R. VISWAN & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 60

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, R.B. MISRA

Case summary

Central Government to determine the extent of such restriction or abrogation as was sought tO be done under 5, 21; that the petitioners were entitled to exercise their fundamental rights under els.

Judgment text

60: R. VISWAN & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ;.. May 6, 1983 ~·· ,) [Y. V. CHANDRACH. UD, C. J, P. N. BHAGWATI, 0. CH! NNAPPA REDDY, V. BALAKRJSHNA ERAD! AND R. B. MISRA, JJ. ] Aony Act, 1950-S. 21-Constitutional validity of-Whether saved by Art. 33. Anny Act, 1950-Sub-ss. (1) and (4) ofs. 4-'FOrce'-Meaning of General Resen•e Engineerring Force (GREF)-Whether it is 'fore:~· withill the 1neaning ofsub-ss. (1) and (4) ofs. 4 of Army Act, 1950-Whether . n1en1bers ofGREF are me111hers of 'Arrned For"·es' witirin tire nwaning of Art. 33 of Constitution-Whether S. R. Os. 329 and 330 ayplying provisions of A. riny Act, 1950 and Anny Rules 1954 to rnembers ofGREFin exercise ofpower under sub-ss. (J) and (4) ofs. 4 ofAr1n. v Act, 1959 ultra vires Art. 33 of Constitution-Whether application of Central Civif Services (Clossi/ication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as also prov;sions of Army Act and Ar1ny Rules lo n1enibers or GREF ·violative ofArt. 14 of Constitution. · ~ .

The petitioners who belonged to the General Reserve Engineering FOrce (GREFJ were charged under s. 63 of the . \rn1y Act, 1950 on allegations inter alia that they had assen1bled in front of the Chief Engineer and shouted slogans demanding release of personnel placed under arrest, 'participated in. a bla,ek flag demonstration and associated themselves with an illegal ·association. They were tried by Court lvfartial in accordance with the prescribed procedure and, on. being convicted, were dismi. ssed·from ser. ,,ice. The petitioners submitted that their convictions by Court Martial were illegal and raised the following contentions in suppor't of their pJ~a : that the GREF was a civilian construction agency and not a •force' raised and n1aintained under the authority of the Central Governn1ent and conSequently, the members of GREF were not "members of Armed Forces or the Forces ch3rged with the maintenance of public order" within the meaning of Art.

33 of the Constitution and' therefore the application of s. 21 of the Army Act rea11" with rs. 19 to 21 of the Army Rules to them was unconstitutional since it restricted their fundamental rights in a manner not permitted by the Constitution; that S. R. Os 329 and 330 which were notifications having the effect of applyjng the III provisions of the Army Act and the Anny Rules to the members of the GREF were ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under sub~ss. (1) and (4) of s. 4 of the· Army Act; that s. 21 of the Anny Act was unconstitutional as it R. VISWAN V. UNION was not justified by the terms of Art. 33 since under that Article it was Parliament alone which was entrusted with the power to detern1ine to what extent any of the fundamental rights shaJl,,jn application to the members of the Armed Forcea or Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated and Parliament could not have left it to the.

Central Government to determine the extent of such restriction or abrogation as was sought tO be done under 5, 21; that the petitioners were entitled to exercise their fundamental rights under els. (a), (b) and (c) of Art. 19 (! ) without any of the restrictions in1posed by rs. 19 to 21 of the Army Rules and therefore they could not be ch. arged under s. 63 of the Army Act on the facts alleged against them; that \ 1 their trial was not in accordance with law; and that 'the. application of the provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules to. the members of GREF ·for purposes of discipline was discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 inasmuch as the mem. bers of the GREF were governed both by the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules in m~tters of discipline. Dismissing the petitions, HELD t.

(a) The functions arid duties of GREF are integrally connec~ ted with the operational plans and requirements~of the· Armed Forces. There can be no doubt that without the efficient and disciplined operational role of GREF the . military operations in border areas during peace as also in tirries of . war will be seriously hampered and a highly disciplined arid . efficient GREF is absolutely essential for supporting 1he operational plans and meeting the operational requirements of the Armed Fojces. The members of the GR~F answer the description of"members of the Armed Forces" within the meaning of Art. 33 and. consequently the application of s. 21 of the Army Act to the members of GREF is pfotected by that Article and the fundamental rights qf the members of GREF must be held. to be validly restricted by s. 21 ·read with rs. 19 to 21 of Army Rules. The petitioners were· therefore liable to be charged under s. 63 of the·Army Act for the alleged violations of rs.

19 to 21 and th~ir convictions and- subsequent disn1issals must be held to be valid. [88 F-89 B] (b) The fact that the members of the GREF are described as civilian employees and\ they have their own special rules, of recruitment and are governed by the Cen~ral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not determinative of the question whether they are members. of the At:med Forces. The qUeStion whether the members of "GREF can be Said to be members of the Armed Forces for the purpose of attracting the applicability of Art. 33 inust depend esselltial1y on the character of ·oREF, its organisational set up, its functions, the role it is called ·upon to play in relation to the Armed ~orces and the depth and intimacy of its connection . and the extent of its int(! gration with the Ai-med Forces. The history, com~ position, administration, organisation and role of GREF ctearly shoW that GREF.

is an integral part of the Armed Forces and that the members of )( GREF can legitimately be said to be members of the Armed Forces within the -meaning of Art. 33. It is undoubtedl. y a departmental construction ' "s;enc~ as conten4e4 On f? ehaJf of the petitioners bμt it is distinct from othq- ' construction agencies such as the Central Public Works D~partment in that it is a force intended primarily to support the Army in its operational requirement: [87 D·H, 83 GJ. ' Ous Kutilinga/ Achudan lVair and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors,, [1976} 2 S. C. R. 769, referred to. (c) The Central Government is empowered· under sub·s. (I) of s. 4 of the Army Act to apply any of the provisiolls of that Act to any force raised or maintained in India under the authority of that Government. Vihen the provisions of Hie Ariny Act are applied to any force under sub-s. (1) of s. 4, the Central Governn1ent can, by notifiCation issued under sub-s.

(4) thereof, direct by what authority, the jurisdiction, powers and duties incident to· the operation of those provisions shall be exercised or . performed in respect· of that . force. The word 'force' is not defined . ally Where in th~ ArmY Act but sub-s. (2) of s. 4 clearly contemplates that 'force• referred to in sub-s. (1) of s. 4 must be a force organised on similar li_n"es as the army v. 'ith rank structure. There can be . no doubt that GREF is a force organised on army pattern with units and sub-units and tank. structure.. It is clear from the letter dated June 16, 1960 addressed by the Secretary, Border Roads Devel. opmei::it Board to the Director General Border Roads that GREF is a force raised and maintained under the authority of the Central Government. The Central Government therefore had the power under sub-ss. (1) and (4) of s. 4 to isSue notifications S. R. O. 329 and S. R. 0. 330 applying some of the Army Act and the Army Rules to the GREF.

[82 ll·H] , (d) There is no substance in the contention that appl)ing the provisions of the Army Act and the Army Rules to the niembers of GREF for ·purpose 'of discipline is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14. The nature of the proceedings which may be taken under the Central Civil Sc·rvices (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules against an erring cm'ployee is different fron1 the nature of the proceedings which may ·be taken against hin1 under ihe provisions Qf the Ar1ny Act read with Army Rules, the former being disciplinary in character while the latter being clearly penal. Th le to the General Reserve Engineering Force are ultra ••ires that Article since the General Reserve Engineering Force is neither an Armed Force nor a Force charged with the maintenance of public order.

It is a question of some impor· tance since it affects the fundamental rights of a large number of persons bdonging to the General Reserve Engineering Force and in order to arrive at a correct decision of this question, it is necessary first of all to consider the true nature and character of the General -.. _ Reserve Engineering Force. In or about 1960 it was felt that economic development of the North and North Eastern Border areas were greatly handicapped by meagre and inadequate communications and defence of these areas also required a net work of road' for effective movement and deployment of Armed Forces. This was rendere4 a]l the J,llore necessary because the relations of India with its neighbours were in a state of . A potential conflict and part of the Indian territory was under foreign ·occupation and there were also hostile. forces inviting some ! ;ections of the people to carry o. n a campaign for secession.

The Government of India therefore, with a view to ensuring coordination and expedi· tious execution of projects designed to improve existing roads and . B construct new roads in the border areas is order to improve . the defence preparedness of the country, created several posts in the Directorate General of Works. Army Head Quarters for work connected with the development of border roads as per letter dated 9th April 1960 addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence to the. Chief of the Army Staff. On 18th April 1960, within a few days thereafter, the Government of India sanctioned. the post of Director General Border Roads in the rank of Major-General in the Directorate General of Worko:, Army Head Quarters; vide letter d~ted 18th April 1960 addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Di:fence to the Chief of the Army Staff.

The Director General Border Roads was placed in ·charge of this new organisation which started originally as part of the Directorate General of Works, Army Head Quarters. . But subsequently, for reasons of high policy, it was . • decided that this Organisation should not continue as part of the Directorate General. of Works, Army Head Quarters but should be under the Board Roads Development Board set up by the Govern· ment of India as a separate self contained Authority under the Chairma~ship of the Prime Minister with the Defence Minister as Deputy Chairman, the Financial Adviser (Defence) as Financial Adviser and a few other members nominated by the Priine Minister. The budget of the Border Roads 'Development Board formed part of the budget of the Ministry of Shipping and Transport but the finan· cial control was vested in the Ministry of Finance (Defenc4 The .

Government oflndia by a letter dated 16th June 1960 addressed M the Secretary· of the Border Roads Development Board to the Director General, Border Roads conveyed the sanction of the President to "raising and maintenance of a General ·Reserve Engineeri11g Force for the construction of roads in the border areas and such other tasks as may be entrusted to it by the Border Roads Develop· ment Board". It was directed that the General Reserve Engineering Force will be "under the over nll command of the Director General Border Roads under whom will be Regional Chief Engineers/ Independent Deputy Chief Engineers who will e~ercise command R. VlSWAN V. UNJON ! Bhagwati, J. ) 67 over the units of th~ Force placed under their control". The General Reserve Engineering Force (hereinafter referred to as GREF) was thus raised under the authority of the Government of India and . it was placed under the over all command of the Director General, Border Roads.

Ever since then the Director General, Border Roads, · has always been an army officer of the rank of Major General and -·~,. _ he functions under the directions of the Border Roads Development Board, The General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) is organised on army pattern in units and sub units with distinctive badges of ·nnk and a rank structure eCjuivalent to that in the army. The officers and other personnel of GREF arc required· to be in uniform right from class IV to Class I personnel. Though GREF is un· ·doubtedly a departmental construction agency, it is maintained by · the Government of India to meet the operational requirements of the army whose operational planning is based on the availability of the units of GREF for operational purposes. In fact GREF pro· vided support to the Army during Indo-China conflict of 1962 and Indo-Pakistail conflicts of 1965 and 1971 and also assisted the Army in the maintenance of public.

order during the dist~rbances in Mijoram in 1966 and in Assam in 1980-81. The personnel of GREF are primarily drawn from two sources and they consist of (I) officers . and men belonging to the Army and (2) officers and men recruited through the Union Public Service Commission in. case of officers and departmentally in case of other ranks. A ten p. ; cent quota is reserved for recruitment of ex-servicemen. The posting of Army officers anct men in GREF is done, not on any ad hoc basis, but in accordance with a well thought out manning policy laid down by the Government of India for. the purpose of maintaining at all times and at all levels the special character of GREF as ·a force designed to meet the operational requirement of the Army. The manning policy laid down by the Government of India in respect of officers is as under: · Posts Army GREF ........ ' Brig/Col/Chief Engineer Gr. I & II 75% 25% >'I Lt. Col. /Superintending Engineer 50% 50% Major/Executive Engineer 42% 58% Capt.

/Asstt. Executive Engineer 20'. ~ 80% ...... ,.. Assistant Engineer , 11)0~ 68 SIJPRBMB. COUR1 REPORTS (1983) 3 s. c. 11.. So far as officers and men recruited through the ·Union Public Service Commission or departmentally are concerned, all of them are given training at the GREE Centre, immediately after recruitment. The GREE Centre is organised on lines similar to an Army Regimental Centre and also functions in the same manne1:. It is located at a place adjoining an Engineer Regimental Centre, initially at'Roorkee and now at Pune, so that it can, if necessary, draw upon t· the resources of the Engineer Regimental Centre. The new recruits are imparted training in the following three military discipline,1 : (a) Discipline, which includes drill, marchini: and saluting. (b) Combat training, including physical training i. e. standing exercises, beam exercises, rope work, route marches etc. , harbour deployment drills, camp protection etc.

(c)· Combat Engineering Training, including field engineering, handling of service. explosives, camouflage, combat equipment, bridging, field fortifications, wire obstacles etc. GREE personnel are not trained in . the use of arms, since the role to be performed by GREE is such that its personnel are not required to use arms and they need arms only for static protection and for use during emergency. Therefore in GREF issue of arms is restricted only to Army personnel and ex-3ervicemen apart from certain units like the Provost Ul)its (GREF Police) which having regard to the nature of their duties, have necessarily to be ar! lled. The tasks which are to be carried out by GREE comprise . not only maintenance of strategic roads but also support for the operational plans of the Army in place of Army Edgineer Regiments. We shall .

presently elaborate these tasks in order to highlight the true character of GREE, but before we ~o so, we may point out that the role and organisation of GREF units have been reviewed from time to time in consultation with the Army Headquarters and as a result of a major review carried out after the ludo-Pakistan ·Conflict of 1971, the Army Headquarters defined the role and organisation of GREE units in a secret document dated 24th Ja~uary 1973. It is . clear fromithis document that, according to the Army Hea. dqulirters, R. VISWAN v. UNION (Bhagwati, j,) 69 a minimum of 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies are permanently required for providing engineer. support to the Army and over the years, this minimum requirement has been fulfilled and 17 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies have been made. permat1ent.

These 17 Border Roads T~sk Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies have to be maintained as essential units of GREF for meeting the operational requirement of the Army, even if sufficient work load is not available in Border Areas at any given point of time. There are, in fact, at present 21 Border Roads Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies, that is, four Border Roads Task Forces more than the minimum required by the Army Authorities The requirement of these four additional Border Roads Task Forces is reviewed from time to time depending on the work-load. What should be the composition of the Border Roads Task Forces is laid down in the document dated 24th January 1973 and this document also sets out the tasks to be carried out by the Border Roads Task Forces which may be briefly summarised as follows : (a) Maintenance of line of communication in rear areas of the theatre of operations including· roads constructed by the BorderRoads and roads maintained by CPWD, State PWD and MES.

(b) Improvement and maintenance of operational roads and tracks constructed by combat engineers; (c) Construction and maintenance of AICs and helipads; (d) Improvement and repairs to airfields; ~· (e) Construction of accommodation and all allied facilities for maintenance areas required for sustaining operations; (f) Construction of defence works. and obstacles; and (g) Water supply in difficult terrain and deserts. >· These tasks are required to be carried out by the Border Roads ' Task Forces during operations with a view to providing engineering support t ; ' SUPREME COIJR'r REPORTS li983i 3s. c. il. tion to a ·poltical question or on a service subject or containing any service information, or publish or cause .

to be published any book or letter or article" or other document on such question or matter or containing such information without the prior sanction of the Central Governmegt, or any officer spec:ified by the Central Government in this behalf; or (ii) deliver a lecture or wireless address, on a matter relating to a political question or on a service subject or containing any information or views on any service subject without the prior sanction of the Central Government or any officer specified by the Central Government in this behalf. These rules obviously owe their genesis to Section 21 and they impose restrictions on the fundamental rights of members of GREF. Since the Army Act l950 and Army Rules 1954 are made applicable by virtue of SRO Nos. 329 and 330 dated 23rd September, 1960, GREF personnel when recruited, are required to accept certian' terms and conditions of appointmen,t wh.

ich include inter a/ia the following: "5 (iv) : You will be governed by the prOVISlons of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as amended from time to time. Notwithstanding the above, you will be further subject to certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950, and Rules made thereunder, as iaid down in SROs. ·329 and 330 of 1960, for purposes of discipline. lt will be open. to the appropriate disciplinary authority under the Army Act l950 to proceed under its provisions wherever it considers it expedient or nece. -sary to do so. " 5 (v) : You will be required to serve anywhere in, India or outside India and when so called upon by the Government or the appointing authority or your superior officer, you shall proceed on field service. 5 (vi) : You shall, if required, be liable to serve, in any Defence Service or post connected with the defence of India. xxx xxx xxx llXX XZll ;• k. '\iis\wiN V. UNION (lihagwati, J.

) 7$ 5 (xi) : On your appointment, yon will be required to wear the prescribed uniform while on duty, abide by such rules and instructions issued by your superior authority regarding discipline, turnout, undergo such training and take such departmental 'test as the Government may . prescrib~. " The result is that:the directly recruited GREF personnel are governed by the provisions of Central Civil Service (Classification; Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 as amended from time to time but for purposes of discipline, they are subject to certain provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 as laid down in SROs 329 and 330 dated 23rd September 1960. The material facts in all the writ petitions which are being disposed of' by• this Judgment are similar and hence it is not necessary to set out separately the facts of each writ petition. It wi. 11 suffice to set out the facts of writ petition No. 815 of 19.

80 which was tried as the main writ petition and whatever we 'say in regard to the facts of this writ petition must apply equally in regard to the other writ petitions. The petitioners in writ petition No. 815 of 1980 are 24 in number and at aU material times they were members of GREF. Out of them, petitioner Nos. I and 24. were deserters from service and warrants were issued for their arrest under the provisions of the Army Act 1950 but the Police Authorities were not able to apprehend' them. So far as petitioners Nos. 2 to 23 are concerned, they were charged before the. Court-Martial for offences under section 63 of the Army Act 1950 in that they alongwith some other ...

•r GREF personnel assembled in front of HQ Chief Engin~er (Project) Yartak shouting slogans and demanding release of HQ CE (P) Vartak personnel placed under arrest, removed their belts and threw them on the ground in the vicinity of OC's Office, participated in a black flag· demonstration and failed to fall in line though ordered to do ~ by Brig. Gosain, Chief Engineer Project, Vartak and· also associated themselves with an illegal association caUed "All India Border Roads Employees . Association". '. fhese 22 pet;tioners were tried by the Court-Martial in accordance with the procedure pres- . cribed by the Army Act ! 9SO and the Army Rules 1954 as applicable to the members of GREF and on being convicted, they were dismissed from service. The petitioners thereupon preferred writ petition No. 815 of 1980 challenging the validity of SROs. 329 and 330 (jated 23rd September 1960 since these Notifications" had th~ efl'ect (19ii3l 3s. c. a.

of applying the provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules I954 to the members of GREF and restricting their fundamental rights. The petitioners contended that GREF was not a Force raised and maintained under the . authority of the Centra:I Government and SROs. 329 and . J30 dated 23rd September 1960 were ultra vires the powers of the Central Government under sub-sections (! ) and (4) of Section. 4 of the Army Act 1950. The petitioners also urged that in any event the application of Section 2t of the Army Act 1950 read with Rules 19,to 21 . of the Army Rules 1954 to the members of GREF was unconstitutional since it restricted the fundamental rights of the members of GREF in a manner not permitted by the Constitution and such restriction of the fundamental rights was not protected by Article 33, because the members of GREF . were not "members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order" within the meaning of that Article.

There was also one oth~r contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners which, if well founded would render it unnecessary to examine whether GREF was a Force raised and maintained under the authority of the Central Government and the members of GREF were members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order and that contention was that Section 21 of the Army Act 1950 was in any event not justified by the terms of Article 33, since under that Article it was Parliament alone which was entrusted with the power to determine to what exteni: any of the fundamental rights shall, in application to the members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline amongst them and Parliament could not leave it to the Central Government to determine the extent of such restriction or abrogation as was sought to be done under-Section 21.

Section 21 was therefore, according to the petitioners, uncon_stitutional and void and alongwith Section 21 must fall Rules 19 to 21 of the Army Rules 1954. The petitioners co~tended that in the circumstances they were entitled to exercise their fuhdamental rights under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) ·of Art. 19 {I) without any of the restriction imposed by Rules 19 to 21 of the Army Rules 1954 and if that be so, they could not be charged under section 63 of the Army Act 1950 on the facts alleged . against them and their convictions by the" Court-Martial were illegal and void and consequently they continued in service of GREF.. The self same contentions were repeated on behalf of the petitioners in R. VISWAN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J. ) 77 the other writ petitions.

The respondents disputed the validity of these contentious and submitted that GREF was a Force raised and maintained ··under the authority of the Central Government and having regard to the special character of GREF and the role which it was required to play in support of the Army operations, the members of GREF could legitimately be regarded as members of the I Armed Forces within the meaning of Art. 33 and the Central Govern- ·"f ment was therefore entitled to issue SROs. 329 and 330 dated 23rd " September 1960 making the provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 and particularly Section 21 an. d Rules 19 to 21 applicable to the members of GREF. The respondents defended the validity of Section 21 and contended that it was a proper exercise of power by Parliament under Art.

' 33 determining the extent to which the Fundamental Rights may, in their application to the members of ' · the Armed Forces including GREF, be restricted or abrogated and it was not outside the power conferred on Parliament by that article and, read with Rules 19 to 21, it validly restricted the Fundamental Rights of the members of GREF. The respondents submitted that in the circumstances the petitioners were rightly charged under Section•63 of the Army Act 1950 and their convictions by the Court- Martial and subsequent dismissals were valid, The respondents thus sought to su~tain the validity'of the action taken by 'the authorities . against the petitioners. Now the first question that arises· for consideration on these rival contentions is as to the constitutional validity of Section 2I.

That section empowers the Central Government by notification to make rules restdcting "to such extent aud in such manner as may be necessary" three categories of rights of any person subject to the Army Act 1950, namely, (a) th~ right to be a member of or to he associated in any way with, any trade union or labour union, or any class of trade or labour unions, or any society, institution or association or any class of institution or associations ; (b) the right to attend or address any meeting or to take part in any demonstration ' organised by any body of persons for any political or other purposes; and (cl the right to communicate with the press or to publish. or cause to be published any book, letter or other document. These rights which are permitted to be . restricted are part of the Fundamental Rights under clauses (ai, (b) and (c) of article 19(1) and under the constitutional scheme, they cannot be restricted by executive action unsupported by law.

If any restrictions are to be be imposed, that can be done only by law and s11ch law must satisfy ,. ·-1. : · (1983U s. c. R.. the. requirements of clause (2), (3) or (4) of article 19 according as. the tight restricted falls within clause (a), (b) or (c) of article 19(1). The restrictions imposed must be reasonable and in ca:ie of right. under clause (a) of article 19(1), they must be "in the inte,rest of the sovereignity and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public \'rder, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence" as provided in clause (2) of article 19, in case of right under clause (b) of article 19(1), they must be "in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity oflndia or public order" as provided in clause (3) of article 19 and in .

case of right under clause (c) of article 19(1), they must be "in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality" as provided in clause (4) of article 19. . Then only they would be valid; otherwise. they would be unconstitu- • tional and the law imposing them would be void. Now here we find that Section 21 does not itself impose atiy restrictions on the three categories of rights there specified. If Section 21 had itself imposed any such restrictions, it would have becom·e necessary tc examine whether such restrictions are justified under clause (2), (3) or (4) of article 19, as may be applicable. But Section 21 leaves it \P the Central Government to impose restrictions on these three categories f of rights without laying down any guidelines or indicating any limi- • tations which would ensure that the restrictions impost:d by the Central Government are in conformity with clause (2), (3) or (4) of article 19, whichever be applicable.

It confers power @the Central Government in very wide terms by . providing that the Central Governtnent may impose restrictions on these three categories of rights "to such extent and in such manner as may be necessary. " The Central Government is constituted the sole judge of what restrictions are considered necessary and the Central Government may, in terms of the power conferred upon it, . impose restrictions it considers necessary, even though they may not be permissible under cla_uses (2),. (3) and (4) of article 19. The power conferred on the Central Government to impose restrictions on these three categories of rights which are part of the Fundamental Rights under clauses (a), (b) and (cl of article 19(1) is thus a broad uncanalised and unrestricted power permitting violation of the constitutional limitations. But, even so, section 21 cannot be condemned as- invalid on this ground, as it is saved by 'article 33 which permits the enactment of such a provision.

·Article 33 carves out an exception in so far as the applicability of Fundamental Rights to members of the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order i$ R. VISWAN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J. ) 79 concerned. It is elementary that a highly disciplined and efficient armed force is absolutely essential for the defence of the country. Defence preparedness is in fact the only sure guarantee against aggression. Every effort has therefore to be made to build up a strong and powerful army capable of guarding the frontiers of the . country and protecting it from aggression. Now obviously no army ·can continuously maintain its state of preparedness to meet any eventuality and successfully withstand aggression and protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country unless it is at ·an times possessed of high morale and strict discipline.

Morale and discipline are indeed the very soul of an army and no other consideration, howsoever important, can outweigh the need to strengthen the morale of the armed forces and to maintain discipline amongst . them,. Any relaxation in the matter of morale and discipline may prove disastrous and ultimately lead to chaos and ruination affecting the well ~eing and imperilling the human rights of the entire people of the country.

The constitution makers therefore placed the need ·for discipline above the fundamental rights so far as the members of the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order are concerned and provided in Article 33 that Parliament may by law determine the extent to which any of the Fundamental Rights in their application to members of the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, may be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline am~ng theJl\. Article 33 on a plain grammatical construction of its language does not require that Parliament itself must by law restrict or abrogate any of the Fundamental Rights in order to attract the applicability of . that Article.

What it says is only this and no more, namely, that Parliament may by law determine the permissible extent to which any of the Fundamental Rights may be restricted or abrogated in their application to the members of the· Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order. Parliament itselfcan, of course, by enacting a law restrict or abrogate any of the Funda' mental Rights in their application to the members of the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public ord~r as, in fact, it has done by enacting the Army Act, 1950, the provisions of which, according to the decisions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ram Swarup v. Union ofIndia(') are protected by article 33 even if found. to affect one or more of the Fundame11tal Ri$hts. B11~ (1) (1964] 5 S. C. R. 931. iJ983\ 3 s. c. R..

having regard to varying requirement of army discipline and the need for flexibility in this sensitive area, it would be inexpedient to insist that Parliament . itself should determine what particular :restrictions should be imposed and on which Fundamental Rights in the interest of. proper discharge of duties by the members of the Arm"d Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order mainten. ance of discipline among them. The extent of restrictions necessary to be imposed on any of the fundamental Rights in their application to the members of the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of . public order for the purpose of ensuring proper discharge of their duties and maintenance of disci· 'pline among them, would necessarily depend upon the prevailing ·situation at a given point of time and it would be inadvisable to encase it in a rigid statutory formula.

The Constitution makers· were obviously anxious that no more restrictions should be placed on the Fundame. ntal Rights of the members of the Armed Forces and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order than are absolutely necessary for ensuring proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among tliem, and therefore they decided to introduce a certain amount of flexibility in the imposition of such restrictions and by article 33, empowered Parliament to ·determine the permissible extent to which any of the Fundamental Rights in their application to the members of the Arm·ed Fo"cs and the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order may be restricted or abrogated, so that within such permissible extern: determined by Parliament, any appropriate authority authorised by Parlia· ment may restrict or abrogate any such Fundamental Rights. Parliament was therefore within its power under article 33 to enact Secti~n 21 !

aying down to what extent the Central Governnwnt may ' .. .. restrict the Fundamental Rights under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of articlP 19(1), of any person subject to the Army Act, 1950, every such person being clearly a niemher of the Armed Forces. The extent to which restrictions may be imposed· on the Fundamental Rights under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of article 19(1) is clearly indicated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 21 and the Central Government is authorised to impose restrictions on these Fundamental Rights only to the extent of the rights set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 21 and no· more. The permissible extent of the restrictions which may be imposed on the Fundamental Rights under clanses (a), (b) and (c) of Article 19 (I) having b'en laid down in clauses (a), (bi and (c) of section 21, the Central Government is empowered to impose restrictions within such permissible limit, "to S\ICh extent and R. VISWAN v.

UNION (Bhagwati, J,) il\' i uch manner as may be necessary. " The guideline for determining as to which restrictions should be considered necessary by the Central Government within the permissible extent determined by Parliament is provided in article 33 itself, namely, that the restrictions should be' such as are necessary for ensuring the proper discharge of their duties by the members of the Armed Forces and the maintenance of discipline among them. The Central Government has to keep this guideline before it in exercising the power of imposing testrictions under Section 21 though, it may be poirtted out that once the Central Goverrtment has imposed restrictions in exercise of this power, the court will not ordinarily interefere with the decision of the Central Government that such restrictions are necessary because. that is· matter left by Parliament exclusively to the Central Government which is best in a position to know what the situation demands.

Sectiorl 21 must, in the circumstances, be held to be constitutionally valid· as. being within the power conferred under article 33: That takes us to the next question whether the Central Government was entitled to issue SROs. 329 and 330 applying certain provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army. rules 1954 to the members of GREF. We will first consider the question of vaiidity of SRO 329 because if that notification has been validly issued and the provisions of section 21, sub-section (4) of . section I02 and section 191 of the Mmy Act 1950 made applicable to the members of GREF, SRO 330 applying certain provisions of the Army ~ules, 1954 to tbe members of GREF in exercise of the powers conferred under section 21, sub-section (4) of section 102 and section 191 of the Army Act 1950 would be fortiori be valid. Now SRO 329 is issued by the Central Government under sub-sections (1) and (4) of ~· section 4 of the Army Act 1950 which provide inter alia as under : "Sec.

4 (I) The Central Gove. rment my, by notification, apply with or witout 'modifications, all or any of the provisions of this. Act to any fotce raised and maintained in India under the authority of that Government, and ,suspend the operation of any other enactment_ for the time being applicable to the said force. (2) ~, (3) (4) While any of the provisions of this Act apply to the said force, the Central Gover(liUen~ 82 SUPREME'COURT REPORTS (19831 3 S. C. R. my, by notification, direct by what authority any jurisdiction, powers or duties incident to the operation of these provision shall be exercised or performed in respect of the said force. · The Central Government is empowered under sub-section (I) of section 4 to apply any of the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 to any force raised or maintained in India under the authority of that Government and when any such provisions of the Army Act, 1950 ·are applied to that force under sub-section (1), the Central Governrrien.

t can by notification issued under sub-section (4), direct by what authority, the jurisdiction, powers and duties incident to the opera- . tion of those provisions shall be exercised or perfo;med in respect of that force. SRO 329 applying certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950 to the members of GREF and directing by· what authority, the jurisdiction'; powers and duties incident to the operation of those provisions shall be exercised or performed in respect of GREF, would therefore be within the power of the Central Gowrnment under sub-section (1) and (4) of section 4, if GREF could be said to be a force raised and maintained in India under the authc-rity of the Central Government. The question is : what is the irue meaning and scope of the expressiq. n "any force raised and maintained in India under tloc authority of the Central Government. " The word "force" is not defined anywhere in the Anny Act, 1950.

There is a definition of the expression "the forces" in section 3 (xi) but it does . not help, because the expression we have to construe is "force" which is different from "the force8". There is however an indication to be found in sub-section (2) of section 4 which throws some light on the ~ense in which the word "force" is used in sub-section (I) of section 4. Section 4, sub-section (2) clearly contemplates that the "force" referred to in sub-section (I) of section 4 must be a force organised · on similar lines as the army with rank structure. So far as GREF is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is a force organised on army pattern with units and sub units and rank structure. Moreover, as is clear from the letter dated 16th June, 1960 addressed by the Secretary, Border Roads Development Board to the Director Gomeral Border Roads, GREF is a force raised and maintained under the JI authority of the. Central Governmenf.

The Central Government therefore had power under sub-sections(! ) a,nd (4) of section 4 to issue SRO 329 applying some of the provisions of the Army Act, \950 ,to GREW and directing by what authority the juri_sdiction \ R. VISWAN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J,) 83 ' powers and duties incident to the operation of these provisions shall be exercised or performed in respect of GRl'F. But the qu~stion is, and that is the more important ctuestion to which we have to address ourselves, whether; even if GREF ·was a force rai5ed and maintained . under the authority of the Central Government, the Central Government·could, in exercise of the powers conferred. under sub-section (I) of section 4,, validly apply section 21 to the members of. GREF.

Section 21 empowers the Central Government to make rule's restricting "to such extent and in such manner as may be necessary" the rights set out in clauses (2), (b) and (c) of that section and in exercise of this power, the Central Government bas made rules 19 to 21 to which. reference bas already been made by us. Now as already pointed out above, section 21 is protected against invalidation by Article 33, since it lays down in clauses (a), (bl and (c) the possible extent tp which the fundamental rights of any person subject to the Army Act, 1950 may be restricte. d and every person subject to the Army Act 1950 would clearly and. indubitably be member of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article 33. But I' . if section 21 were to be applied to persons who are not members of t! J.

e Armed Forces of the forces charged with the maintenance of public order, Article 33 would not ·afford any protection to section 21 in :;o far as it applies to such persons and the application of section 21 to such persons would be unconstitutional. We must therefore proceed to consider whether the members of GREF could be said to be members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article 33. Ifthey carinot be said to be members of the Armed Forces, the application . of section 21 to them would not have the protection of Article 33 and would be clearly void. The history, ·composition, administration, organisation: and role of GREF which we have described above while narrating the facts clearly show that GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces. It is undoubtedly a. departmental construction agency as contended on behalf of the petitioners but it is distinct from other construction agencies such as Central Public Works Department etc.

, in tbat it is a force intended primarily to support the army in· its operational requirement. It is significant to note that the Border Roads organisation, which is in over all control of GREF was originally created as part of Army Headquarters and it was only JI later, for reasons of high policy, that it ·was separated from Army Headquarters and placed under the Bord_er Roads Development Board. Though the budget of the Border Roads Organisation fonns part of the budget of Ministry of Shipping and Transport, the Jinan· cial control is vested in the Minsitry of Finance (Defence). The entire infra-structure of GREF is modelled on the pattern of the Army and it is organised into units and sub·units with command and control system similar to that in the Army.. The personnel of GREF right frorn class IV to class I have to be in unifrom with distinctivf: badges of ranl> and they have a rank structure equivalent to that of the Arniy.

GREF is primarily intended to carry out defence and other works projected by the General Staff, Army Headquarters and it is only where spare capacity is available that GREF undertakes works of other ministries or departments on agency basis and there also, preference is given to strategic and other roads in sensitive areas. The· funds which are provided to the Borde~ Roads Organisation are meant exclusively for carrying out the works entrusted by the General Staff, Army Headqua! ters and so far as the works carried out for other ministries or departments on agency basis are concer· ned; the fund~ of the Border Roads ,Organisation are not permitted to b'e used for carrying out those works and they are paid for by the respective ministries or departments and where applicable, agency charges for e~ecuting the works are also collected.

The 'tatistics giNen in the earlier part of the judgment show that the major portion of the work executed by GREF units consists of tasks entrm;ted by the General Staff, Army Headquarters and only a. small percentage of the work is being done on behalf of other miniStries or departments. GREF units carry out essentially those tasks wh'ch are otherw. isc carried out by Army Engineering Regiments and they provide engineering support to the Army both during peace time as also during hostilities· It was found necessary as a result of " major review carried out by Army Headquarters after 197J that a mi_nimum of 17 Border Road Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies would ·-. • be permanently required for providing engineering support· to the Army and accordingly 17 Border Road Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies have been made· permanent and their composition has' been rcor. ganised in accordance with the recommendations of the Army Headquarters.

These 17 Border Road Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies are being maintained as essential units of GREF for meeting the operational requirements of the Army, even if sufficient work is not available for them at any given point of time. The operational planning of the Army is in fact based on availability. of these 17 Border Road Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Compani1'8 and during operations, they have to carry out task& which would other· wise have been done by cqiial' number of Army Engineering il. VISWAN. v. UNION (Bhagwati, J. ) 85 Regiments. It. may be pointed out that these 17 Border Road Task Forces and 34 Pioneer Companies have replaced corresponding number of Army Engineering Regiments and Pioneer Companies 'in the Army. The tasks required to be carried out by the Border Road Task Forces have already been describe"d in· some details in the opening part of the Judgment while narrating the facts and we need not repeat the same over again. Suffice it ,to state that these tasks .

B are required to be carried out by the Border Road Task Forces during operations ·with a view to providing engineeri. ng support t'J the Army in its operational plans. The Border Road Task Forces have to perform these tasks and provide engineering support to the Army not only upto the border but even beyond upto the exent of advance into enemy territories. Even in peace time, 'the Border Road Task Forces have to undertake works projected by General • Staff, Army Headquarters to meet their operational requirements . and these work inclcde construction and maintenance of roads, operational tracks, ditch·cum-bund (water obstacles on the brodcr), field fortifications like buukers, fire trenches and pill boxes,· helipads' and airfields.

It is also significant to note that the Border Road Task Forces and Pioneer Companies attached to them are included in the Order or'Battle of the Army which implies that support -0f these units to the Army is guaranteed and can be requisitioned at any time. The Border Road Ta:. k Forces are also sub-allotted to lower army formations and they appear on the Order of Battle of these formations. GREF units consisting of these Broder Road Task Forces and Pioneer Companies are placed under the direct control of the Army during emerg;ncies when the entire c. ontrol of this Force is entrusted to the Chief of the Army Staff. Even during peace time, the Chief of the Army Staff exercises control over the discipline of the members of GREF units through the applicability of the provisions of the Army Act 1950. The Director· General, Border Roads who is in ove.

r·all control of GREF units is always an army officer of the rank of Major General and his confidential reports are written by the Chief of the Arn•y_Staff. The signal communication of GREF is also intergrated with the Army communication set up not only during operations but also in normal peace time. It is . also ·a factor of vital significance which emphasises the special character of GREF as a force intended to provide support to the Army in its . · A.. operational plans and requirements that Army personnel are posted in GREF units according to a carefully planned manning policy so that GREF units can in times of war or jlostilities be able to provide effective support to the Army. The tenure of offi£e of . the Army ;.. ---------------------- SUPREME CPURT REPOR~ . [198~1 ~ s. c. R.. personnel in GREF units is regarded as normal regimental duty and is equated with similar appointments in the' Army for the purpose of promotion, career planning etc.

Even the directly recruited personnel of GREF are given training at the GREF Centre before they are posted and the training given is in three military disciplines which we have described in detail in the opening part of the Judgment. The training includes not only drill, marching and saluting but also combat training including physical training such as standing exercises,'beam exercises; rope work, route marches etc. and combat engineering training including field engineering, handling o:f service explosives, camouflage, combat equipment, bridging, field fortificattions, wire obstacles etc. Moreover, the directly recruited personnel are taken _up only after they voluntarily accepL the terms and conditions of employment which includeinter alia conditions 5 (iv), 5 (v). 5 (vi) and 5 (xi) which have been reproduced in full while narrating the facts.

These conditions make it clear the directly recruited personnel my be required to serve anywhere in India and outside India and when directed, they would have to proceed on field service and if required, they would also be liable to serve in any Defence Service pr . post connected with the defence of India. It is also stipulated in these conditions that on their appointment, the directly recruited personnel would ha~e to wear the prescribed uniform while on duty and that they would be subject to the provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 as laid down in SROs. 329 and 330 for purpuoses of discipline. It is abundantly clear from these facts and circumstances that GREF is an integral part of the Armed Forces and the· members of GREF can legitimately be said to be members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of a1ticle 33.

The petitioners however tried to combat this conclusion by pointing out that the services constituted under Border Roads Engineering Service Group A, Rules 19]7 and the Border Roads Engi- ·neering Service Group B, Rules, 1977 both of which were made by the President in exercise ·of the powers conferred ·under artide 309 and brought into force with effect from 20th September 1977, were expressly designated as'Central Civil Services and that in reply to Unstarred Question No. llOO, the Minister for Defence stated on 18th June, 1980 that "GREF as at present organised is a civilian construction force" and similarly in reply to Unstarred Question No. 6002; the Minister of Defence observed on 1st April 1981 that "the iviliart employees serving with the Border Roads. Organisation and R.. visWAN v.

UNION (Bhagwati, f) 87 GREF are not under administrative control of Ministry of Defence but are under the administrative cqntrol of the Border Roads Development Board" and so also Minister of Defence stated on 25th February 1983 in answer to Unstarred Question No. 938 that "the members of the General Reserve Engineer Force of the Border Roads- Organirntion are civilian employees of the Central Government". The petitioners contended on the basis of these statements that GREF was not an Armed Force but was a civilian construction agency and the members of GREF·could not posSibly be regarded as members of the Armed Forces so as to fall within the scope and ambit of article 33. This contention, though it may appear at first blush attractive, is in our opinion not well founded and must be rejected. It is undoubtedly true that as stated by the Minister of Defence, GREF is a civilian construction force and the members of GREF "'· are civilian employees under the administrativ.

e control of the Border Roads Development Board and . that the engineer officers amongst them constitute what may be designed as "Central Civil Services" within GREF, but that does not mean that they cannot be at the same time form an integral part of the Armed Forces. The fac. t that they are described as civilian employees and they have their own special rules of recruitment and are governed by the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is not determinative of the quostion wl1ether they are members of the Armed Forces. It may be noted that even the members of the Civil General Transport Companies constituted under Government of India, War Department, notification No. 1584 . dated 29th June, 1946 as also the mem·bers of the Independent Transport Platoons have' been treated - · as members of the Armed Forces for the purpose of application of the provisions of the Army Act 1950 by SRO. 122 dated 22nd July 1960 and SRO 282 dated 17th August 1960.

So also when personnel of Military Engineer -Service have to function in operatfonal areas under the army, they too' are brought under the provisions of the Army Act 1950 for the purpose of discipline.. The question whether the members of GREF can be said to be members of the Armed Forces for the purpose of attracting the applicability of article 33 must depend essentially on the character of GREF, its organisational set up, its functions, the role it is called upon to play in ·relation to the Armed Forces and the depth and intimacy of its •onnection and the extent of its integration with the Armed Forces ' and if judged by this criterian, they are found to be members of the Armed Forces, the mere faC( that they are non-combatant 9ivilians SU~R~ME COURT REPORTS [i9:l3J 3S. C. R . governed by the . Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, cannot make any difference.

This view which ·we are taking on principle finds ample support from the decision of this Court in Ous Kt11ili11gal Achudan Nair & Ors. v. Union ofIndia & . Qrs. (') where the question was whether certain employees in the Defence Establishment such as cooks, chowkidars, ]askers, barbers, c~rpenters, mechanics, boot-makers, tailors · eic. who were noncombatant civilians governed by the Civil Service Regulations for purpose ? f discipline, leave, pay etc. and we~e . eligible to serve upto the age of 60 years unlike the members of the Armed Forces, could be validly called "members of the Armed Forces" covered by article 3. 3, becal\se it was only ifthey were members of the Armed Forces withln the meaning . of that article that the restrictions imposed upon . c th~lr right to form association could be sustained. This Court speaking through Sarkaria, J. held that the employees in question were members of .

the Armed Forces· and gave the following reasons in s~pport of its view : "The members of the Unions represented by the appellants fall . within this category. It is their duty to follow or accompany the Armed personnel on a. ctive service, or in camp or on the march. Although they are non-eombatants and are in some matters governed by the Civil Service Regulations, yet they are integral to the Armed· Forces. They answer the description of the "members of the Armed Forces" within the contemplation of Article 33. " Here also it is indisputable on the facts and circumstances mentioned above that the functions and duties of GREF are integrally connected with the operational plans and requirements of the Armed Forces and the members of GREF are, to us•· the words of Sarkaria, J. "integral to~the Armed Forces' .

There can be no doubt that witho~t the efficient and disciplined operational rnle of GREF the military operations in border areas during peace as also :in times of ~ar will be seriously hampered and a h;ghly disciplined and efficient GREF is absolutely essential ·for supporting the operational plans and meeting the operational requirements of the Armed Forces. It ~ust'therefore be held t~at the members of GREF answe. r the des-· c~iption of "members of the Armed Forces" within the meaning of ~rticle 33 and con. sequently the application of,section 21 or. the Army (I) [1976] 2 SCR 769. k. VJSWAN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J. ) 89 Act ! 950 to the members of GREF must be held to be protected by that Article ;nd the Funda~ental Rights of the members of ·GREl' must be held to be validly restricted by section 21 read with ~ules 19 to 2l of the Army Rules 1954.

If that be so, the petitioners were liable to be charged under section 63 of the Army Act 1950 for the alleged· violations of Rules 19 to 21 and their convictions by Court Martial as also subsequent dismissals must be held to be valid. Before we part with this point, we may point out that an anguished complaint was made before us on behalf of the petitioners that there is considerable disparity between the Army personnel posted in G REF units and the other officers and men of GREF in so far as the terms and conditions of service, such as, salary, allowances and rations are concerned. It is not necessary for us to consider whether this complaint. is justified; it is possible that it may not be wholly unjustified but we may point out that in any event it has no real bearing at . all on the question whether the members of GREF can be . said to be members of Armed Forces. Since the members of .

GREF are drawn from two different· sources, it is possible that the terms and condirions of service of the personnel coming from the two sources may be different. The Army personnel posted in GREF units naturally carry their own terms and conditions of service while the other officers and men in GREF are governed by- their own distinciive terms and conditions. It is difficult to appreciat~ how differences in terms and c;onditions of ~ervice between GREF personnel coming from two different streams· can possibly have any impact on the character of GREF as a force integral to the Armed Forces. It is immaterial for the p1)rpose of determining whether the members of GREF are members of the Armed ·Forces. as to what are the terms and conditions of service of the members of 'GREF and whether they are identical with those of Armed personnel appointed on the same or equivalent posts in GRE_F units.

But, we may observe that in case it is found that the terms and conditions of service of officers and men in GREF directly recruited or taken on deputation are in any way less favourable than those of Army per- · sonnel appointed to the same or equivalent posts in GREF, the Central (fovernment might well consider the advisability of taking steps for ensuring th:lt the disparity, if any, between the terms and conditions of service, such as, salary, alowances, rations etc. of. Army personnel posted in GREF units and other officers and men in GREF is removed. - · .. 9i) SUPREME CO\JRT REPORTS [! 9831 3s. c. R. It may be pointed out that a faint attempt was made on behalf of the petitioners to contend that their convictions by Court Martial were illegal since their trial was not in accordance with law. This contention was strongly resisted on · behalf of the respondents and it was positively averred in the affidavit of Lt. Col. Sb.

ergill that disciplinary action was initiated and punishment awarded by the competent disciplinary authority after· the offeuces were proved in accordance with law and all possible help and opportunity was 1 extended to the petitioners and others who were. tried to defend themselves with the help of defending officers of their choice or of civil lawyers. Lt. Col. Shergill stated in the clearest terms in his affidavit in reply that "out of 357 personnel kept under military custody, 287 have been released on the basis of their unconditional apology and those · who failed to do so, have been tried by GCM/SCM summarily and awarded punishment, on the basis of the gravity of the offence proved against them.. During the trial, all possible help was provided under the rules and they were allowed to meet/employ lawyers of their choice to defend the case. In all the cases, defending officers as per their choices have also been detailed from departmental side.

The trials were held strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the rules, and there is no denial of natural justice. " Having regard to this positive statement made on oath by Lt. Col. Shergill, it is not possible for us to hold th~t the convictions of the petitioners by the Court Martial wern not in accordance with law. In any everit, the allegations of the petitioners in this behalf raised disputed questions of fact which it ·is not possi· ble for us to try in a writ petition.. We cannot in the circumstances be called upon to quash and set aside the convictions of the petitioners by the Court Martial or their subsequent dismissals from service on the ground that they were not in accordance with law. There was also one other contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners ·and it raised a qμestion of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The contention was that the members of GREF were· governed both by the Central Civil ·Services (Classification, Control and· Appeal) Rules 1965 and the provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 in matters of discipline and therefore whenever a member of GREF was charged with misconduct amounting to an offence under the Army Act 1? 50, it was left to the unguided and unf~ttered discretion. of the authorities whether to proceed against the employee under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 or under the Arm~ ii.. VISWAN v. UNION (iJhagwati, J. ) 9i Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 and SROs. 329 and 330 applying the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 to members of GREF for purposes of discipline were ·therefore discriminatory and violative of Article _14. We do not think there is any substance in this contention. In the first place, the nature of the proceedings which may be taken under the CeIJ.

tral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 against an erring employee is different from the nature of the proceedings which may be taken against him under the provisions of the Army Act 1950 read with the Army Rules 1954, the former being disciplinary in character while the latter being clearly penal. It is significant to note that Section 20 of the Army Act 1950 which deals with dismissal, removal · or reduction of any person subject to that Act and clauses (d), (c), (f), (g) and (k) of Section 71 which provide for punishment .

of cashiering, dismissal, reduction in rank forfeiture of seniority and forfeiture of pay and allowances, have not been made applicable to the members of GREF by SRO 32_9 with the result that, so far as disciplinary proceeding are concerned, there is no overlapping between the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and ''ppeal) Rules 1965 and the provisions of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 as applied to the members of GREF. Secondly, it is not possible to say that the discretion vested in the authorities whether to take action against an erring member of GREF under Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 or under the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 is unguided or uncanalised. It has been denied in the affidavit of Lt. Col. Shergill that unguided discretion .

ary power is vested in the disciplinary authority to proceed against an employee of GREF either under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 or the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 or to switch over from one proceeding to the other at the any stage. Lt. Col. Shergill has stated positively in his affidavit that clear and detailed administrative guidelines. have been laid down for the purpose of guiding the disciplinary authority in exercising its discre· tion whether to take action against an employee of GREF nnder the Central Civil Services (Classification, Contro_l and appeal) Rules 1965 of the Army Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 and these guidelines have been set out in full in Annexure R·5 to his affidavit. Thirdly, ,...... ' the decision in Northern India Caterers Ltd v. Punjab(') on which the contention of the petitioners is based has been over-ruled by this (I) . (1967] 3 S. C. R. 399. '¥ Court in Magan/a/ Chhaganlal v.

Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay(') where it has been held that "the contention that tt1e mere availability of two procedures will vitiate one of them, that is; the special procedure is not supported by reason or authority. " And lastly, it may be noted that in any event the provisions of th<: Atmy Act 1950 and the Army Rules 1954 as applied to the members of GREF are protected by Article 33 against invalidation on the .. ground of violation of Article 14. The present contention urged on behalf of the petitioners must also therefore be rejected. • We may make it clear it is only in regard to the mem·bers of GREF that we have taken the view that ·they are members of the Armed Forces within the meaning of Article 33.. So far as casual labour employed by GREF is concerned, we do not wish to express any opinion on this question whetl1er they too are members of the Armed Forces or not, since that is not a question which afr;es for consideration before us.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with uo order as to costs. The special leave petitions will also stand rejected. H. L.. C. Petitions dismissed. (I) [1974] 2 S. C. C. 402.