1987 (12) TMI 329 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies (ICPS) is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
2. Consequences of setting aside the dismissal order and the reliefs to which the appellant is entitled.

Summary:

1. Whether ICPS is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution:

The main issue for consideration was whether ICPS is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the constitution of ICPS, its purpose, funding, and functioning. ICPS is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 21 of 1860, with significant involvement from government officials and funding primarily from the Central Government. However, the Court emphasized that the mere presence of government officials and funding does not automatically render an organization as 'State'. The Court referred to several precedents, including *Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal*, *Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi*, and *Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi*, to determine the criteria for an organization to be considered 'State'. The Court concluded that ICPS, despite its substantial government funding and involvement, does not qualify as 'State' under Article 12 because it does not perform governmental functions or obligations and operates as a voluntary organization.

2. Consequences of setting aside the dismissal order and the reliefs to which the appellant is entitled:

The Court noted that Dr. Anand Prakash, representing ICPS, conceded to giving the appellant a fresh opportunity to meet the charges against him. Consequently, the dismissal order dated 17th November 1982 was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the stage of enquiry. The appellant was deemed to have been restored to service, and his suspension, which had merged into dismissal, was vacated. The appellant was entitled to salary for the past period, subject to proving that he had not earned any other income during that time. The enquiry was to be completed within four months, with the appellant given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Court made no order as to costs.