On this page
In England, the normal rule is that a civil servant of the Crown holds his office during the pleasure of the Crown. This means that his services can be terminated at any time by the Crown, without assigning any reason. Even if there is a contract of employment between the Crown, the Crown is not bound by it. In other words, if a civil servant is dismissed from service he cannot claim arrears of salary or damages for premature termination of his service. The doctrine of pleasure is based on this public policy.
Article 310 of the Indian Constitution incorporates the Common law doctrine of pleasure. It expressly provides that all persons who are members of the Defence Services or the Civil Services of the Union or of All-India Services hold office during the pleasure of the President. Similarly, members of the State Services hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. But this rule of English law has not been fully adopted in this Article. A civil servant in India could always sue the Crown for arrears of salary. Thus Art. 310 itself places restrictions and limitations on the exercise of the pleasure under Art. 310 and is limited by Art. 311 (2). The services of permanent Government servants cannot be terminated except in accordance with rules made under Art. 309, subject to the procedure in Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and the fundamental rights. The above doctrine of pleasure is invoked by the Government in the public interest after a Government servant attains the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service. This is constitutionally permissible as compulsory termination of service under F. R. 56 (b) does not amount to removal or dismissal by way of punishment.
The Constitution lays down the following limitations on the exercise of the doctrine of pleasure:
Article 311 provides the following safeguards to civil servants against any arbitrary dismissal from their posts:
Article 311 is applicable only to one class of public officers i.e., those who hold a 'civil post' under the Union or the States. Those safeguards are not available to defence personnel or even a civilian employee in defence service. They can be dismissed from service without assigning any reason. The protection of Article 311 is not available to military personnel who are governed by the Army Act. The term ‘civil post' is not defined in the Constitution. In State of U. P. v. A. N. Singh, 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 the 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. A person employed in police is an example of civil post.
Article 311 (1) says that a civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed by any authority subordinate to the authority by which he was appointed. This does not mean that the removal or dismissal 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. (AIR 1955 SC 70), the person appointed by the Divisional Personnel 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.
According to Art. 311(2), a civil servant cannot be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. In Khem Chand v. Union of India, the appellant who was in Government service was served with a charge-sheet and an enquiry was held on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer and he was served with an order of dismissal the next day. The appellant challenged the validity of the order of dismissal on the ground that he had not been supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report and no opportunity was given to him against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him as required by Article 311. The Court held that even though an enquiry was held on the basis of which the enquiry officer had reported that the charges were proved and recommended the punishment of dismissal, the authority competent to pass an order of punishment was bound to give a further opportunity to the Government servant to show cause why the particular punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted on him.