REPORT ON

DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE
SERVICE LAW

COMPILED BY TARUN INDER KAUR

B.A.LL.B (HONS) A
273/14

SUPERVISED BY MS. SONAL

UNIVERSITY INSTITUTEOFLEGAL STUDIES

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
INDEX
 INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of pleasure owes its origin to common law. The rule in England was that a civil
servant can hold his office during the pleasure of the crown and the service will be terminated
any time the crown wishes the same rule is applied in India.

Public servants have got a special relationship with their employer, viz. the Government
which is in some aspects different from the relationship under the ordinary law, between the
master and servant. It will, therefore, be appropriate to describe briefly the basic provisions of
the Constitution pertaining to services. The Chief Vigilance Officers and officers handling
vigilance cases will need to bear them in mind while processing disciplinary cases against
Government servants. The member of Defence services or civil services of the union or All-
India services hold their office during the pleasure of president. Similarly member of state
services holds the office during the pleasure of governor.

Civil Servants are considered as the back bone of the administration. In order to ensure the
progress of the country it is essential to strengthen the administration by protecting civil
servants from political and personal influence. So provisions have been included in the
Constitution of India to protect the interest of civil servants along with the protection of
national security and public interest. The provisions related to services under Union and State
is contained under part XIV of the Indian Constitution.
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The ‘Pleasure Doctrine’ is a principle of the common law, the origins of which may be traced
back to the development of the concept in the United Kingdom. It is a historical rule of
common law that a public servant under the British Crown had no fixed tenure, but held
his/her position at the absolute discretion of the Crown. Such rule had its origin in the Latin
phrase “durante bene placito” (“during good pleasure”), or “durante bene placito regis”
(“during good pleasure of the King”). It was thus affirmed by the Court of Appeal
in Dunn v. r.

“… I take it that persons employed as the petitioner was in the service of the Crown except in
cases where there is some statutory provision for a higher tenure of office, are ordinarily
engaged in the understanding that they hold their employment at the pleasure of the Crown.
So I think that there must be imported into the contract for the employment of the petitioner,
the term which is applicable to civil servants in general, namely that the Crown may put an
end to the employment at its pleasure.

…It seems to me that it is the public interest, which has led to the term, which I have
mentioned being imported into contracts for employment in service of the Crown..”

The scope of the doctrine was further expanded upon in Shenton v. Smith, where the Privy
Council went as far as observing that the pleasure doctrine was a ‘necessity’ because:

“The difficulty of dismissing servants whose continuance in office is detrimental to the State
would, if it were necessary to prove some offence to the satisfaction of a jury, be such as to
seriously impede the working of the public service.”

It is thus not surprising that the doctrine was imported into the legal system of pre-partition
Indian subcontinent, by virtue of the Government of India Act, 1935. Recognition of such
may be found in pronouncements of the Apex Courts of India, to that effect.
The doctrine is based on public policy. That, a public servant whose continuance in the office
is not in or is against the public interest, should be relieved of his office. That, the crown
should not be bound to continue in public service any person with conduct unsatisfactory.
The theory was that the crown could not fetter in future executive action by entering into a
contract in such matters concerning the welfare of the country. It is held that the doctrine is
not based upon any special prerogative of the crown BUT upon public policy. (State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Babu Ram Upadhya AIR 1961 SC 751) the Government has the right to expect
that each of its servants will observe certain standards of decency and morality not only in his
public but private life as well

In Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416) the Supreme Court held that for a
government servant to discharge his duties faithfully and conscientiously, he must have a
feeling of security of tenure. At the same time, it would be in public interest, that government
servants who were inefficient, dishonest and corrupt, should not continue in service and that
the protection afforded to them not be abused.
 RULE IN INDIA

In India, Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with services under The Union and The
State.

The common law doctrine of pleasure was borrowed by India under the Government of India
Act, 1858. Section16 of this Act provided that all the officers and servants of the Government
of India held their offices, were subject to the Royal Pleasure. Section 96B of the 1919 Act,
also incorporated this rule of pleasure which was retained under the Act of 1935.
 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 309 empowers the Parliament and the State legislature regulate the recruitment, and
conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of any State respectively.

Article 310 of the Constitution of India incorporates the English doctrine of pleasure by
clearly stating that every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of
the Union or of an all India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post
under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President, and every person who is a
member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during
the pleasure of the Governor of the State . But this power of the Government is not absolute.

Article 311 puts certain restriction on the absolute power of the President or Governor for
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of an officer.
Article 309
Article 309 of the Constitution reads as follows: –

“Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State Subject to the
provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the
recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State;”

The above Article empowers the Parliament to make laws to regulate the recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union (State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Ameerbi & Ors., 2006). It also authorities
the President to make rules for the above purposes, until provision in that behalf is made by
or under an Act of Parliament. Parliament has not so far passed any law on the subject.
Recruitment and the conditions of service of Central Government servants in general
continue to be governed by rules made by the President under Article 309.

Relation of 309 with 246 read with VII schedule

The power to make rules conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution or by other statutes
includes the power to add, amend or alter the rules by virtue of Article 367 of the
Constitution and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Accordingly, so long as the
Constitutional provision are not contravened, the rules governing the conditions of service of
Government servants can be altered or amend by the Government from time to time
according to the exigencies of the public service without the consent of a Government servant
concerned who will be bound by such amendment or alteration in the rules. The Supreme
Court also in Grewal Rao’s case D. S. Garewal v. The State Of Punjab And Another, AIR
1959) observed that numerous rules relating to conditions of service may have to be changed
from time to time if the exigencies of public service so require. There is no question of
consent of the Government servant concerned at least by reason of the sheer impossibility of
securing such consent from every one. It is also open to the Government to alter service rules
retrospectively which may affect even the existing incumbents adversely. However, the
existing incumbents are generally given protection with a view to avoiding hardship to them.
The rights accruing to a Government servant under the conditions of service in force at the
time of his retirement cannot be taken away after his retirement.
Article 310

Article 310 of the Constitution comprises of the basic rules laying down the tenure of office
of persons serving the Union or a State except as expressly provided by this Constitution,
every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an
all India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union,
holds office during the pleasure of the President, and every person who is a member of a civil
service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the
Governor of the State.

Now if such powers are given to president of India and the governor of states then it would be
really difficult to exercise power on them so there are certain offices which are outside the
purview of Article 310 and Article 311 was put as a restriction to doctrine of pleasure. With
lot many cases coming with corruption of civil servants and other government official, it is
interesting to know what procedure has been provided in the constitution of India to punish
them.

1. Clause (1): Office during the Pleasure of the State

Clause (1) of Article 310 corresponds to the English rule that all service, civil, or military,
under the Crown is held at the pleasure of the Crown, so that the public servant may be
dismissed from the office at will , without any cause assigned.
[xi] [xii]

The doctrine of pleasure appointment received constitutional sanction under Article 310, but
unlike in United Kingdom, in India, it is not subject to any law made by the Parliament, but is
subject to only whatever expressly provided by the Constitution. Therefore the distinction
between doctrine of pleasure appointment as it existed in feudal setup and in a democratic
setup has to be borne in mind. [xiii]

The service being terminable at the pleasure of the State, there is no limitation as to the
grounds upon which the services of a Government servant may be terminated. Once the
procedure under Article 311(2) has been complied with, the Courts are not entitled to
determine whether the ground or the charge under which Government has proceeded under a
Government servant is sufficient to warrant a dismissal. But a rule, which provides for
[xiv]

dismissal on a ground which unreasonably restricts the fundamental rights of a Government

servant, may be challenged as unconstitutional.

The words “pleasure of the President or Governor” do not mean that the Article is applicable
only when a Government servant is dismissed by the President or the Governor personally.
Under Articles 53(I) and 154 (I), the executive power of the Union or a state may be
exercised by the President or Governor either directly or through officers subordinate to him.
Hence Article 310 is attracted whenever a person is dismissed by an officer competent to
dismiss such person serving under the Union of a State, as the case may be.

Whether the pleasure can be fettered by legislation?

In India, the doctrine of pleasure has been embodied in the Constitution itself, in Article
310(1). The Supreme Court has pointed out that, since the power of the State to dismiss a
public servant at its pleasure has been provided in Article 310(1), “except as expressly
provided by the Constitution”, it follows that its power cannot be fettered by any statute. In
[xv]
India, the power to dismiss a Government servant at pleasure is subject to only those
exceptions which are specified in the Constitution itself. It cannot be taken away or curtailed
by legislation, though the mode of its exercise may be.

Whether the pleasure of the Government can be fettered by contract?

Article 310(1) is not subject to the provisions of any contract. Hence, the pleasure of the
President or the Governor to dismiss at pleasure cannot be fettered by any contract to the
contrary. Any such contract would be bad as a ‘clog’ on the pleasure or for contravention of
Article 310(1).

Where the pleasure of the Government is itself subject to an express provision of the
Constitution, the constitutional provision cannot be overridden by the Government by
entering into a contract. However, in the case of Satis Anand v. Union of India , The [xvi]

Supreme Court stated that the State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and
impose special terms in each case, provided they are not inconsistent with the Constitution,
and those who chose to accept those terms and enter into the contract are bound by them,
even as the State is bound.

Whether the pleasure under Article 310(1) can be delegated?

Though the contrary opinion was expressed in some cases, it is now settled that the
[xvii]

pleasure under Article 310(1) need not be exercised by the President or the Governor
personally. Article 310 is not outside the scope of Article 154. The result is that the
[xviii]

pleasure is to be exercised under Article 310(1) on the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers. Further, it being an executive power of the State within the meaning of Article
154, the exercise of pleasure may be delegated to subordinate officers in accordance with the
laws or rules made under Article 309 which may prescribe the procedure by which and the
authority by whom the pleasure may be exercised.

In short, the pleasure of the President to terminate the services of a Government servant can
be exercised by such officers to whom the President or Governor delegates the power in
accordance with relevant laws or rules made under Article 309.

2. Clause (2): Civil Post held during the Pleasure of President or Governor

Clause (2) of Article 310 states that though all service under the Government is terminable at
any time, this clause provides for payment of compensation where service is held under a
special contract which provides for payment of compensation and the service is terminated
before the expiry of the contractual period.

This clause is, though, not applicable in the following cases:

 In the case of members of Defence Services.

 In the case of members of All India Services.
 In the case of members of a civil service of the Union or of a State.

The scope of this clause is very narrow and is limited to those cases where the post does not
belong to any of the regular services and the Government is obliged to enter into a special
contract for securing the services of a person having special qualifications. The [xix]
compensation is payable only for premature termination of contractual service. This clause
enables the President or Governor to enter into a contract with specially qualified persons
providing for payment of compensation where no compensation is payable under the doctrine
“service at the pleasure of the State”.

3. Restrictions on the doctrine of pleasure – Article

311
Article 311 states that –

“Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the
Union or a State –

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil
service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or
removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after
an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty,
such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it
shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the
penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply –

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct
which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank
ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not
reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of
the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause ( 2 ), the decision thereon of the
authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be
final.”

The pleasure of the President or Governor is controlled by provisions of Article 311, so the
field covered by Article 311 is excluded from the operation of the doctrine of
pleasure.[xx] The pleasure must be exercised in accordance with the procedural safeguards
provided by Article 311. Under Indian Constitution several restrictions has been placed on
Doctrine of Pleasure. They are as follows:

1. The service contract entered between the civil servant and government may be enforced.[xxi]
 2. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution are restrictions on the pleasure
doctrine and therefore this doctrine cannot be resorted too freely and unfairly, Articles 14, 15
and 16 of the Constitution imposed limitations on free exercise of Pleasure
Doctrine.[xxii]Article 14 embodies the principle of reasonableness the principle of
reasonableness is anti-thesis of arbitrariness. In this way, Article 14 prohibits arbitrary
exercise of power under pleasure doctrine. In addition to article 14 of the
constitution Article 15 also restricts arbitrary exercise of power in matters of
services. Article 15 prohibits termination of service on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth or any of them. Another limitation is under Article 16(1) which obligates equal
treatment and bars arbitrary discrimination.
3. Further the doctrine of pleasure is subject to many more limitations and a number of posts
have been kept outside the scope of pleasure doctrine. Under the constitution the tenure of the
Judges of the High Courts and Supreme court, of the comptroller and Auditor-General of
India, of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chairman and Members of Public service
commission is not at the pleasure of the Government.[xxiii]
Thus, the general principle relating to civil services has been laid down under Article 310 of
the Constitution to the effect that government servants hold office during the pleasure of the
government and Article 311 imposes restrictions on the privilege of dismissal at the pleasure
in the form of safeguards.

Application of Article 311

The most notable point is that Article 311 is available only when ‘dismissal, removal,
reduction in rank is by way of punishment.’ So it is difficult to determine as to when an order
of termination of service or reduction in rank amounts to punishment in case of Parshottam
Lal Dhingra v. Union of India. The Supreme Court laid down 2 tests to determine when
[xxiv]

termination is by way of punishment –

 Whether the servant had a right to hold the post or the rank?
 Whether he has been visited with evil consequences?

If a government servant had a right to hold the post or rank under the terms of any contract of
service, or under any rule, governing the service, then the termination of his service or
reduction in rank amounts to a punishment and he will be entitled to protection under Article
311.[xxv] Articles 310 and 311 apply to Government servants, whether permanent,
temporary, officiating or on probation.

The procedure laid down in Article 311 is intended to assure, first, a measure of tenure to
government servants, who are covered by the Article and secondly to provide certain
safeguards against arbitrary dismissal or removal of a government servant or reduction to a
lower rank. These provisions are enforceable in a court of law. Where there is an
infringement of Article 311, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority are void ab-initio
and in the eye of law “no more than a piece of waste paper” and the government servant will
be deemed to have continued in service or in the case of reduction in rank, in his previous
post throughout. Article 311 is of the nature of a proviso to Article 310. The exercise of
pleasure by the President under Article 310 is thus controlled and regulated by the provisions
of Article 311.

Civil Post
The protective safe guards given under Article 311 are applicable only to civil servants, i.e.
public officers. They can be dismissed from service without assigning any reason.[xxvi] They
are not available to defence personnel. In State of U. P. v. A. N. Singh[xxvii], the Supreme
Court has held that a person holds a civil post if there exists a relationship of master and
servant between the State and the person holding the post. The relationship is established if
the State has right to select and appoint the holder of the post, right to control the manner and
method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration.

Dismissal And Removal

The protection under Article 311(2) is available only where dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank is proposed to be inflicted by way of punishment and not otherwise. ‘Dismissal’ and
‘removal’ are synonymous terms but in law they acquired technical meanings by long usage
in Service Rules. There is, however, one distinction between the ‘dismissal’ and ‘removal’,
that is, while in case of ‘dismissal’ a person is debarred from future employment, but in case
of ‘removal’ he is not debarred from future employment. [xxviii]

Temporary Employees And Probationers

In State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukh Raj Bahadur[xxix], the Supreme Court laid down the
following principles regarding the applicability of Article 311 to temporary servants and
probationers.

1. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his
employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of
Art. 311 of the Constitution.
2. The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination of service have to be
examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial.
3. If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against
his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter
whether he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant.
4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched
by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in
service, does not attract the operation of Art. 311 of the Constitution.
5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged Art. 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is
appointed, a charge sheet submitted, explanation called for and considered, any order of
termination of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said Article.

Termination Of Service When Amounts To Punishment

The protection under Art. 311 is available only when the dismissal, removal or reduction in
rank is by way of punishment In Parshotham Lal Dhingra v. Union of India[xxx], the
Supreme Court has laid down two tests to determine whether termination is by way of
punishment-

1. whether the servant had a right to hold the post or the rank (under the terms of contract or
under any rule)
2. whether he has been visited with evil consequences. If yes, it amounts to punishment.

Compulsory Retirement
Compulsory retirement simpliciter is not punishment. It is done in ‘public interest’ and does
not caste a stigma on the Government servant. So the employee cannot claim an opportunity
to be heard before he is compulsorily retired from service. The Supreme Court of India has
issued certain guidelines regarding compulsory retirement. In State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai
M. Patel[xxxi], the Court laid down the following principles:

1. When the Service of a public servant is no longer useful to the general administration, the
officer can be compulsorily retired in public interest.
2. Ordinarily the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment under Art.
311 of the Constitution.
3. For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood but the order of compulsory
retirement can be based after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
4. Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due
weightage in passing such order. Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential report can
also be taken in to consideration.
5. The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental
inquiry when such course is more desirable.
6. If the officer is given promotion despite adverse entries in the C. R., that is a fact favour of
the officer.
7. Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

In Baikunth Nath v. Chief Medical Officer[xxxii], the Court issued further clarifications
regarding compulsory retirement.

1. An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma.

2. The order has to be passed by the Govt. in public interest. The order is passed on the
subjective satisfaction of the Govt.
3. Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement.
However courts will interfere if the order is passed mala fide or there is no evidence or it is
arbitrary.
4. The Govt. shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the
matter particularly during the later years’ record and performance.
5. An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on showing
that while passing it excommunicated adverse remarks were taken in to consideration. The
circumstances by itself cannot be a basis for interference.

Exceptions to Article 311

No Removal By Subordinate Authority

Removal by subordinate authority does not mean that the dismissal or removal must be by the
same authority who made the appointment or by his direct superior. It is enough if the
removing authority is of the same or co-ordinate rank as the appointing
authority. In Mahesh v. State of U P., the person appointed by the Divisional Personnel
[xxxiii] [xxxiv]

Officer, E.I.R., was dismissed by the Superintendent, Power, E.I.R. The Court held the
dismissal valid as both the officers were of the same rank.

Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard

In an important judgment in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, the Supreme [xxxv]

Court has held that when the enquiry officer is not disciplinary authority, the delinquent
employee has a right to receive the copy of the enquiry officer’s report so that he could
effectively defend himself before the disciplinary authority. A denial of the enquiry officer’s
report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of
reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the
principles of natural justice. It is difficult to say in advance to what extent the said findings
would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The Court affirmed
its rulings in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan , but held that it will apply only
[xxxvi]

prospectively.

In Khem Chand v. Union of India[xxxvii], the Supreme Court held that the ‘reasonable
opportunity’ means:-

1. An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can do only if he is
told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges as
based.
2. An opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witness produced against him and
by examining himself in support of his defiance.
3. An opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be
inflicted on him.

Exclusion Of Opportunity To Be Heard

Article 311(2) provides that reasonable opportunity of being heard is not applicable in the
following cases:

1. where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which
has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
2. where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is
satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such inquiry; or
3. where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the
security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

An employee who is convicted on criminal charges need not be given an opportunity to be

heard, before his dismissal from service. However in Divisional Personal Officer, Southern
Railway v. T. R. Chellappan[xxxviii], the Supreme Court held that the imposition of the
penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank without holding an inquiry was
unconstitutional and illegal. The objective consideration is only possible when the delinquent
employee is being heard. But in Union of India v. Tulshiram Patel[xxxix] the Court held that
the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a person convicted on criminal charges is in
public interest, and therefore not violative of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court thus
overruled its earlier decision in Chellappan’s case.

Exceptions To Clause (2) Of Article 311

The provision to Article 311 (2) provides for certain circumstances in which the procedure
envisaged in the substantive part of the clause need not be followed.

1. Conviction on a criminal charge.– One of the circumstances excepted by clause (a) of the
provision is when a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of
conduct which has laid to his conviction on a criminal charge. The rationale behind this
exception is that a formal inquiry is not necessary in a case in which a court of law has
already given a verdict. However, if a conviction is set aside or quashed by a higher court on
 appeal, the Government servant will be deemed not to have been convicted at all. Then the
Government servant will be treated as if he had not been convicted at all and as if the order of
dismissal was never in existence. If the appointing authority were aware of the conviction
before he was appointed, it might well be expected to refuse to appoint such a person but if
for some reason the fact of conviction did not become known till after his appointment, the
person concerned could be discharged from service on the basis of his conviction under
clause (a) of the proviso without following the normal procedure envisaged in Article 311.
2. Impracticability –Clause (b) of the proviso provides that where the appropriate disciplinary
authority is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded by that authority in writing that it does not
consider it reasonably practicable to give to the person an opportunity of showing cause, no
such opportunity need be given. The satisfaction under this clause has to be of the disciplinary
authority that has the power to dismiss, remove or reduce the Government servant in rank. As
a check against an arbitrary use of this exception, it has been provided that the reasons for
which the competent authority decides to do away with the prescribed procedures must be
recorded in writing setting out why it would not be practicable to give the accused an
opportunity. The use of this exception could be made in case, where, for example a person
concerned has absconded or where, for other reasons, it is impracticable to communicate with
him.
3. Reasons of security – Under proviso (c) to Article 311 (2), where the President is satisfied
that the retention of a person in public service is prejudicial to the security of the State, his
services can be terminated without recourse to the normal procedure prescribed in Article 311
(2).The satisfaction referred to in the proviso is the subjective satisfaction of the President
about the expediency of not giving an opportunity to the employee concerned in the interest
of the security of the State. That indicates that the power given to the President is unfettered
and cannot be made a justifiable issue, as that would amount to substituting the satisfaction of
the court in place of the satisfaction of the President.[xl]

The Constitution of India through Article 311, thus protects and safeguards the rights of civil
servants in Government service against arbitrary dismissal, removal and reduction in rank.
Such protection enables the civil servants to discharge their functions boldly, efficiently and
effectively. The public interest and security of India is given predominance over the rights of
employees. So conviction for criminal offence, impracticability and inexpediency in the
interest of the security of the State are recognised as exceptions. The judiciary has given
necessary guidelines and clarifications to supplement the law in Article 311.[xli]The judicial
norms and constitutional provisions are helpful to strengthen the civil service by giving civil
servants sufficient security of tenure. But there may arise instances where these protective
provisions are used as a shield by civil servants to abuse their official powers without fear of
being dismissed. Disciplinary proceedings initiated by Government departments against
corrupt officials are time consuming.

Special Provisions Relating To Certain

Categories Of Government Servants
The Constitution also makes special provision relating to conditions of service of certain
categories of public services. The more important of these are given below.

All India Services

Under Article 312 of the Constitution, Parliament has enacted the All India Services Act,
1951. Under Sec. 3 of that Act, the President has framed rules regulating various aspects of
conditions of services of persons appointed to the All India Services. The three All India
Services created so far are the I.A.S., the I.P.S. and the Indian Forest Service.

Secretariat Staff Of The Parliament

Article 98 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to regulate by law the recruitment
and conditions of service of person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of
Parliament. However, as no such law has yet been made by the Parliament, the recruitment to
the Secretariats of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and the conditions of service of the
staff of the two Houses are regulated by the rules made by the President under Article 98 (2)
of the Constitution in consultation with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of
the Rajya Sabha respectively.

Officers Of The Supreme Court

Under Article 146 (2) of the Constitution, conditions of service of officers and servants of the
Supreme Court are regulated by rules made by the Chief Justice subject to the approval of the
President in certain matters.

Indian Audit And Accounts Department

Under Article 148 (5) the conditions of service of persons serving in the Indian Audit and
Accounts Departments are regulated by rules made by President after consultation with the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India. No separate rules have been made by the President
under this Article. The rules framed by the President for the other civil services and posts are
made applicable to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department after
consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Defence Personnel

The conditions of service of the Defence personnel paid out of the Defence Services
Estimates and who are subject to the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62
of 1957) and the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) are governed by their respective Acts and
the rules made there under.

Persons Engaged On Special Contract

On occasions the Government engages the services of specialists or experts or other persons
for a specified period on special contract of service. Such contract would normally provide
inter alia for the duration of appointment and for conditions regarding termination of service.
In some cases the contact may expressly provide that in certain specified matters the
conditions of service of the person appointed on contract will be governed by spefic rules
governing Government servants in these matters. In certain other cases the rules governing
the conditions of service of Government servant may be made applicable to a person
appointed on a contract by a general reference to them.

Alterations In Conditions Of Service

Except in the case of appointments made on a specific contract, the relationship between the
Government and the Government servant is not based on a contract. The conditions of service
to which a Government servant is subject cannot be deemed to constitute the terms of a
contract.[xlv] The essential requirement of a contract is agreement between the contracting
parties in respect of the terms of the contract. In the case of a Government servant there is no
such agreement. The legal relationship between the Government and Government servant has
been defined by the courts as something analogous to status, the duties and obligations of
which are fixed by law and are quite independent of the will of the person affected.[xlvi]

Alternations In The Conditions Of Service Of Persons Appointed On Contract

A unilateral amendment or alteration of specified conditions of service embodied in a

contract of service is not permissible.[xlvii] However, any rules relating to conditions of
service of Government servants which are made applicable to a person appointed on contract
by a general reference to them in the contact can be changed unilaterally.

Employees Of Departmental Public Sector Undertakings:

Certain undertakings are run and managed by Government departmentally e.g., ordnance
factories under the Ministry of Defence, workshops of the P&T Department, workshops
under the Railways, Delhi Milk Scheme, etc. Employees of such undertakings are appointed
and paid by Government and they are Government servants for all purposes and will be
governed by the normal rules and regulations applicable to Government servants. However,
provisions of the Factories Act and of the Labour Laws will also apply to them to the extent
the employees of such establishments are covered by such laws.

Employees Of Public Sector Undertakings

The employees of public sector undertakings, which have been constituted as corporate
bodies constitute separate legal entities under the relevant statutes or which have been
registered as companies under the Companies Act are not Government servants.[xlviii] They
are governed by rules and regulations made by the respective undertakings under the powers
vesting in them under the relevant statutes/Articles of Memorandum. Government servants
who may be employed under such undertakings on foreign service terms continue, for
purpose of disciplinary action, to be governed by Government rules and regulations.

Tenure Of Service

A basic feature of the employer – employee relationship is the materís power to terminate the
services of the servant. The extent of this power, however, varies with different categories of
employment. For most categories of employees laws and regulations exist regulating the right
of the employer in this behalf. In respect of Government servants the Constitution itself
makes certain specific provisions.
Conclusion
With lot many cases coming with corruption of civil servants and other government official
it is interesting to know what procedure has been provided in the constitution of India to
punish them. the main reason for which Articles 310 and 311 has been envisaged in the
constitution by the makers of constitution is still working today but it is interesting to note
that the framer of the constitution had a insight of corruption in near future that’s why such
provisions were included.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Kumar, Narender; Law Relating to Government Servants and

Management of Disciplinary Proceedings; Allahbad Law Agency,
Faridabad;4th ed. 2017.
 Pathania, Babita Devi; Service Laws in India; New Era Law Publications,
Faridabad;1st edition 2016.
 Doabia and Doabia; The Law of Services and Dismissals; Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur;4th edition 2011.
 Singh, Gurbax; Supreme Court on Service Laws (1950-2007); Bharat
Law Puublications, Jaipur; 2008.