Constitutional  Safeguards And Protection  To  Civil  Servants  In  India : A  Critical Study of Judicial Process | Author: Dr. Niranjan Parida | Volume I Issue III |

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 servant  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  upto  dismissal can,  generally  speaking  act on its own. 

 INTRODUCTION   

 The  Modern  State  is a  social welfare State.  Its  functions  are  multifarious.  To discharge  all these  functions  efficiently  and effectively, it is  of  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  Commissions¹  as well as  providing certain  safeguards²  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 case³,  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  on  Article  311 and  has not  been able to  effectuate  the true  constitutional  purpose  for which the provision  was enacted. 

Keywords-Constitutional Provision and Protection ,Civil Service/Servant Civil Post,

                  Dismissal Removal, Reduction in Rank, Dispensing with Inquiry etc

 

 

 

1 Constitutional  of  India, Articles 315-323.

• Ibid., Articles 309-313.
• Union of India    Tulsiram Patel, AIR  1985 SC  1416.

 

 

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  indepth  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  has tremendous  impact on  Civil  Service  & Civil Servant. Other  books on  Indian  Constitutional  Law  like  Durgadas  Basu’s shorter  Constitution  of  India  and the  Introduction to  Constitution of  India  on the  services  under the  Union and  the State,  Dr. Basu  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  has  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  Ashoka  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  Sixth/Seven Pay  Commission  relating   to  Civil Service law.   

 

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY.

• 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.
• To study on the role of administrative system   for promoting transparency and people’s participation.
• To study on the decision making, implementation and evaluation of projects programmes  and public policies for good governance.
• 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.
• To suggest the necessary legislative and reforming parameters needed in this regard

     

 HYPOTHESIS.

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.

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.

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  Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of  India,⁴ the  Supreme  Court  for the first  time

held that the provisions  of  article  311  made  no  distinction  between  a  permanent  and

 

 

4..AIR  1958 SC 36.

 

temporary  civil  servant. Das J. was quite  empatic  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 Chandra⁷  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 categorise  the post  as under  the  state.⁹The 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 

 

 

5. Constitution of India, article 310.
6. The relevant provisions reads :

   “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. Here the court had held that  a  mauzadar  in the Assam valley held a civil post.

8. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 621 (3^rd End. 1978).
9. Lachmi v. Military Secretary to Govt. of Bihar, AIR 1956 Pat. 398 at 402.
10. AIR 1958 All.353.

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.       

CIVIL  SERVICE  AND THE CIVIL  POST IN  INDIA

The  Constitution  of  India  guarantees  certain  protection  to the  civil  servants¹²  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.

 

 

11. Shyam Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR  1954 SC  369, Mohd. Abdulsalam Khan  v. Sarfaraz, AIR 1975 SC 1064.
12. Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohanlal, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1857.

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

 

 

So, the meaning of these expressions¹⁴ assumes constitutional  significance. Surprisingly enough these terms have not been defined  anywhere  in the 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

 

 

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 edn. 1965) p.221. 

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  edn. 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.

 

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  Majestys 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  defence 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 
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. ) 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

 

 

 

20. Wade, H.W.R. Administrative Law (Oxford, 1967), p.16.
21. Mustoe, N.E. Law and Organisation of  the  British Civil Service, (London, 1932) p. 26.
22. Hood Philips, op. cit., p. 325.
23. Cf. Bose, J. in Brijo Gopal 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.
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.
25. S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India  A.I.R. 1967  S.C.  1274.     59. A.I.R. 1970  Cal. 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  protectional  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 Lal  v. State of  Uttar  Pradesh²⁷  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.

 

 

 

26. AIR 1953 SC 250. ,Hartwell Prescott Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 886.

27.. AIR  1954 SC 369.

 

   Saubhag  Chand’s  Case 

       In  State  of  Bombay  v.  Saubhag Chand  M. Doshi²⁸  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 Lal  Dhingra  v. Union of  India³⁰  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. 

28. AIR 1957 SC 892.
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.

1. Balkotiah’s Case :

         In P. Balkotiah v. Union of  India³¹  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 Kishore³²   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.³²

 

 

31. AIR 1958 SC 232.
32. AIR 1960 SC 689.

 

 

  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.³³In regard  to the termination of  services  of  permanent  civil servant  Dhingra’s case  has been modified    by the  judgement  of a  larger  bench of  the  supreme  Court  in  Moti Ram  v. North  Eastern  Frontier  Railway³⁴ 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. 

                  Seerva³⁵  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)³⁶  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.³⁷

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

     AIR  1961 SC  177.

34. AIR 1964 SC 600.
35. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, vol. III at  3002-03  (2008 Edn.)
36. Id. at 3006, 3007.
37. Id. at 3005.

1. P. Vasudeva’s Case : 

        In S P  Vasudeva  v.  State of Haryana ³⁸ 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 adhoc  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’ Case :

In Debesh Chandra v. Union of  India the appellant ³⁹  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 or 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

 

 

38. AIR 1975 SC 2292

39.AIR  1970 SC 77.

 

Chandrabhan’s  Case :     

      In  State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan⁴⁰  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  pending  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  Case⁴¹  

    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)

 

40. AIR 1983 SC 803.
41. 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.  

DISPENSING  WITH  INQUIRY

Union of  India v Tulsiram Patel⁴²

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  India⁴³

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).

ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS

 

The opinion  of  the Supreme Court  in Sambamurthy⁴⁴  and Sampath Kumar  ⁴⁵ 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  powerto ‘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”.       

 

 

42. AIR 1985 SC 1416 (1985) 3 SCC 398.
43. AIR 1986 SC 555 (559) : (1985) 4 SCC  252

⁴⁴.AIR  1987 SC  663

⁴⁵.AIR  1987  SC  386

          Later on  the Supreme Court  of  India  in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of  India⁴⁶ has  approved  the view  taken  by the A.P. High Court  in Sakinala  Harinath v. State of A.P.  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 Courts  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  Courts  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”.

 

LIMITATION OF  JUDICIAL   PROCESS

       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

 

 

 

 

46. AIR 1997 SC 1125.

 

.  This view is  substantiated  by cases where  the  authorities  have started  fresh  proceedings  after the  Courts  have  quashed  an order  of  punishment⁴⁷  or where the  punishment  has  been  increased  on appeal to a superior  authority.⁴⁸  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.⁴⁹  The same  result follows  where a  criminal Court acquits  the civil servant  on the merits  of the case.⁵⁰ The  Court  can intervene where the order is proved  to be mala fide⁵¹  or where the order is  based on  no evidence⁵²  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.⁵³ A   complete  order  found    ultra   vires  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.⁵⁴ clearly  shows that  the Court  looks  at the matter  as one of  substance and not  of  procedure only. 

 

 

 

47. Devendra Pratap v. State of Uttar  Pradesh, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1334.   
48. State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 375.
49. Ram Swaroop Sharma  v. Divl. Commercial Supt. A.I.R. 1964 M. P. 155.  Here the first order was passed  on the view that the  charges were  not found  proved.
50. Qamarali v. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1959 M.P. 46.
51. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R.  1964 S.C. 72.
52. Supra Fn.202.
53. State of Bombay v. Amar Singh A.I.R. 1963 Guj. 244.
54. State of Orissa v. Bidya Bhusan A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 779 

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

 

 

SUGGESTIONS

 

     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  controverted  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  harmonise  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   ridder  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

             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  dacoity  murders    extortion  etc.  The police system  was  governed  by  outdated  Police Act, 1861. Hindustan Times editorial  (Sept. 28, 2006) Give them teeth not   fungs 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 the draft is to be  converted  into a  Bill  and placed before  Parliament. While reforms are  likely to  include  the creation of  separate  institution for investigation and for law and order  upgrading inter state links  to tackle inter state  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  have preferred  to use the  police  as  an extension  of  politics.                             .  . 

. In this  present  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  Frankfurther  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.

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

     New  Delhi, 2008  Chapter – XXVII. 

2. Kettl Donald,  Civil  Service  Reform  Building  a  Government that works  Brookings

     Institutions     

3. N. Narayanan Nair, 1973 The Civil Servant  under  the  Law and the  Constitution – The

    Academy of   Legal  Publications,  Trivandrum, Kerala.

4. Das, S. K. Civil Service  Reforms  and  Structural  Adjustment,  Oxford  University Press, 1998
5. The Indian Journal of  Public Administration,  New  Delhi.
6. Govt. of India  report  on  Administrative Reform Commission  chaired  by  Sri  P. C. Hota  2004.
7. Second Administrative Reform Commission Report by  V. Moily, New Delhi, 2005.
8. R. B. Jain, Public  Administration  in  India,  21  Century  Challenges for  Good  Governance, 2004

    Deep & Deep  Publications  Pvt. Ltd.  New  Delhi. 

9. Goel S.L. Good Governance  an  Integral  Approach, 2007   Deep &  Deep  Publication  Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.        
10. S. K. Das, Building a  World Class Civil Service  for Twenty first  Century India,  Oxford University  Press,  New Delhi, 2010
11. Bidyut Chakrabarty, Mohit  Bhattacharya,  The Governance Discourse,  A  Reader,  Oxford  University  Press,  New Delhi,  2008.
12. World Bank, Governance and  Development,  1992 and  World  Bank Civil Services  Rationalisation  in India, Washington, 2001.
13. Mamadou Dia  –   A  Governance  Approach  to  Civil  Service  Reform  in  Sub  Saharan  Africa –

       World  Bank  Technical  Paper,  World  Bank – 1993.       

14. Farazmand Ali,  Administrative  Reform  in  Developing  Nations  Praeger  Publishers, 2001. 
15. Different editorial articles  from  The Hindu, The Telegraph, Times of  India, Indian Express  &  relevant  Articles  from  Internet.           

16.Justice Rama M. Jois,  Services under the  State, 2007,  Indian  Law  Institute,  New  Delhi