2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J. Shelat, J
Piyushbhai Bhagvatbhai Gamit – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7162 of 2022

A public servant convicted of a criminal charge, particularly one involving corruption, may be summarily dismissed without a show-cause notice under the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. This exclusion of natural justice is a mandatory constitutional provision rooted in public policy and interest.

Headnote:(A) Constitution - Article 311(2) - Termination of public employment on ground of criminal conviction - Requirement of show-cause notice - In instances covered under the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the constitutional mandate serves to exclude the requirement of a prior inquiry or show-cause notice. The phrase "this clause shall not apply" acts as a clear prohibitory injunction, rendering the hearing requirement an empty formality when the employee has been convicted of a criminal offense by a competent court. (Paras 9, 12.2, 12.3)

(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Doctrine of exclusion - Principles of natural justice, while essential, may be expressly excluded by constitutional or statutory provisions when public interest and public good necessitate prompt administrative action following a judicial determination of grave misconduct. The integrity of public offices requires that convicted individuals not retain positions of authority during the pendency of any challenges to the conviction. (Paras 101, 102)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee of the state security apparatus, was convicted by a court of law for a criminal offense involving corruption. Following the judgment of conviction, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal without issuing a show-cause notice. The petitioner challenged this action, contending that a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The employer maintained that the order was passed lawfully under the constitutional provisions allowing for the summary removal of a public servant upon a criminal conviction.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the disciplinary authority acted within its constitutional mandate. It was determined that the second proviso to the constitution effectively dispenses with the necessity of an inquiry, including the issuance of a show-cause notice, once the conviction is confirmed by a court. The court highlighted that protecting the public from individuals who have been proven to have engaged in corrupt practices is a matter of paramount public policy that outweighs procedural requirements that may otherwise be applicable.

Issues: Whether the issuance of a show-cause notice is a mandatory prerequisite for the dismissal of a public servant upon their conviction in a criminal case, or if such a requirement is excluded by constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the constitutional framework explicitly provides for the exclusion of standard inquiry procedures when a government servant is found guilty of a criminal charge. Because the constitutional provision is an explicit, mandatory instruction, principles of natural justice cannot be reintroduced by implication. The objective of removing a individual who has been judicially determined to be unfit for office serves the public interest, and the disciplinary authority satisfies its legal duty by relying on the judicial record of conviction.

Result: The petition is dismissed.