Constitutional Safeguards And Protection Of Civil Servant’s In India -A Legal Study Relating To Leading Cases | Author : Dr. Niranjan Parida | Volume II Issue IV |

ABSTRACT

 In  India there  exists  no specific  judicial  remedy  available  exclusively  to Civil  Servants . Whenever  an aggrieved  Civil  Servant  wants  redress  he has to seek  the   general  remedies  available  to  all  others  and   there  exists   no  privileges  or special  status  in this  regard.  The present article is an attempt  to draw  out the practical  implication of the judicial  decisions  explaining  the extent  and scope of  judicial  control in Government’s  relation  to Civil  Service  matters. Any system  of  judicial  control  of  administrative  action is  ultimately based  on the wider  concept  of the  rule of law.  Since the  judiciary  has to  uphold  the law of the  country the action of an authority  contrary to  law could be  Challenged  in a  Court of  law.  But the   above statement  does not mean that every  person  whose  interest  is  adversely  affected  by an  administrative  order  can approach  the Court  for redress.  The role  of the judicial  institutions  is only  sporadic  and  peripheral in  reconciling  the  interests  of  the  Government  and  the  governed. The masterpiece work has been to deal with various legal, constitutional and fundamental rights of a Civil Servant.  The  problem  of this  branch of  law requires  besides an examination  of  the rights  and  obligations of  the  Government and the Civil Servants.  A study of the remedies available to each party if the other violates the obligations imposed on him. The enforcement  of  the formal rules of  law on the Civil Servant  is  comparatively  easy because  the  Government  being  the pay-master and the holder  of the power of  all  grades  of  termination of  employment  up to  dismissal can,  generally  speaking  act on its own. 

Keywords-Constitutional Safeguards/Provision and Protection, Civil Service/Servant /Crown Servant, Civil Post, Dismissal, Removal, Reduction in Rank, Termination of Service/employment, Dispensing with Inquiry, Alternative Mechanisms  and Judicial Control Over Administrative Action,  Article-311(2)  of the Constitution of India, etc.

1. INTRODUCTION

 The Modern State is a social welfare State.  Its functions are multifarious.  To discharge  all these  functions  efficiently  and effectively, it is  utmost  importance  that  we must  have men  of  vision  initiative  and character  to man  the  administrative  apparatus  of  the State and hence  the need for  Civil Services. Further,  to  attract  best  talent to these  services,  it  is  equally  essential  that their  conditions  of  service  and  methods  of  recruitment  are given  due importance.  Besides, to enable them to discharge their functions fearlessly,   they must also have a feeling of security of tenure.  The  constitution framers  had taken  note of  this  aspect  and made special  provisions dealing  with the  Public  Service  Commission’s[1] as well as  providing certain  Safeguards[2] to the Civil  Servants to make  them feel contended  and secure  in their position.  But the  ruling of  the Supreme Court  in Tulsiram Patel’s case[3],  upholding  the right  of  the Government to  dispense  with the services  of a  Civil  Servant  and that  too  without  holding  an enquiry  against  him has  created  a feeling of  insecurity among the Civil Servants.  The court has been accused of arming the Government with autocratic powers.  In view  of  this  predicament, the subject  has  once again  gained  importance  and impelled  to attempt  a  reappraisal  of  the  constitutional  safeguards  provided  to  Civil  Servants  in  India.  These  questions are  proposed  to  be examined  in the light  of  the leading  pronouncements  of  the Supreme  Court.  It will be shown  that the court  has placed  a  restrictive  interpretation  of  Article  311 and  has not  been able to  effectuate  the true  constitutional  purpose  for which the provision  was enacted.  Government Servants/Civil Servants holds a certain responsibility, which comes with their Post; they have to adhere with a certain kind of standard of conduct at both in official responsibility as well as private capacity. Government Servants holds a responsibility towards the Public as well as Government. To enforce this, there are certain rules and regulations laid down by different acts, which describes the responsibility of Government Servants/ Civil Servants and one of the major guidelines is Central Civil Service Conduct (Rules) 1964.

1. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

A  brief  review  of  the literature relating to the  present study  been  detailed  as  follows:-    Harold J. Laski’s  valuable  treaties  entitled  “Parliamentary Govt. in England”  &  “The Growth of  Administrative  Discretion”  gives a  wonderful  account of  the Home Civil Service of  England  tracing  down its  history  its  relevance for  the  day and  the impact  it has had on the English Society  and  politics as a whole. Similarly Herman  Finer’s  “The  British  Civil Service”  (London  1937  P. – 14 & 15) is also a classic source of“ The  Role  of  the Civil  Service  in the Modern  World”. We also find good research in  Herman  Finer’s classic  treatise  on “The Theory  and  Practice of  Modern Government”, where he has attempted  in-depth  analysis  with  comprehension, original  research  & first  hand  observation  highlighting the  crucial  problems  of  the  Civil Service. Constitutional and Administrative Law by John Alder and Constitutional Law by E.C.S.  Wade & Godfrey Philips have tremendous impact on Civil Service & Civil Servant. Other  books on  Indian  Constitutional  Law  like  Durga Das  Basu’s Shorter  Constitution  of  India  and the  Introduction to  Constitution of  India  on the  Services  under the  Union and  the State,  Dr. Base  gives  importance to Civil Service  and  interpretation,  recruitment and  conditions  of  Service to be regulated  by  legislation  subject to  the provisions  of  the Constitution. The most respectable book on Constitutional Law of India by H.M.  Seervai  has given  a wonderful  account  of  what  the  role of  Civil Services citing  quotations  from Sir  Warren  Fisher,  Permanent   Head  of  the  British  Treasury,  Sardar  Vallabhbhai  Patel and  from  Shah Commission’s  Report. Seervai’s  treatise  gives  an  excellent  account  of  Article  – 309  to  311,  313  and other  articles  in  Part – XIV  of  the  Constitution including  Chapter – 2 of  Part – XIV.  Another  important  book  that is found to  be very close to the subject  of  the  research study  is  “The Civil Servant under the Law and the  Constitution”  by  Dr. N. Narayan  Nair,  casting increasing  attention on the roles  governing the  conduct  of  the Civil Servant and  legislations that control Civil Service, aimed at enhancing  disciplined  efficiency and fair  service conditions. It also examines   the position of the Civil Servant and the significant features of the problem pertaining to the Civil Servants under the Law and the Constitution. The subject has received a  very careful  treatment  marked  by  spirit of  enquiry  assisted  by  a  close  examination  of  the  opinions  of  jurist  and  judicial pronouncements. Other  books  close  to my topical area  of research  study  is  Prof. Narendra  Kumar’s    ^“Law  Relating to Government Servants and  Management of  Disciplinary Proceedings”.  Prof.  Kumar    in a very  simple language  highlighted  Service law pertaining to  certain  controls  like  ‘the pleasure  doctrine  under Article  310  system of  Confidential Reports,  disciplinary proceedings such as  suspension,  removal and  dismissal  from service and reduction in ranks  etc. Report of the Law Commission of India on various topical legal issues concerning my research has also been studied and their significant findings have been integrated into my research. Research findings of Indian Bar Review have also been studied to integrate important research concerns. Internet Depository on my research area is a significant source of legal research and various inputs would necessarily be used in my topical research area. Justice  Rama  M. Jois  in his  work  “Service under  the  State”  influences  most  simple  level  as a source of  overall  understanding  of  Civil  Services Law and Civil  Services Jurisprudence.  It is  this  inversion  which  possess  the basic  enigma  of  the  Indian  judicial  process. Similarly  Ejaz  Ahmed’s The All India  Services  Manual,  published  by  Asoka  Law House  New  Delhi,  is  a  best source of  relevant  case laws & notes on Government of  India  resolutions,   decisions,   circulars and notification  including  Amendments  by  Seventh  Pay  Commission  relating   to  Civil Services Law.   

1. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.

1. To study on practical  implication of the judicial  decisions  explaining  the extent  and scope of  judicial  control in Government’s  relation  to Civil  Service  matters.
2. To study on the role of administrative system   for promoting transparency and people’s participation.
3. To study on the decision making, implementation and evaluation of projects programmes and public policies for Good Governance.
4. To identify the strategy that could be formulated for maintaining balance between the interest of the Civil Servants and that of the fundamental interest of the society that conflict with each other.
5. To suggest the necessary legislative and reforming parameters needed in this regard

1. HYPOTHESIS ANALYSIS

1. In India the Civil Servants are responsive, transparent, accountable ethical public friendly and corruption free and deliver Good Governance.
2. In India Civil Servants  unlike   their  counterparts  in develop countries  as  public masters an inherited  legacy  of  British  Colonialism in India and they don’t  think and behave as  real Public Servants paid by the tax payers.
3. Article  311  of the Constitution  of  India  1950  has created  an environment of  excessive security and made Civil Servant largely  immune from  imposition of  penalties for their  non-performance and Commission  of crime.  Article 311 of the Constitution of India 1950 is over protective and promoting arbitrary action.
4. All India  Services Act  1951  and the concerned  rules  such as  Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964  need  suitable  amendment  to cater to the present  situation  and in  conformity to Article – 309.

1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.

The methodology adopted in this study is doctrinal and empirical one.  Case study method and statistical data analysis are the basis of Empirical   of this article.  Data collected  from both primary and  secondary sources which is based on  Constitution of  India, official  reports of  Law Commissions,  Reports  of  the findings  of various GOI committees, All India Reporter on service matters etc. and leading legal bulletins. Besides  a  detailed  survey  and analysis  of  plethora  of  judicial  decisions  rendered  in this  regard  by the Supreme  Court  and a  number of  High  Court  are  to be made.  Reports  as available  in the form  of  Books,  Journals,  Manuals  Periodicals  Articles  and   public  opinion  on  instances  of  corruption  constitute  the  pool  of   Secondary  Sources used.

1. Significance of the Research Problem

 The political administrative culture of centralism which has been fostered since independence has been largely responsible for the problems under review in the Civil Service. Unless the attitude is changed and proper measures are put in place, the poor relationship between the two groups is bound to continue ruling political party are moved into influential posts. Cronyism is rampant and nepotism not uncommon especially in the process of recruitment and promotion of Civil Servants. The present “all change” policy of the Civil Service of politically moving officials from their current duties to other posts as a favour or disfavour is detrimental to the effective functioning of public services. During recruitment and promotion, attracting the best and the brightest to join the Civil Service should be the only criteria to give impetus to the growth and dynamism of the public sector. However, politics and corruption have proved to be a major impediment in the efficiency of Civil Servants in the public sector in India in the contemporary era. Another murky spot in the Civil Service is that, some people employed in the Civil Service at present in India are not competent to hold Civil Service Posts. This has led to increased inefficiency and poor service delivery in most of the Government offices. It is also a common feature now-a-days for persons to hold the post in acting capacity for a long span of time in the civil service. The competent authorities empowered to make regular recruitments are adopting delaying tactics, probably, because of political pressure and wrangles within the Ministry concerned. It is therefore inevitable to reconsider the legal provisions to address this issue. In the light of the above, the present research, being one of its kind and one that has never been carried out, aims at finding out the loopholes in the government service It is therefore incumbent that there should be an effective and stringent law in place to ensure that Civil Service officials should be basically meritorious and non-partisan especially in the execution of their duties to ensure services are provided to the public in an efficient and effective way. Most of the unqualified persons in the Civil Service were either recruited through corrupt means/cronyism or political influence. It is an experience that persons appointed on acting capacity are not ready to take concrete decisions for fear of either losing their jobs or being held responsible in case of anything done wrong. existing laws, rules and regulations to counter the menace of increasing Politicization, Corruption, Lack of Transparency and Accountability in (a) the recruitment and promotion of Civil Servants in India, (b) streamlining the procedure/manner in which recruitment and promotion is carried out in the Civil Service so as to increase the efficiency in service delivery, (c) determining conditions of service of Civil Servants and (d) ascertaining dispute settlement mechanisms of service matters. The justification provided in the succeeding paragraphs of this synopsis would re-emphasize upon the assertion of the researcher in this context

1. CIVIL SERVICE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Before  a person  can claim  the  constitutional  protection  afforded  by  article  311 the  following conditions  need  to be satisfied :

• that he must hold  a post,
• that the post held must  be a Civil  Post, and
• That it must be either under the Union or a State government.

In the  early  stages  of  the  working  of  the  Indian  Constitution  a  view prevailed  that only  permanent  Civil Servants  could  enjoy  the protective  umbrella  provided  by article  311.  But in Purshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union, [4] the Supreme Court for the first time held that the

provisions  of  article  311  made  no  distinction  between  a  permanent  and Temporary Civil Servant. Das J. was quite emphatic in holding that to confine the scope of article  311 to  permanent  Civil Servants  only would  invite  many problems and it would  be difficult to say that  a  permanent  Civil  Servant  or a  Servant  Officiating  in a Permanent  Post does  not hold the “Post”.[5] It is  submitted  that the  interpretation  of article 311 as  suggested  by the court  is correct  and to  add qualifying  word  to  article 311 would  compel us to read in the  provisions  something which is  not there. The expression Civil Post is not defined in the Constitution. Article 311 omits the words “any post connected with defence’ which occur in article 310 (1).[6]  In State of Assam v.   Kanak Chandra[7] the Supreme Court held that “Civil Post” have been used in contradistinction to a post connected with defence.  Thus  all  Posts  held by Government  Servants  not connected  with  defence  must be held  to be Civil  Post. In  the  words of Professor  Jain,[8]  “a Civil  Post means  an appointment  of  office   on the  Civil  side and includes  all  personnel  employed  in the Civil  Administration  of  the Union or  a State.  This further  implies  that  a  member  of a  defence  service  or a civilian  employed  in defence  services  cannot  be regarded  as  holding  a Civil  Post  as they  hold  a  post  “connected with defence”.  The meaning and import of the expression “Post under the Union or State” may now be considered.  It has been held that the expression “Civil Post under a State”  meant that the post was  under  the  ultimate  control of the  government  which if  so  desired  could abolish  it or regulate the Conditions  of  Service  concerning  the same.  However, mere  payment  of  salary  out of  the  State  Exchequer  was not enough  to categorize  the post  as under  the  state.[9]The other view is that  before  a  person  could  be  regarded  as holding  a  post  under the state, it  must be shown  that he is  not  only  functioning  under  the direct  administrative  control  of  the state  but  must  be associated  in activities  which fall  within the sphere  of   the Union or  the State.[10]  “Except  as expressly  provided  by this  Constitution, every  person who is a  member  of  defense or  a Civil  Service  of  the Union or an All  India Service or holds any post  connected with defense or any  Civil Post  under the  Union holds  office during  the pleasure of  President or the Governor of  the State”.

The next question  is  : When  can a Civil  Servant  claim the  protection  afforded  by  the  Constitution ?  The answer is given  in article  311 (1) and (2)  Clause (1) is  attracted   when  the Civil  Servant  is removed or dismissed  from service  while  clause (2)  is  applicable  when he is reduced  in rank.  Hence, it becomes necessary to determine the meaning of the words “dismissed” “removed” or “reduced in rank”.  Broadly speaking  there is no  marked  difference  between  dismissal  and a removal  except  that dismissal disqualifies  a person from future  employment  and removal does not.[11] Dismissal  is thus  a species  or  removal. Similarly  “reduction in rank” involves  reversion  to  a  post  lower in rank  and is in all cases  a removal  from post.  Hence removal from post is an aspect of common to all the three expressions used above.   It is  an  admitted  proposition  that removal from service  is in fact  a  termination of  service  but  all cases  of termination  of  service  are not  cases  of  removal. For instance,  a  termination of  service  may be  brought  about  by voluntarily  resigning  from service  or  by  abolition  of  a post  or on  attainment  of the age  of superannuation. Therefore,  if  the termination  of  service  is  effected  by  modes  other than  those  expressed  above,  it may  attract  the  provision  of  article  311.       

1. CIVIL SERVICE AND THE CIVIL POST IN INDIA

The  Constitution  of  India  guarantees  certain  protection  to the  Civil  Servants[12]  under  Article  311.  The guarantees are available only when

• the concerned Civil Servant is serving  as a  member  of a Civil Service  of  the Union  or an  all-India  service,  or the Civil  Service of  a  State, or  holds a  Civil Post  under the  Union, or  the State and
• he is dismissed  or  removed  or  reduced in rank.[13]   The  constitutional  protection  will  not  be  available  to him if  he  is not a  member  of the Civil  Service or  holder  of a Civil  Post under  the  Union  or a  State Government.

So, the meaning of these expressions[14] assumes constitutional significance. Surprisingly enough these terms have not been defined anywhere in the neither Constitution nor does the Constitution give any indication to help the Court to gather their meaning.  The debates in the Constituent Assembly also do not reveal the scope of these expressions.

 In England the term Civil Servant is not one of general legal application.   A Civil Servant is one kind of Crown Servant.[15] All  Civil  Servants  are  Crown  servants  but  not all  Crown  servants  are Civil  Servants.[16] There is no comprehensive definition of Crown servant.[17] But there  are cases  in which  the  Courts  in  England  have had  to consider whether  or not  the  holder  of  a particular  office  was  a  Crown  servant.  In each  case  the decision  was based  upon  facts  of  the case  before  the Court.

 It would  seem  therefore  that it is  necessary  to ascertain  from a consideration  of  the facts  of  each  particular  case whether  the person  concerned  is  or  is not  a  Crown  servant. Thus although  there is  no formal  definition  “we may  say that  generally  he is appointed  by or  on behalf  of  the Crown to perform  public  duties  which  are  ascribable to the Crown  usually  but  not  necessarily  he is  paid  by the  Crown  out of the  Consolidated  Fund  or  out  of  monies  voted  by  Parliament.[18]

“Civil  Servants  are those   servants  of  the Crown  other  than  holders  of  political  or  judicial  offices  who are  employed  in a civil  capacity  and whose  remuneration  is paid wholly  and directly  out of  moneys  voted  by  Parliament.^”[19]

So  a  rough  definition  of   the Civil  Service  would include  all  non-political  offices and  employment held under  the Crown  with the exception  of  the armed  forces.[20] That is  the body of  officials  in the service  of  the Crown  who discharge  duties  belonging to the  exercise  of  the King’s  executive  powers  but  not  being  members of  His  Majesties’ naval  military  or air forces  and  not  being the  holders of  political  officers.[21]  A  subordinate engaged  by or working  under  a civil  servant is himself  a  servant  of  the Crown and not  of  his superior.[22]

The Constitution  of  India  has used  the terms  “Civil Servant” and  “person  holding a Civil Post”  in contradistinction to  “persons in  defense service”.[23]  Hence civil posts and Civil Services are appointments or offices on the Civil Side of the administration.

          The Civil Servants for the purposes of Article 311 may be classified into the following categories.

1. Regular Civil Servants of the Union.
2. Members of All India  Services
3. Persons holding civil posts outside the regular services under the Union.
4. Regular Civil Servants of the States.
5. d) Persons holding Civil Posts outside  the regular  services  under the State Regarding  classes (a)  (b)[24] and  (d)  much  difficulty  would  not  The Union and State Governments treat them as Civil Servants and their services are regulated by statutory rules.

The test  of  administrative  control  by  the Government  or control  over  the nature of the work  done, it is  submitted,  is  not  a  sure test  to determine  the character  of  Civil Servants. For  example, in the case  of a quasi-judicial  authority  it is well  settled  that the  Government  has  no  manner  of  control  over the  functions of  such authority.[25]

1. IMPORTANT JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION & LEADING CASES

 During  the  last  seven decades,  Article  311  have come  for  interpretation  before  our courts  in a number  of  cases  regarding  dismissal  or  removal  of Civil Servants  from service. In this following paper, an attempt is made to examine critically some of the leading judicial pronouncements by the apex court in the context of delinquent Civil Servant.

Satish Chandra’s Case 

 In  Satish Chandra  Anand  v. Union of  India,[26]  the  petitioner  accepted  a  temporary   job  on  the  condition that  he would  be governed  by  the  Central  Service (Temporary Service)  Rules,  1949  which provided  for termination  of  service  by  a  month’s  notice  on  either side.  Soon his services were terminated by serving on him one month notice.  Thereupon,  the petitioner  moved  the  Supreme Court  under  Article  32 of  the  Constitution  and contended  that  his  termination  has been made  in gross  violation of  the  provisions  of  Articles  14 and  16  of  the  Constitution.  He alleged  discrimination  as well as  the  denial of  the constitution  protection  afforded  by  Article  311  to  the other  Civil  Servants.

Shyam Lal’s Case

Article  311 again  came  for  interpretation  before  the  Supreme  Court  in the case  of  Shyam All  v. State of  Uttar  Pradesh[27]  where the  appellant was  compulsorily    retired  from service  under  Article  465A  of  the  Civil Service  Regulations which  provided   punishment  for specific  acts of  gross  misconduct.  In fact  the charges  were  leveled  and  an enquiry  was conducted  but he was  informed  that  the  enquiry  was  purely  informal  and confined  to finding  of  facts  only  whether  he should  be  retired  compulsorily.  Later,  he challenged  the order stating  that  it  amounted  to removal  from  service   within  the  meaning of  Article  311 of  the  Constitution. It  was further  alleged  that the rule  permitting  such retirement  without  assigning  any reason  was void  as  contravening  the provisions  of  Article 311.

 Saubhag Chand’s Case  

In State of Bombay v.  Saubhag Chand  M. Doshi[28]  the  respondent  was   compulsory  retired  without  holding  any enquiry  in terms  of  Rule  165 A  of  the  Bombay  Civil  Service  Rules, which were  adopted  by  the State  of  Saurastra with  some modifications.[29] The order  was  reversed  by  the High  Court  on the ground  that  it  was one  of  dismissal  and there  was  no enquiry  and hence  illegal  and void and violated  provisions  of  Article  311 of  the  Constitution.  On appeal to the  Supreme Court,  it  was contended  that  the impugned  rule  involved  a stigma  or imputation  of  misconduct  and therefore  amounted  to dismissal  or removal.  In rejecting  the contention  the  Supreme Court  said that  the  policy  underlying  Article  311 (2)  which provided  for  giving  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  was that  when an  action  was  proposed  to  be  taken  against  a  Civil  Servant  by  way  of   punishment  which would  result  in loss of  benefits  already  earned  by  him  he should  be given  an opportunity  to show cause  against  such  order.  Since  the  impugned  order did not amount to a  dismissal  or  removal  under  Article  311 (2)  it was  valid.

Dhingara’s Case

  In Purshotam All  Dhingra  v. Union of  India[30]  the appellant   joined the  railway service  as a  signaler in  1924  and was  later promoted  to the post  of chief  controller  in  1950 (a  class III post). In 1951 he was appointed to officiate in class II service.  The Civil Servant filed a writ in the High Court. The court ruled that since Mr.  Dhingra  was   not   given  an   opportunity  to   show   cause  against   the  action  proposed to  be taken  in regard to him, the  provisions of  article  311  were violated  and hence  the action taken  against him  was illegal.  However, a Division Bench of the same High Court reversed this ruling and hence Mr.  Dhingra moved the Supreme Court.

1. Balkotiah’s Case:

  In P. Balkotiah v. Union of  India[31]  the services  of a Civil Servant  who joined  railway  service in  193  and held  a  permanent post were  terminated  under rule of the Railway Services  (Safeguarding  of  National  Security)  Rules, 1949.  He was  charged  with having  taken part  in subversive activities  which were  true and  resulted  in  termination of  his  services. The order  stated  that  the  Civil  Servant  was given one  month’s  salary  in lieu of  notice. Thereupon he moved the High Court contending that the above rule was void.  The court  observed that  the action  of  the railway  authorities  was  sustainable  under rule  148  Railway Establishment Code, which provided  for termination  of  service  by giving  a month’s  notice or  salary  in lieu  thereof.   Before  the Supreme Court the order of  termination was  challenged  inter alia on the  ground  that  security  rules violated article  311 (2)  and were  therefore  void. 

 Gopi Kishore’s Case

  In State of  Bihar v. Gopi Kishore[32]   a  Civil  Servant  who was  on  probation  was removed  from  service  on the charge  of corruption  and inefficiency. No opportunity was given to him to defend the charges leveled against him. The order  was  reversed  by the  High Court on the ground that  neither  the same  was shown  to the civil servant nor were its contents  communicated   to him     The  government  went in appeal against  the order and contended that, the order of  termination  of a  probationer did not  amount to  removal or dismissal  within the  meaning of  article  311 (2).In such a case, he is entitled  to the protection  of  Article  311 (2) of the  Constitution.[33]

The  Court,  however  added,  But  if  the employer  simply  terminates the services  of  Probationer  without  holding   an   enquiry…..  the   probationer  Civil Servant  can have  no  cause of  action  even though  the real  motive behind  the  removal from  service  is that  his employer  thought  him unsuitable  for the post  he was  temporarily  holding  on account of  misconduct  or  inefficiency  or some  cause.[34]In regard  to the termination of  services  of  permanent  Civil Servant  Dhingra’s case  has been modified    by the  judgment  of a  larger  bench of  the  supreme  Court  in  Moti Ram  v. North  Eastern  Frontier  Railway[35] to  the  extent  that  neither  the terms  incorporated  in a service  contract  nor the rules  relating  thereto  (except  concerning  superannuation  or compulsory  retirement)  may provide  for  termination  of  services  of a permanent  Civil Servant  except  according to  the procedure  laid down  in article  311 (2)  of the  Constitution. 

      Seervai[36] a leading constitutional   authority has criticized the ruling by saying that the interpretation put by the majority is wrong.  Seervai  submits  that the  assumption  that  a Civil  Servant  had a right  to hold  a post  till the  age of  superannuation  is wrong  as no such  right  exists.  In his view  neither  law  nor service  rule nor contract  can confer  such a right  as such  law or rule  would be  void and  violative  of  the pleasure  doctrine  incorporated  in article  310 (1)[37]  According to him  the pleasure  doctrine  can  be  fettered  in two ways.  First that  a government  servant cannot  be dismissed  removed  or reduced  in rank by  a  person  inferior  in rank to the  person  appointing  him and secondly  that if any  such  action  is proposed to be taken against  him  he must be afforded  an opportunity  to show cause  against it.  In nutshell, Seervai  thinks that  a  simple  termination  is not  dismissal  or removal  and hence  no  punishment is involved  in terminating  a  Government  Servants  Service.[38]

1. P. Vasudeva’s Case:

   In S P Vasudeva v.  State of Haryana [39] the appellant was working as an assistant in the Public Works Department. Later, he was appointed as legal assistant in a deputy commissioner’s office. The appointment was purely on ad hoc basis.  Thereafter he was transferred to another deputy commissioner’s office and ultimately reverted to his parent office.   The order of reversion was challenged inter alia on the ground that it amounted to reduction in rank and was the result of a conspiracy.  The High Court dismissed the petition and hence the present appeal. The Supreme Court found the charge of conspiracy as “reckless”.  The above  ruling  of  the  Supreme Court  shows that there is definitely  a  sort  of confusion  or uncertainty in the  development  of the law relating to various  categories  of Civil Servant.

Debesh Chandra’s Case:

 In Debesh Chandra v. Union of  India the appellant [40]  the appellant  who was the Chief  Secretary of  Assam, was  appointed  a  Secretary  in the Central Government, on a tenure post  which  was to expire  in July, 1969. In September, 1966 he was asked to choose between reversion to service of his parent State and compulsory retirement. He contended that the order  was a  stigma and amounted to  reduction in rank which  could  not  be  passed  without  following  the procedure  laid down in Art. 311(2).   The Court said that the cadre for the I.A.S. were to be found in the States only and not in the Central Government. Few of them, however, were intended to serve at the Central and when they did so, they enjoyed better emoluments and status. Such an appointment meant promotion to higher post. In  these  circumstances, the Court  held that  the order of  reversion to the  original post  amounted  to the  appellant’s  reduction  from a higher  to a lesser  rank, and not  a reduction  in  the same time-scale  post  or  deprivation of  places  in the time-scale post, thereby  adversely  affecting his  seniority therein  or charges of  promotion.

 Chandrabhan’s Case:

  In  State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan[41]  the  Supreme Court  struck down  a  rule of  Bombay  Civil Service Rule as violative  of  Art. 311 (2) which provided for payment of subsistence allowance at the rate of Re.1/- p.m.  To a suspended government employee whose appeal was ending against his conviction and suspension. Subsistence  allowance at the rate of Re.1/- p.m.  Is illusory and meaningless and it makes the right of appeal meaningless. It would be impossible for a Civil Servant under suspension who has no other means of subsistence to defend himself effectively in Trial Court and to prosecute his appeal fruitfully. A  civil servant  under suspension is  entitled to the  normal  subsistence allowance  even after conviction  by the  Trial Court  pending  consideration of  his appeal  till the appeal is finally disposed of  whether he is on bail  or  in prison.

Baburam Upadhyay’s Case[42]    

  In India  every person who  is a  member  of a  public  service  described  in Article 310 of  the  Constitution  holds  office during  the pleasure of  the  President or the Governor , as the case may be, subject to the  express  provisions therein. (2). The power to  dismiss  a  public  servant   at   pleasure  outside   the   scope  of  Article 154   and,  therefore,  cannot be  delegated  by the Governor  to subordinate  officer and can be  exercised  by him  only  in the manner  prescribed  by the Constitution. (3) This tenure is subject to the limitation or qualifications mentioned in Article 311 of the Constitution. (4) The Parliament  or  the  Legislatures of  States  cannot  make  a law  abrogating or  modify  this  tenure so as to  impinge upon the  overriding  power conferred  upon the  President  or the Governor  under Article 310  as qualified by  Article 311. (5) The Parliament  or  the Legislatures  of  States can  make a law  regulating the  conditions of  service of  such a  member which includes  proceedings by way of  disciplinary action,  without  affecting the  powers of the  President or the Governor  under Article  310 of  the Constitution  read with  Article 311 thereof. (6)

1. DISPENSING WITH INQUIRY

Union of India v Tulsiram Patel[43]

The reason for dispensing with the inquiry need not contain detailed particular but it cannot be vague or just a repetition of the language of Clause (b) of the second proviso. The superiors  of  the disciplinary authority will be able to judge whether such authority  had  exercised  its power under Clause (b)  properly or not with a view to judge the  performance  and capacity  of that  officer for the purpose of  promotion  etc. It would also enable the Civil Servant to approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32.  

In Satbir Singh v. Union of India[44]

 The safeguard  provided to civil servants  by Clause (2)  of  Article 311  is taken  away  when any  of  the three  clauses of  the  second proviso to Article  311 (2) becomes applicable.  Any such act or rule which provides for dismissal  removal  or reduction in rank of a Civil Servant without holding an inquiry as  contemplated by Clause 2 of  Article  311 except in the three cases specified  in the  second proviso to that Clause would  therefore,  be unconstitutional  and void  as  contravening  Article  311 (2).

1. ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS

The opinion  of  the Supreme Court  in Sambamurthy[45]  and Sampath Kumar[46] as regards  alternative  mechanisms  for  judicial  review  cannot  be construed  as binding  precedents  under  Article  141  of  the Constitution that the tribunals  constituted  under  the  Administrative  Tribunals  Act, 1985  are invested  with  power to ‘deal with  question  pertaining to the constitutionality  or otherwise of such laws  as  offending  Articles  14 and  16  (1)  of  the Constitution  does not  become a  binding precedent”.      

Later on  the Supreme Court  of  India  in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of  India[47] has  approved  the view  taken  by the Andhra Pradesh  High Court  in Sakinala  Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh [48] The  Supreme Court  held as follows  :  “The Tribunals will however  continue to act as the only  courts  of  first instance in respect  of  the areas  of  law  for which they have been  constituted.

By this, we mean  that it will  not be open  for litigants  to directly  approach the High Court’s  even  in cases  where  they question  the vires of statutory  legislations (except where  the legislation which creates  the  particular Tribunal is challenged) by  overlooking  the jurisdiction  of  the  Tribunal  concerned”.

 “We, therefore  hold  that  all  decisions  of  Tribunals  whether  created  pursuant to Article  323-A or  Article 323 B  of  the Constitution  will be  subject  to the High Court’s  writ  jurisdiction  under  Articles  226/227  of  the Constitution  before  a  Division Bench of  the High Court within  whose  territorial  jurisdiction the particular  Tribunal falls  This will serve  two purposes. While  saving the power  of  judicial  review of  legislative action  vested  in the High  Court’s  under  Articles  226/227  of  the Constitution it will ensure that frivolous  claims are  filtered  out through  the process of  adjudication in the  Tribunal. The High Court will also have the  benefit  of  a reasoned  decision  on merits  which will be  of  use  to it  in finally deciding  the matter”.

1. LIMITATIONS OF JUDICIAL PROCESS RELATING TO PROTECTION OF CIVIL SERVANT;-

 There is a point of view  that Article  311 of  the  Constitution  of  India  gives only  a procedural  protection  and where such  procedural  rules are followed  meticulously  the Courts  power of  review is  ousted.

This view is  substantiated  by cases where  the  authorities  have started  fresh  proceedings  after the  Courts  have  quashed  an order  of  punishment[49] or where the  punishment  has  been  increased  on appeal to a superior  authority.[50]  But the above view is not wholly true.  It   is   to be  admitted that  administration  would suffer  if  the authorities  are unable to deal with corrupt,  inefficient  insubordinate or anti-national  elements  inside the  departments.  But  at the same time it is the  bounden  duty of the Court to see also  that such a  power is  not abused  or exercised  to attain  an ulterior  purpose  or on any  extraneous  consideration. Apart from the doctrine  of abuse of  power the  Courts have  entered into the matter  in some  instances  and where the  Courts have  interfered  on the  merits  of the case no fresh  proceedings  could be  started  on the same facts.[51]  The same result follows where a Criminal Court acquits the Civil Servant on the merits of the case.[52] The  Court  can intervene where the order is proved  to be mala fide[53]  or where the order is  based on  no evidence[54] The punishing  authority  cannot close  its mind before the  representation  made at the  second  show cause  notice  stage and  if this  fact appears  from the  record  the  Court  would  intervene.[55] A complete  order  found    ultra   virus  Article 311 cannot  be  subsequently  validated  by omitting the invalid  part and  construing the valid  part only.  The reliance  on the principle that an order  is  not invalid simply  because  it is  assailable on some findings  only  but  not on others.[56] Clearly shows that the Court looks at the matter as one of substance and not of procedure only. 

1. SUGGESTION & RECOMMENDATIONS

  The foregoing  discussions  shows that  the various judicial pronouncement evoked  by  the  judiciary  for  determining  whether  a  particular  action  amounted  to dismissal  or  removal  are far  from  being satisfactory.  The question is, Can a more plausible solution be found out?  It  may be  pointed  out  that  Justice  Das in  Shyam  Lal’s  case had  suggested  a  more  comprehensive  solution. To quote  his  Lordship  : … removal  generally implies that the  officer is  regarded  as  in  some manner  blameworthy  or deficient  that is to  say  that he  has been guilty  of  some misconduct  or  is  lacking  in ability  or  capacity  or the will to  discharge  his duties  as he  should do.  The action  of  removal  taken against him in such  circumstances   is  thus  founded  and justified  on some  ground and leveling of  some  imputation  or charge  against the officer  which  may  conceivably  be  controverter  or  explained  by  the  officer”.

   If  we  taken into  account  the  meaning  of removal  as  expounded  in  Shyam Lal’s case, it will  exclude  from its  purview  (a)  termination  of service  brought  about  by  voluntary  retirement  (b)  termination  of  service  on reaching  the age  of  superannuation which is  usually  based  on  administrative  policy and  (c.)  Termination of service due to abolition of posts etc.  This meaning will definitely harmonies the context in which these words have been used.  This  will further  make it  clear that  except  in the cases  mentioned  above  a civil  servant  will have to be heard  in  respect  of  the  charges  leveled  against  him  failing which  it may  have  the effect  of  vitiating  the  order  of  his removal   from service.  Once  we  accept  the truth  contained  in the  observations  of  Justice  Das  it will  definitely  effectuate  the true  constitutional  purpose  of  Article  311 and  put a   rider  on governmental power to  assign  these words  on artificial  meaning  by  framing  rules  in this regard. This will also  inspire  a  new  confidence  in the  minds  of  the Civil Servants  and they  will feel  more secured  in their positions  which in  the  ultimate  analysis  will improve  their efficiency  and  capability 

CONCLUSION

 A nation’s image, position and standing in the International affairs in the21st Century largely depend upon the dedication, capability, efficiency and effectiveness of its Government Servant/ Civil Servant. In democracies where leadership transitions take place, it is often within Parliament and the Cabinet. But more often than not, political transition also takes place throughout the entire administration where key roles in Government Ministries and Departments also change hands and card-carrying members characterized by mutual suspicion and occasionally by conflict as well, arising from conflicting role interpretation. Judiciary has played a great role in providing Good Governance to the people.  Law and order is the biggest challenge for Good Governance as we witness daily the problems of rape, thefts, dacoit, murders, extortion etc.  The police system was governed by outdated Police Act, 1861. Hindustan Times editorial  (Sept. 28, 2006) Give them teeth not fungus rightly states  a draft  to a new  Police Act  which is being  finalized  by a committee  set up in  September  2005. After much  nudging from the  Supreme Court  which has ordered  the implementation  of  police reforms  on or before  December  31, 2006 to promote  good governance. While reforms are  likely to  include  the creation of  separate  institution for investigation and for law and order  upgrading interstate links  to tackle interstate  crimes and  incorporating  modern  methods to crack down on drug  trafficking cyber crimes  and economic crimes there is a fundamental  flaw that desperately needs correction. Never bothering to rethink the colonial motive behind British India policing. Indian government at both the Centre and states has preferred to use the police as an extension of politics.  In  the   case  of my research article  an  enquiry  was conducted  and the  civil servant  was found  guilty  of  subversive  activities  and it was  as a  result  of  enquiry  report that  his services  were  dispensed with.  In fact, the order  amounted  to putting  a stigma on the  civil servant  but the court  held that  it was  not  a case of  dismissal  or  removal. This paper  with the  memorable  words  of  Justice  Frankfurter  when his  Lordship said   “The  ultimate touchstone  of  constitutionality  is the  Constitution  itself, not what we have  said about  it”. Therefore void. 

REFERENCES  &  RECOMMENDED AUTHORS.

 Chakrabarty,Bidyut Bhattacharya, Mohit The Governance Discourse,  A  Reader,  Oxford  University  Press,  New Delhi, 

1. Central Civil Services, (Conduct) Rules, 1964
2. Das, S. K. Civil Service Reforms and Structural Adjustment, Oxford University Press, 1998
3. Das,S. K Building a  World Class Civil Service  for Twenty first  Century India,  Oxford University  Press,  New Delhi, 2010
4. of India  report  on  Administrative Reform Commission  chaired  by  Sri  P. C. Hota  2004.
5. Goel S.L. Good Governance an Integral Approach, 2007   Deep & Deep Publication Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
6.  Hood and Philips, Constitutional and Administrative Law, op.cit. p.324.
7. Jain, M. P.Indian Constitutional Law,( Edison 2014) reprint 2016,Lexis Nexis.
8. Jain, R. B. Public Administration in India, 21 Century Challenges for Good Governance, 2004

                              Deep & Deep Publications Pvt. Ltd.  New Delhi. 

10. Justice Rama M. Jois, Services under the State, 2007, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi
11. Kettle Donald, Civil Service Reform Building a Government that works Brookings

                              Institutions     

12. Lawson and Bentley, Constitutional and Administrative Law, (London, 1961), p. 146.
13. Mamadou Dia  –   A  Governance  Approach  to  Civil  Service  Reform  in  Sub  Saharan  Africa –

                               World Bank Technical Paper, World Bank – 1993.       

14. Muston, N.E. Law and Organization of the British Civil Service, (London, 1932) p. 26.
15. Narayanan Nair, 1973 the Civil Servant under the Law and the Constitution – The

                              Academy of   Legal Publications, Trivandrum, Kerala.

16. Seervai, H. M. Constitutional Law of India, Vol.-3, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. 

                              New Delhi, 2008 Chapter – XXVII. 

17. Second Administrative Reform Commission Report by V. Molly, New Delhi, 2007
18. The Indian Journal of Public Administration, New Delhi.
19. Wade and Philips, Constitutional Law, “Civil Servants are all servants of the Crown”, (Seventh ed.    1965) p.221.  (Great Britain
20. Wade, H.W.R. Administrative Law (Oxford, 1967), p.16.
21. World Bank, Governance and Development, 1992 and World Bank Civil Services Rationalization in India, Washington, 2001.
22. Different editorial articles  from  The Hindu, The Telegraph, Times of  India, Indian Express  &  relevant  Articles  from            

[1]  India Cost. Art. 315-323.

[2]  Id. art.309-313

[3]  Union v.  Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416. (India).

[4]  AIR 1958 SC 36. (India)

[5]   India Const. Art. 310.

[6]  The relevant provisions read:  “Except  as expressly  provided  by this  Constitution, every  person who is a  member  of  defence or  a civil  service  of  the Union or an All  India Service or holds any post  connected with defence or any  civil post  under the  Union holds  office during  the pleasure of  President or the Governor of  the State”.

[7]  AIR 1967 SC 884.(India). Here the court had held that a mauzadar in the Assam valley held a civil post.

[8]   M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,( Edison 2014) reprint- 2016, Lexis -Nexis

[9]    Lachmi v. Military Secretary to Govt. of Bihar, AIR 1956 Pat. 398 at 402. (India).

[10]   AIR 1958 All.353. (India).

[11] Shy am Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 369, Mohd. Abdulsalam Khan v. Sarfaraz, AIR 1975 SC 1064(India)

[12]. Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1857. (India).

[13] Article 311 speaks of a twofold guarantee against “dismissal” and “removal” and a single guarantee against “reduction in rank”. Thus a  civil  servant  can be dismissed  or removed  only by an  authority  who is not  subordinate to the appointing  authority and after giving  reasonable  opportunity  of  showing cause against the  action  proposed to be taken  against  him. An order  of  reduction in rank  can validly  be passed  by an authority competent  under  the  rules  regulating the particular  service  even if  he  is  subordinate to the  appointing authority.

 [14]   Member of a civil service and holder of a civil post.

[15]   “Civil Servants are all servants of the Crown”, Wade and Philips, Constitutional Law, (Seventh ed.    1965) p.-221.  (Great Britain).

[16]   “For,  the  term is  not applied to  Ministers,  their  Parliamentary  Secretaries and  Parliamentary Private Secretaries or  other holders of  political  offices,  nor to members of  the armed  forces”, Hood  Philips, Constitutional and  Administrative Law, (Fourth  ed. 1967) pp. 324-325.

[17]   Wade and Philips, Constitutional Law, op. cit    p. 221.

[18]   Hood and Philips, Constitutional and Administrative Law, op.cit. p.-324.

[19]   Lawson and Bentley, Constitutional and Administrative Law, (London, 1961), p. 146.

[20]   Wade, H.W.R. Administrative Law (Oxford, 1967), p.16.

[21]    Muston, N.E. Law and Organization of the British Civil Service, (London, 1932) p. 26.

[22]    Hood Philips, op. cit., p. 325.

[23]    Cf. Bose, J. in Brio Goal v. Commissioner of Police, A.I.R. 1955 Cal. 556, Mohan Singh v. P. and E.P.         States Union, A.I.R. 1954 Pepsu 136. (India)

[24]  Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, etc. For the difference between cadre post and regularly constituted service see. Tarakanth v. State of Bihar. A.I.R.  1968 S.C. 1372 at 1372 – 1377.(India).

[25]  S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India A.I.R. 1967 S.C.  1274. (India).

[26]. AIR 1953 SC 250.(India). & Hartwell Prescott Singh v. State of U.P. AIR      1957 SC 886.(India).

[27]. AIR 1954 SC 369.(India).

[28] . AIR 1957 SC 892. (India).

[29]. Under rule 165A compulsory retirement could be ordered on the grounds of inefficiency or dishonesty, id., at 574-75.

[30]. AIR 1958 SC 36.(India).

[31] . AIR 1958 SC 232. (India).

[32]. AIR 1960 SC 689. (India).

[33] . id at 692

[34].  ONGC v. Iskender Ali, (1980) 3 SCC 428, cf. State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das,

   AIR 1961 SC 177.(India).

[35].  AIR 1964 SC 600.(India).

[36].  H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, vol. III at 3002-03 (ed.2008).

[37]. Id. at 3006,   3007.

[38]. Id. at 3005.

[39].  AIR 1975 SC 2292

[40].  AIR 1970 SC 77.

[41]. AIR 1983 SC 803.(India)

[42]. State  of  U.P. V.  Babu Ram  Upadhyaya  AIR  1961  SC 751 (761) : (1970) 1  LLJ  670 : (1961) 2 SCR 679 : (1961) 1 Cr LJ  773. (India).

[43].  AIR 1985 SC 1416 (1985) 3 SCC 398.(India).

[44].  AIR 1986 SC 555 (559): (1985) 4 SCC 252(India).

[45]^.  AIR 1987 SC 663 (India).

[46].  AIR 1987 SC 386 (India).

[47].  AIR 1997 SC 1125. (India)                           

[48].  1993 (3) ALT 471

[49]. Devendra Pratap v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1334. (India)  

[50]. State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 375. (India).

[51].  Ram Swaroop Sharma v. Dill. Commercial Supt. A.I.R. 1964 M. P. 155. (India).  Here the first order was passed on the view that the charges were not found proved.

[52].  Qamarali v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1959 M.P. 46 (India)

[53].  Partap Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R.  1964 S.C. 72. (India).

[54].   Supra Fn.52

[55].  State of Bombay v. Amar Singh A.I.R. 1963 Guj. 244. (India).

[56]  State of Orissa v. Bidya Bhusan A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 779. (India).

   Ram Manohar Lohia v.  State of   Bihar, A.I.R.  1966 S.C. 740.(India).