Scribd
Upload
11 views3 pages

Doctrine of Ple

The document discusses the doctrine of pleasure in India which holds that civil servants hold office at the pleasure of the president or governor. It can allow for dismissal or removal from office without an inquiry. The document outlines some exceptions and limitations to this doctrine from various court cases, such as the right to an inquiry unless the removal was due to a criminal conviction or the authority found it not practicable to hold an inquiry.

Uploaded by

Moveon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views3 pages

Doctrine of Ple

The document discusses the doctrine of pleasure in India which holds that civil servants hold office at the pleasure of the president or governor. It can allow for dismissal or removal from office without an inquiry. The document outlines some exceptions and limitations to this doctrine from various court cases, such as the right to an inquiry unless the removal was due to a criminal conviction or the authority found it not practicable to hold an inquiry.

Uploaded by

Moveon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Doctrine of pleasure

article 310 311

# 310

civil servants hold office at the pleasure of president /Governor...as the case maybe ( accepts the
common law doctrine of pleasure)

#common law?

Royal servants in England Deemed to hold office during the will and pleasure of crown

India Doctrine applied to servants of East India Company

# William IV

during reign he passed a statute giving full liberty to remove dismiss Such officers at pleasure

# missuse of the Doctrine and safeguards article 311

as to Civil servants in India

1. no member of civil service under Union or state shall be removed by authority subordinate to that by
which he was appointed

2.No such person removed,reduced in Rank except after enquiry

informed of charges

reasonable opportunity should be given as to hearing

there is master servant relationship so protection given in dismissal removal reduction of rank is by way
of punishment

# Shyamlal v.up

compulsory retirement as per service rules will not come under it because it is not a punishment

# CJ Joseph v.Kerala

dismissal from service struck down compulsory retirement on refusal to report for duty..in the absence
of petitioner

# exception to 311(2 )

NO ENQUIRY REQUIRED
(a)dismissed/ removed /reduced rank by conduct lead to conviction on criminal charges

(b)authority when doing so, for some reason recorded it is not practicable to hold enquiry.

(c) president/ Governor satisfied in the interest of security of state not expedient to hold enquiry

# A 311(2)(b)

Express exclusion of Audi alteram partem

# Union v.Tulsiram Patel

here the punishment held valid

dismissal enquiry expressly prohibited in the above situation if Malafide then only Court interfere

Here a number of appeals heard together

#one case

respondent convicted under section 322 IPC caused head injury with the iron rod to Superior officer

compulsory retirement given without hearing

# another case

Railway employees removed reason recorded as per(b)

# third case as per (c)

petitioner was in Madhya Pradesh Police station.. conducted violent demonstration.

security risk

# purushotam Lal Dhingra vs.Union

objective test

*whether servant had right to post

* whether he met with evil consequences

the appellant was in higher post

reverted to original post by unsatisfactory work

found no right to post..and nothing was against future promotion...no protection given

#refer RP Malhotra v.IT commissioner


# Premnath Bali v.registrar Delhi High Court

bali was UDC at Session Court

he was under suspension from 1990 to 1999

then compulsory retirement

appeal to Delhi High Court

found pension fixed excluding 9 years 26 days

held suspension period consider for pension

Ved mitter Gill v. UT administration Chandigarh

department superintend of Jail was dismissed

Prisoners escaped by digging tunnel

witnesses jail employees not depose against senior

Found express link with terrorists.

Dismissal without enquiry held proper

transfer

registrar general High Court of Madras v. Perachi

Supreme Court transfer affecting chances of promotion is not punitive.

Pearachi was Sheristadar in district court had additional charge as PA to district judge

transferred outside district on administrative ground

transfer held valid

You might also like