copy pinpoint60. In the case of B.P. Singhal (supra), a Constitution Bench of this Court has elaborately discussed the application and object of the doctrine of pleasure and considered most of G the earlier decisions rendered by this Court. Some of the paragraphs are worth to be quoted herein below:-

"22. There is a distinction between the doctrine of pleasure as it existed in a feudal set-up and the doctrine of pleasure in a democracy governed by the rule of law. In H

UNION OF !NOIA v. MAJOR S.P. SHARMA 379 [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

a nineteenth century feudal set-up unfettered power and discretion of the Crown was not an alien concept. However, in a democracy governed by rule of law, where arbitrariness in any form is eschewed, no Government or authority has the right to do what it pleases. The doctrine of pleasure does not mean a licence to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. It is presumed that discretionary powers conferred in absolute and unfettered terms on any public authority will necessarily and obviously be exercised reasonably and for the public good.

33. The doctrine of pleasure as originally envisaged in c England was a prerogative power which was unfettered. It meant that the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where the rule of law prevails, there is nothing like D unfettered discretion or unaccountable action. The degree of need for reason may vary. The degree of scrutiny during judicial review may vary. But the need for reason exists. As a result when the Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the E President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be read as being subject to the "fundamentals of constitutionalism". Therefore in a constitutional set-up, when an office is held during the pleasure of any authority, and if no limitations or restrictions F are placed on the "at pleasure" doctrine, it means that the holder of the office can be removed by the authority at whose pleasure he holds office, at any time, without notice and without assigning any cause. G

34. The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words, "at pleasure" doctrine enables the removal of a person holding H

p. 380 Copy page pinpoint

A office at the pleasure of an authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the B sweet will, whim and fancy of the authority, but can only be for valid reasons."

61Copy pinpoint61. In fact the 'pleasure doctrine' is a Constitutional necessity, for the reasons that the difficulty in dismissing those servants whose continuance in office is detrimental to the State C would, in case necessity arises to prove some offence to the satisfaction of the court, be such as to seriously impede the working of public service.

62Copy pinpoint62. There is no dispute with regard to the legal proposition that illegality, irrationality and procedural non-compliance are grounds on which judicial review is permissible. But the question is as to the ambit of judicial review. This court in Civil Appeal filed by the respondents challenging the order of termination passed under Section 18 of the Army Act observed that the order of termination can be challenged only on the ground of malafide. It was further observed that it is for the person alleging malafide to make out a prima facie case. For better appreciation, the order passed by this Court is quoted herein below. F "1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard both sides. According to us, all that the impugned judgment holds is that an order passed under Section 18 of the Army Act can be challenged on the ground of malafides. This statement of law is unexceptional. However, it is for the person who challenges it on the ground of malafides, to make out a prima facie case in that behalf. It is only if he discharges the said burden, that the Government is called upon to show that it is not passed in the malafide exercise of its powers. While

p. 381 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] doing so, the Government is not precluded from claiming the privilege in respect of the material which may be in its possession and on the basis of which the order is passed. The Government may also choose to show the material only to the court. With regard to the pleadings in respect of the challenge to the order on the ground of malafides, no particular formula can be laid down. The pleadings will depend upon the facts of each case.

3. The appellants are permitted to withdraw from the appeal-memo, pp. 221 to 232 which according to the learned Solicitor General have been annexed to the memo c inadvertently.

4. The appeals are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs." D

63Copy pinpoint63. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court while answering the reference has observed in paragraphs 37 and 38 which is quoted hereunder:-

"37. Undoubtedly, the power under Section 18 cannot be ordinarily invoked for dealing with cases of misconduct and the other provisions in the Army .Act dealing with the various kinds of misconduct have to be invoked for dealing with such cases. This power under Section 18 must be used sparingly only when it is expedient to deal with such cases under the other provisions of the Army Act. In view of the sensitive nature of cases involving security of State that may come up in the case of armed forces it cannot be said that in no case of misconduct section 18 can be invoked. There may be cases where security of State is involved and it may not be expedient to continue with the inquiry provided under the Army Act for dealing with misconduct. It appears that it is specifically for this reason that section 18 has been incorporated in the Army Act despite the fact that Article 310 of the Constitution already provided that tenure of an Army personnel would be at the G

p. 382 Copy page pinpoint

A pleasure of the President. This is a power given to the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, i.e. the President of India to be invoked in such cases where inquiry in other form is not advisable and is inexpedient. This power is similar to second proviso (a), (b) & (c) of B Article 311 (2) which provides for dispensing with the inquiry in certain cases even in the case of civil service. The safeguard provided for a government servant by clause (2) of Article 311 is taken away when second proviso to Article 311 (2) becomes applicable. The Supreme Court in Tulsi Ram Patel's case (supra) c observed that "the second proviso has been mentioned in the Constitution as a matter of public policy and in public interest for public good." The Supreme Court further observed that much as it may seem harsh and oppressive to a government servant, the court must repel the temptation to be carried away by feelings of commiseration and sympathy in such cases. Therefore, even if an order under Section 18 for removing a defense personnel for misconduct is passed if it is found that there were sufficient reasons for resorting to Section 18, the same would not be open to challenge on merits. The Supreme Court in Chief of Army Staff & Anr. v. Major Dharam Pal Kukrety, 1985 CriLJ 913, has held that even after Court Martial proceedings had been concluded, the finding of the general court martial having not been confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff, further retention of the Army personnel being undesirable, the Chief of Army Staff could resort to Rule 14, indicating thereby that even after resorting to court martial proceedings if it is found inexpedient to continue with the Court Martial proceedings it was open to resort to proceedings under Section 19 of the Army Act. The Supreme Court observed:

"The crucial question, therefore, is whether the Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff can have resort to Rule 14 of the Army Rules. H

p. 383 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] Though it is open to the Central Government or the A Chief of the Army Staff to have recourse to that rule in the first instance without directing trial by a court- ma rtial of the concerned officer, there is no provision in the Army Act or in Rule 14 or any of the other rules of the Army Rules which prohibits the B Central Government or the Chief of the Army Staff from resorting in such a case to Rule 14. Can it, however, be said that in such a case a trial by a court-martial is inexpedient or impracticable? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, c defines the word 'inexpedient' as meaning "not expedient; disadvantageous in the circumstances, inadvisable, impolite". The same dictionary defines 'expedient' inter alias as meaning "advantageous; fit, proper, or suitable to the circumstances of the 0 case". Webster's Third New International Dictionary also defines the term 'expedient' inter alias as meaning 'characterized by suitability, practicality, and efficiency in achieving a particular end; fit, proper or advantageous under the circumstances." E

38. That being the position even after resorting to court martial proceedings if it is found inexpedient to continue with the same it is always open to the respondent to resort to either section 18 or 19 of the Army Act." F . 64. Indisputably, defence personnel fall under the category where President has absolute pleasure to discontinue the services. Further in our considered opinion as far as security is concerned, the safeguard available to civil servants under Article 311 is not available to defence personnel as judicial G review is very limited. In cases where continuance of Army officers in service is not practicable for security purposes and there is loss of confidence and potential risk to the security issue then such officers can be removed under the pleasure doctrine. As a matter of fact, Section 18 of the Army Act is in H

p. 384 Copy page pinpoint

A consonance with the constitutional powers conferred on the President empowering the President to terminate the services on the basis of material brought to his notice. In such cases, the Army officers are not entitled to claim an opportunity of hearing. In our considered opinion the pleasure doctrine can be invoked by the President at any stage of enquiry on being satisfied that continuance of any officer is not in the interest of and security of the State. It is therefore not a camouflage as urged by the respondents.

65Copy pinpoint65. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order of dismissal of the earlier writ petitions and confirmation of the same by this court amounts to "Doctrine of Merger" and operates as res judicata against the present appeals. As discussed above, the services of the present respondents along with other permanent commissioned officers of the Indian Army were terminated, since they were found suspected to be involved in espionage activities. Aggrieved by the termination order, the present respondents, except Major R.K. Midha and Major N.R. Ajwani, filed writ petitions being C.W.P. Nos. 418, 419, 421, 424 and 425 of 1980 before the E Delhi High Court. These respondents challenged the said termination order as being illegal and malafide. The High Court vide order dated 21.4.1980 dismissed the writ petitions. The Order dated 21.4.1980 reads as under:-

"Dismissal from service is under Section 18 of the Army F act which is complimentary to Article 31 O of the Constitution. This means that the Officer held the tenure during the pleasure of the President. It has been contended that it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that due procedure for dismissal for G misconduct has not been followed. The impugned order does not say whether the dismissal is for misconduct or otherwise. It only sets out the pleasure doctrine. In this view of the matter, no case made out for interference. Dismissed." H

p. 385 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y. EOBAL, J.]

66Copy pinpoint66. Respondents then preferred special leave petitions against the aforesaid order dated 21.4.1980 being SLP Nos. 7225 and 7233 of 1980. A three-Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the special leave petition by order dated 1.9.1980. In the year 1982, the show cause notices dated 10.5.1982 were issued to the offieers whose services were terminated informing them that their services were not considered satisfactory by the Pen:.ionary Authority and, therefore, why not 5% of the gratuity or pension be deducted. On receipt of the said show cause notices, eight of the officers, whose services were terminated initiated the second round of litigation by filing c writ petitions being C.W.P Nos. 1643-1646 of 1982, 1777 of 1982, 804of1982, 1666of1982 praying not only to quash the show cause notices, but also to quash the order of termination of their services. All those writ petitions were finally heard and came to be dismissed by the Delhi High Court vide judgment 0 dated 22.3.1985. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the appeal formulated questions of law and referred the same to the Full Bench by order dated 15.5.1991. The question of law framed by the Division Bench was "whether the order of termination passed by and in the name of President under Section 18 of the Army Act read with Article 310 of the Cc;mstitution invoking doctrine of pleasure of the President be challenged on the ground that it is camouflage and as such is violative of principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution?".

67Copy pinpoint67. From the above, it is clear that the Union of India has been consistently contesting these petitions and this Court has found substance in the argument of the appellants that the High G Court while delivering t~e judgment dated 21.12.2000 overlooked·this important legal aspect of finality coupled with the doctrine of res judicata. In our considered opinion, this aspect cannot be ignored and the issue of fact cannot be re- opened in the instant case as well as has been done under the H

p. 386 Copy page pinpoint

A impugned judgment by relying on certain material which the High Court described to have been fraudulently withheld from the courts. In our opinion, fraud is not a term or ornament nor can it be presumed to exist on the basis of a mere inference on some alleged material that is stated to have been discovered B later on. The discovery of a reinvestigated fact could have been a ground of review in the same proceedings, but the same cannot be in our opinion made the basis for re-opening the issue through a fresh round of litigation. A fresh writ petition or Letters Patent Appeal which is in continuation of a writ petition c cannot be filed collaterally to set aside the judgment of the same High Court rendered in earlier round of litigation upholding the termination order. In our view, the High Court has committed a manifest error by not lawfully defining the scope of the fresh round of litigation on the principles of res judicata and doctrine of finality. To establish fraud, it is the material available which 0 may lead to the conclusion that the failure to produce the\ material was deliberate or suppressed or even otherwise occasioned a failure of justice. This also, can be attempted if legally permissible only in the said proceedings and not in a collateral challenge raised after the matter has been finally decided in the first round of litigation. It is to be noticed that the judgment which had become final in 1980 also included writ petition no.418 of 1980 filed by the respondent S.P. Sharma. Once, this Court had put a seal to the said litigation vide judgment dated 1.9.1980 then a second round of litigation by the same respondents including S.P. Sharma in writ petition no. 1643 of 1982 was misplaced.

68Copy pinpoint68. The very genesis of an i.dentical challenge relating to the same proceedings of termination on the pretext of a 5% G cut in terminal benefits .was impermissible apart from the attraction of the principle of merger. This aspect of finality, therefore, cannot be disturbed through a collateral challenge.

69Copy pinpoint69. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra H & Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1, this Court by a majority decision laid down the law that when a Judge deals with the matter brought

p. 387 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] before him for his adjudication, he first decides the questions of fact on which the parties are at issue, and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes up the matter before the appellate court.

70Copy pinpoint70. A decision rendered by a competent court cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason that if it is permitted to do so there would be "confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning".

71Copy pinpoint71. In the case of Mohd. Aslam vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1611, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed seeking reconsideration of the judgment rendered by this Court on the ground that the said judgment is incorrect. Rejecting the prayer, this Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution is not available to assail the correctness of the decision on merit or to claim its reconsideration. E

72Copy pinpoint72. In the case of Babu Singh Bains etc. versus Union of India and others etc., AIR 1997 SC 116, this Court reiterated the settled principal of law that once an order passed on merit by this Court exercising the power under Article 136 of the Constitution has become final no writ petition under Article 32 F of the Constitution on the self-same issue is maintainable. The principle of constructive res judicata stands fast in his way in his way to raise the same contention once over.

73Copy pinpoint73. In Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. vs. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, (1996) 3 SCC 114, this G Court re-iterated the view as under:

"In a case like the present, where in substance the challenge is to the correctness of a decision on merits after it has become final, there can be no question of invoking H

p. 388 Copy page pinpoint

A Article 32 of the Constitution to claim reconsideration of the decision on the basis of its effect in accordance with law.. Frequent resort to the decision in Antulay (AIR 1988 SC 1531) in such situations is wholly misconceived and impels us to emphasis this fact." B

74Copy pinpoint74. In M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Kamataka & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1113, this Court held that doctrine of res-judicata was not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. The main object of the doctrine is to promote a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the court on the issues which have become final between the parties. The doctrine was based on two age old principles, namely, 'interest reipub/icae ut sit finis litium' which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is 'nemo debet bis vexari si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa' meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause.

75Copy pinpoint75. Thus, the principle of finality of litigation is based on a sound firm principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end to litigation. The doctrine of res-judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy.

76Copy pinpoint76. In a country governed by the rule of law, finality of judgment is absolutely imperative and great sanctity is attached to the finality of the judgment and it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the court as it would not only tantamount to merely an abuse of the process of the court but would have far reaching adverse affect on the administration of justice. It would also nullify the doctrine of stare decisis a well established valuable principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. The judgments of the court and

p. 389 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] . particularly the Apex Court of a country cannot and should not A be unsettled lightly.

77Copy pinpoint77. Precedent keeps the law predictable and the law declared by this Court, being the law of the land, is binding on all courts/tribunals and authorities in India in view of Article 141 B of the Constitution. The judicial system "only works if someone is allowed to have the last word" and the last word so spoken is accepted and religiously followed. The doctrine of stare decisis promotes a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and this helps in the development of the law. Besides C providing guidelines for individuals as to what would be the consequences if he chooses the legal action, the doctrine promotes confidence of the people in the system of the judicial administration. Even otherwise it is an imperative necessity to avoid uncertainty, confusion. Judicial propriety and decorum demand that the law laid down by the highest Court of the land 0 must be given effect to.

78Copy pinpoint78. In Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 1771, this Court dealt with the issue and held that reconsideration of a judgment of this Court which has attained E finality is not normally permissible. A decision upon a question of law rendered by this Court was conclusive and would bind the court in subsequent cases. The court cannot sit in appeal against its own judgment.

79Copy pinpoint79. In Magan/al Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal F Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1974 SC 2009, this Court held as under:

"At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that certainty and continuity are essential ingredients of the rule of law. G Certainty in law would be co_nsiderably eroded and suffer a serious setback if the highest court of the land readily overrules the view expressed by it in earlier cases, even though that view has held the field for a number of years. In quite a number of cas-es which come up before this H

p. 390 Copy page pinpoint

A Court, two views are possible, and simply because the Court considers that the view not taken by the Court in the earlier case was a better view of the matter would not justify' the overruling of the view. The law laid down by this Court is binding upon all courts in the country under Article B 141 of the Constitution, and numerous cases all over the country are decided in accordance with the view taken by this Court. Many people arrange their affairs and large number of transactions also take place on the faith of the correctness of the view taken by this Court. It would create c uncertainty, instability and confusion if the law propounded by this Court on the basis of which numerous cases have been decided and many transactions have taken place is held to be not the correct law. "

Thus, in view of above, it can be held that doctrine of finality D has to be applied in a strict legal sense.

80Copy pinpoint80. While dealing with the issue this court in Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 1980 SC 1762, held as under: E "6. It is wise to remember that fatal flaws silenced by earlier rulings cannot survive after death because a decision does not lose its authority 'merely because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned'". F

81Copy pinpoint81. The view has been expressed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in these very proceedings while dismissing the special leave petitions of Subhash Juneja and Harish Lal Singh vide order dated 23.4.2003. This court applied the doctrine of finality of judgment and res-judicata and refused to reopen these very proceedings.

82Copy pinpoint82. Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, put heavy reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors. v. Dossibai

p. 391 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y EQBAL, J.] N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970)1 SCC 613, for the proposition that question relating to the jurisdiction of a court cannot be deemed to have been finally determined by an erroneous decision of the court. Further by an erroneous decision if the court resumes jurisdiction which it does not possess under the Statute, the question cannot operate as res judicata between the same parties whether the cause of action in the subsequent litigation is same or otherwise. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is · of no help to the respondent for the simple reason that the facts and the law involved in the instant case and the earlier round of litigation are the same. In para 5 of the aforesaid judgment, c this Court has laid down the principle, which reads as under:-

"5. But the doctrine of res judicata belongs to the domain of procedure: it cannot be exalted to the status of a legislative direction between the parties so as to determine the question relating to the interpretation of enactment affecting the jurisdiction of a Court finally between them, even though no question of fact or mixed question of law and fact and relating to the right in dispute between the parties has been determined thereby. A decision of a competent Court on a matter in issue may be res judicata in another proceeding between the same parties: the "matter in issue" may be an issue of fact, an issue of law, or one of mixed law and fact. An issue of fact or an issue of mixed law and fact decided by a competent Court is finally determined between the parties and cannot be re- F opened between them in another proceeding. The previous decision on a matter in issue alone is res judicata: the reasons for the decision are not res judicata. A matter in issue between the parties is the right claimed by one party and denied by the other, and the claim of right G from its very nature depends upon proof of facts and application of the relevant law thereto. A pure question of law unrelated to facts which give rise to a right, cannot be deemed to be a matter in issue. When it is said that a previous decision is res ~cata, it is meant that the right H

p. 392 Copy page pinpoint

A claimed has been adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest between the same parties. A previous decision of a competent Court on facts which are the foundation of the right and the relevant law applicable to the determination of the transaction which is the source of B the right is res judicata. A previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision on an issue of law will be as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the c same parties, if the cause of action of the subsequent proceeding be the same as in the previous proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different, nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor D when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which is prohibited by law.

83Copy pinpoint83. In the case arising out of these very proceedings reported in Union of India & Ors. v. Ranbir Singh Rathaur & E Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 696, this Court held:

· (a) That review of the earlier orders passed by this court was "impermissible": approach of the High Court of reopening the case was "erroneous"; the issue of F maintainability of the petitions was of paramount importance:

(b) The finding recorded by the High Court that the entire record was not produced by the Union of India was not factually correct; G (c) To say that "justice stood at the higher pedestal" then the finality of litigation was not an answer enabling the court to reopen a finally decided case;

(d) Persons behind the false implication were not H impleaded as parties; and

p. 393 Copy page pinpoint

[M.Y. EQBAL, J.] (e) Newspaper reports/statement made by any officer A could not be considered as evidence.

84Copy pinpoint84. Violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution have to be protected, but at the same time, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the decisions rendered by 8 the court are not overturned frequently, that too, when challenged collaterally as that was directly affecting the basic structure of the Constitution incorporating the power of judicial review of this Court. There is no doubt that this Court has an extensive power to correct an error or to review its decision but that cannot be done at the cost of doctrine of finality. An issue of law can be C overruled later on, but a question of fact or, as in the present case, the dispute with regard to the termination of services cannot be reopened once it has been finally sealed in proceedings inter-se between the parties up to this Court way back in 1980. D

85Copy pinpoint85. The term 'dismissal' in the original order was substituted by the term 'termination' issuing the corrigendum to ratify a mistake committed while issuing the order. In fact, the competent authority had taken a decision only to terminate, and therefore it was found necessary to issue the corrigendum. However, in view of such substitution of word 'dismissal' by the term 'termination', does not tilt the balance in favour of the respondents. More so, as pointed out by Mr. Paras Kuhad, learned ASG that th'e proposed 5% deduction had been withdrawn, and therefore the issue did not survive.

86Copy pinpoint86. Analysing entire facts of the case and the material produced in Court and upon an exhaustive consideration of the matter, we are of the definite opinion that the power of pleasure exercised by the President in terminating the services of the respondents does not suffer from any illegality, bias or malafide or based on any other extraneous ground, and the same cannot be challenged on the ground that it is a camouflage. As discussed above, the onus lay on the respondent-officers who alleged malafides. No credible evidence or material produced H

p. 394 Copy page pinpoint

A before the Court impels us to come to the conclusion that the order of termination is baseless or malafide.

87Copy pinpoint87. For the reasons aforesaid, these appeals are allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court is set aside. Ordered accordingly: No costs. 8 D.G. Appeals allowed.