Union of India v.

Tulsiram Patel
Facts
In this case, many government servants were either dismissed or removed from service.
This has been done so without holding any inquiry. The aggrieved parties have not been
informed of the charges against them nor been given any opportunity of being heard in respect of
those charges. The penalty has been imposed upon them under one or the other three clauses of
the second proviso to Article 311(2) or under similar provisions in rules made under the proviso
to Article 309 or in rules made under an Act referable to Article 309. Aggrieved by these orders
of dismissal and removal, several government servants filed writ petitions under Article 226 of
the constitution in different High Courts. In the instant case, the petitioners have challenged
different Service Rules under which they were removed from service without holding any
inquiry and without giving them opportunity of being heard. In the first case, the respondent,
Tulsiram Patel, was convicted under Section 332 of IPC for causing head injury with iron rod to
his superior. He was compulsorily retired under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2)
and the Service Rule 19(i).

Arguments
The arguments advanced on behalf of the government servants on the pleasure doctrine
and the second proviso to Article 311(2) are as follows:
1. Pleasure doctrine in England is a part of the special prerogative of the Crown and has
been inherited by India from England and should therefore, be construed strictly against
the government and liberal in favor of government servants.
2. Unless a liberal construction were placed upon clause (2) of Article 311, the government
servants will face greater hardship as they could arbitrarily be thrown out of employment
and they and their dependents would be left without any means of subsistence.
3. There are several stages before a government servant can be dismissed or removed or
reduced in rank.
4. Therefore, a show cause notice asking for the explanation of the government servant with

respect to the charges against him as also a notice to show cause with respect to the
proposed penalty are required to be given by Article 14 and the not giving of such notice
or either of them renders the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank invalid.

The submissions put forth by the Union of India are as follows:

1. The second proviso must be construed according to its terms. It is unambiguous and does
not admit of any such interpretation as canvassed on behalf of the government servants.
2. Article 14 does not govern nor control Article 311. The Constitution must be read as a
whole. There can be no question of making applicable what has been so excluded by
seeking recourse to Article 14.
3. Consideration of sympathy for the government servants is irrelevant to the construction
of the second provision. All the provisions under Article 310 and 311 are enacted in
public interest and where public interest conflicts with private interest, the latter must
yield to the former.

Judgment
In this case, i.e. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, the Supreme Court has held that the
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Government servant under the second proviso of
Article 311(2) without holding inquiry is in public interest and therefore, not violative of Articles
311(2) and 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Critical Analysis
In the instant case, certain government servants have been dismissed, removed or reduced
in rank under the second proviso of Article 311(2) without holding any inquiry. It has been
contended by the Government that this particular action was in public interest and therefore, not
violative of Articles 311(2) and 14 of the Constitution. The second proviso to Article 311(2)
expressly provides that the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice shall not apply in the
circumstances mentioned in three clauses of the proviso. This phrase leaves no scope for any
kind of opportunity to be given to a government servant. The object underlying the second
proviso is public policy, public interest and public good. When the principles of natural justice
have been expressly excluded by the second proviso, it cannot be imported by resorting to Article
14. Thus, the petitions and appeals of the government servants who have committed wrongs
falling under the second proviso to Article 311(2) are to be dismissed.