S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

( 1 ) THE question, we, as a Full Bench, are being called upon to dscide, turns on the interpretation that should be put on the expression conviction, found in clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The question is would the conviction at the hands of a competent Criminal Court in the first instance suffice, or should the conviction await confirmation at the hands of a final or ultimate competent Criminal Court ? The placement of clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of Art. 311 will stand better appreciated if the entire Art. 311, as it stands in the Statute Book, is extracted as follows :"311. (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 an 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 these 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 criminal charge; or (b) where an 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 (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. "

( 2 ) WE would be treading upon the familiar proposition that Art. 311 does not, in any way, alter or affect the principle that a Government servant holds office at the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and Art. 311 operates as restrictions on the otherwise unfettered powers of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, under Art. 310, according to which every civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor, as the case may be. Article 311 subjects the exercise of that pleasure to the two conditions laid down in it. To put it in other words, the provisions of Art. 311 operate as a proviso to Art. 310 (1) in relation to persons holding civil posts. The two conditions are : (1) That such an employee shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed : and (2) That such an employee shall not be dismissed or removed in rank without any enquiry into the charges against him and without affording him an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Familiar is also the proposition that a violation of Art. 311 (1) or Art. 311 (2) is a justiciable issue in a Court of law as the terms thereof are mandatory and not permissible, qualifying the provisions of Art. 310, and providing a condition precedent for the exercise of power under Art. 310. Any purported removal or dismissal from service of a civil servant without adhering to the prohibitory and mandatory provisions of Art. 311 (1) and Art. 311 (2) would be void and inoperative. Clause (a) of the second proviso to clause (2) of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document