Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel

FACTS

The case involved the interpretation of Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Constitution, particularly the Second Proviso to clause (2) of Article 311 (as amended by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976). All the civil servants in the case had been dismissed or removed from service without being informed of the charges and without holding any inquiry into the charges or giving an opportunity of being heard. The dismissal orders were passed under one or more sub-clauses of the Second Proviso to Article 311(2), which dispense with the requirement of a departmental inquiry.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• Interrelationship of Articles 309, 310, and 311:

  • The Court clarified the hierarchy: Article 309 (power to make rules for service conditions) is expressly subject to the Constitution. Article 310(1) embodies the 'pleasure doctrine' (tenure at the pleasure of the President/Governor) and is a provision of the Constitution. Article 311 (safeguards against dismissal/removal) is an express provision that restricts the pleasure doctrine.

  • Therefore, rules made under Article 309 are subject to both Article 310(1) and Article 311. If any law or rule violates Article 311 or a Fundamental Right, it would be void (Moti Ram Deka referred to).

• Scope of Article 311(2) Second Proviso:

  • The Second Proviso provides exceptions to the mandatory inquiry requirement under Article 311(2). The court confirmed that where one of the clauses [(a), (b), or (c)] of the Second Proviso is applicable, the requirement of holding an inquiry or giving a hearing is dispensed with. This proviso was inserted as a matter of public policy and in public interest.

• Interpretation of 'Practicable' in Clause (b):

  • Clause (b) allows dispensing with the inquiry where the authority "is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry."

  • The Court stated that the question of whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it was reasonably practicable to do so. Absolute impracticability is not required. The holding of the inquiry must be impracticable according to the opinion of a reasonable man.

• Personal Satisfaction of President/Governor (Overruled):

  • The Court settled the controversy regarding Clause (c) (interest of the security of the State), which dispenses with the inquiry if the President/Governor is satisfied.

  • Overruling the view in Sardari Lal v. Union of India, the Court relied on Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and held that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor need not be his personal satisfaction. The pleasure of the President or the Governor is exercised by such officers on whom the power is conferred or delegated, as indicated by the express words in Article 311 that no person shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

{pg 395, 1569, 1570, 1572, Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain, 8th ed}