Noting that the need for a prior inquiry can be done away with in exceptional circumstances involving national security,the Supreme Court on Thursday confirmed the dismissal of a senior Indian diplomat for anti-national activities during a posting at the embassy in Beijing.
The Supreme Court held that it is the absolute power of the State to dismiss a public official caught indulging in anti-national activities even without affording him or her a hearing.
M M Sharma was axed after he was found to be involved in an unauthorised and undesirable liaison with foreign nationals of the host country during his posting as First Secretary between July 2,2007 and May 3,2008 at the Indian embassy in Beijing.
Following an inquiry by the Intelligence Bureau,a detailed report said his actions affected security of the State,and it would not be expedient to hold a formal inquiry for two reasons one,he was on a special assignment and dealt external intelligence,so any formal inquiry would reveal details of intelligence operation in China. Two,a proper disciplinary inquiry would mean the involvement of either foreign nationals or undercover officers at the embassy.
So the need for an inquiry was done away with in a formal order in December 2009,stating that the President had consented to Sharmas dismissal without a prior inquiry into the case.
Sharma,however,challenged his dismissal before the Central Administrative Tribunal,which agreed that the governments reasoning to dismiss was sound. But Sharmas appeal at the Delhi High Court went in his favour when the court directed the government to give a fresh speaking order giving in full detail why it wants Sharma out.
Setting aside the High courts verdict,the SC,to which the government appealed,said the disciplinary authority could resort to its extra-ordinary power and dismiss an official if his or her actions affected state security,provided it follows a procedure meaningfully and effectively followed. The allegations against the respondent are very serious which could jeopardize the sovereignty of India, the Bench said.