GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PROJECT ON- DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE

SUBMITTED TO- SANJEEV CHAUDHARY

SUBMITTED BY- RANU MEENA (12B104)

SUMAN CHAUDHARY (12B147)

1
CONTENT

1. Introduction1
2. Doctrine of Pleasure in India..2

3. Restrictions on the Doctrine of Pleasure.4

4. Person entitled to safeguard ...5

5. Constitutional safeguard available to the civil servants..6

6. Exceptions to the safeguard provided under Article 311 ..12

7. Judicial perspective on Doctrine of Pleasure in India.15

8. Conclusion..16

9. Bibliography ..17

2
INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of Pleasure is a common law rule. This doctrine has its origin in England. The
Doctrine of Pleasure is a special prerogative of the British Crown1. In England, a servant of the
Crown holds office during the pleasure of the Crown & he can be dismissed from the service of
Crown at pleasure. The tenure of office of a civil servant can be terminated at any time without
assigning any cause. Even if there exists any special contract between the Crown & the civil
servant concerned, the Crown is not bound by it. The civil servant is liable to be dismissed
without notice & they cannot claim damages for wrongful dismissal or immature termination of
service2. The Crown is not bound by the any special contract between it & a civil servant, for
theory is that the Crown could not fetter its future executive action by entering into a contract in
matters concerning the welfare of the country. The justification for the rule is that the crown
should not be bound to continue in public service any person whose conduct is not satisfactory3.
This common law Doctrine hence in England is based on Public Policy. The public policy is that
a public servant whose continuance in office is not or is against the public interest must be
relieved of it4.

Civil Servants are considered as the back bone of the administration. In order to ensure the
progress of the country it is essential to strengthen the administration by protecting civil servants
from political & personal influence. So provisions have been included in the Constitution of
India to protect the interest of civil servants along with the protection of national security &
public interest. Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with Services under the Union & the
State. Article 309 empowers the Parliament & the State legislature regulate the recruitment, &
conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services & posts in connection with the
affairs of the Union or of any State respectively.

1 Madhusudan Saharay, Adoption of Foreign Doctrines by the Supreme Court 308 (Eastern Law
House, ed., 2011)

2 http://www.shareyouressays.com/115275/short-speech-on-the-doctrine-of-pleasure. 31 Aug
2013

3 M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 2052 (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 6th ed.,
2010)

4 V N Shukla, Constitution of India 870 (Eastern Book Company, 11th ed., 2011)

3
DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE IN INDIA
Doctrine of Pleasure under the Indian Constitution is also based on the same policy
considerations as it existed under the common law in England Though doctrine of pleasure is
accepted in India as it has developed in England, it has not been completely accepted in India.

Article 310 in the Constitution of India

310. Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State

(1) Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a
defense service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all India service or holds any post
connected with defense or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the
President, & every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post
under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State

(2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State holds office
during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor of the State, any
contract under which a person, not being a member of a defense service or of an all India service
or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under this Constitution to hold such a
post may, if the President or the Governor as the case may be, deems it necessary in order to
secure the services of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to him of
compensation, if before the expiration of an agreed period, that post is abolished or he is, for
reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post

This is the general rule which operates except as expressly provided by the Constitution. This
means that the Doctrine is subject to constitutional limitations. Therefore, when there is a
specific provision in the Constitution giving to servant tenure different from that provided in
Article 310, then that servant would be excluded from the operation of the pleasure doctrine.
The following are expressly excluded by the Constitution from the rule of Pleasure. They are:

1. Supreme court Judges (Article 124)

4
 2. Auditor General (Article 148)
3. High Court Judges (Article 217, 218)
4. A member of Public Service Commission (Article 317)
5. The Chief Election Commissioner.

Though doctrine of pleasure is accepted in India as it has developed in England, it has not been
completely accepted in India. It is subject to the provisions of Article 311 which provides for
procedural safeguards for civil servants.

Article 311 in the Constitution of India 1949

311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the
Union or a State

(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 a 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 & given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those 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 & 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 a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins
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.
Therefore, services of any civil servants cannot be terminated at pleasure unless the mandatory
provisions of Article 311 have been observed. This doctrine of pleasure is further restricted by
the general law of the land which empowers any civil servant to file suit in a court of law for
5
enforcing any condition of his service & for claiming arrears of pay. The power to dismiss at
pleasure any civil servant is not a personal right of the President or the Governor, as the case may
be. It is an executive power which is to be exercised at the advice of Council of Ministers.
Doctrine of Pleasure as contained in Article 310, being a constitutional provision cannot be
abrogated by any legislative or executive law; therefore Article 309 is to be read subject to
Article 3105.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE

Under Indian Constitution several restrictions has been placed on Doctrine of Pleasure. They are
as follows:

I. The service contract entered between the civil servant & government may be enforced.

II. The fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution are restrictions on the pleasure
doctrine & therefore this doctrine cannot be resorted to freely & unfairly, Articles 14, 15
& 16 of the Constitution imposed limitations on free exercise of Pleasure Doctrine.
Article 14 embodies the principle of reasonableness, the principle of reasonableness is
anti-thesis of arbitrariness. In this way, Article 14 prohibits arbitrary exercise of power
under pleasure doctrine. In addition to article 14 of the constitution Article 15 also
restricts arbitrary exercise of power in matters of services. Article 15 prohibits
termination of service on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth or any of
them. Another limitation is under Article 16(1) which obligates equal treatment & bars
arbitrary discrimination.

III. Further the doctrine of pleasure is subject to many more limitations & a number of posts
have been kept outside the scope of pleasure doctrine. Under the constitution the tenure
of the Judges of the High Courts & Supreme Court, of the comptroller & Auditor-General
of India, of the Chief Election Commissioner & the Chairman & Members of Public
service commission is not at the pleasure of the Government6.

5 I P Massey, Administrative Law 581 (8th ed., 2012)

6 Dr. J. J. R. Upadhyaya, Administrative Law, 476 ( Central Law Agency Publications, 8th ed.,
2012)

6
Thus, the general principle relating to civil services has been laid down under Article 310 of the
Constitution to the effect that government servants hold office during the pleasure of the
government & Article 311 imposes restrictions on the privilege of dismissal at the pleasure in the
form of safeguards.

PERSONS ENTITLED TO SAFEGUARD:

Constitutional safeguards provided under article 311 are not available to all the government
servants. The text of the Article refers to members of civil services of the Union or all- India
service of a State or hold a civil post under the Union or a State7.

The constitution bench of the Supreme Court in S.L. Agarwal (Dr.) v. General Manager 8,
Hindustan Steel Limited, generally considered as to who are the persons entitled to the protection
of Article 311. The Court identified the following persons:

(1) Persons who are members of:

(a) A civil service of the union; or

(b) An All India Service; or

(c) A civil service of a State; or

(2) Hold a civil post under the Union or State.

7 AIR 1970 SC 36

8 Samaraditya Pal, Law relating to public service 823(LexisNexis Butterworths wadhwa Nagpur,
3rd ed., 2011)

7
Difficulties have always arisen in relation to the meaning & scope of Civil Post. Though this
expression has been interpreted in many ways there is no debate that Article 311(1) deals with
persons employed in the civil side of administration in contradistinction to defence. Supreme
Court in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta laid down that civil post in Clause (1) means a
post not connected with the defence services & outside the regular civil services9.

Further, in Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India10, the Supreme Court of India has held
that under Article 311 the safeguards are applicable to both permanent & temporary servants.

CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS AVAILABLE TO THE CIVIL

SERVANTS:

There are two constitutional safeguards provided under Article 311 of the Indian Constitution.
They are as follows:

1. Clause (1) of Article 311 addresses itself to the authority who can impose any of the
punishments of dismissal or removal. According to this, no order of dismissal or removal
can be made by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority11. But if the
removing authority is of the same or co-ordinate rank or grade as the appointing authority
then, dismissal or removal by such authority is valid12.
9 Samaraditya Pal, supra note 11 at 830

10 AIR 1958 SC 36

11 Krishna Kumar v. Divl. Asstt., E.E. Central Rly., AIR 1979 SC 1912.

12 Mahesh v. Uttar Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 70

8
 2. Clause (2) of Article 311 provides the procedural essentials to be followed before
dismissing, removing or reducing in rank.

Article 311(2) mandates the compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice. A civil servant
cannot be punished without: (a) holding an enquiry; & (b) informing the civil servant about the
charges against him; & (c) giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those
charges.

The enquiry contemplated by Article 311(2) is generally known as departmental enquiry & the
Constitutional requirements for a proper enquiry within the meaning of Article 311(2) are two-
fold:

(a) The civil servant must be informed of the charges against him; & the civil servant against
whom a accusation of misconduct is made must be Formally informed i.e to say those acts or
omissions of the public servant which are termed as Misconduct under the Service Rules usually
referred to as Conduct rules. But, acts or conduct not covered by such may still amount to
misconduct. It is fundamental & essence of the concepts of fair play & justice that a person
should know why he is being charged13.

(b) He must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those

charges14.Neither the General clauses Act nor the Constitution defines reasonable opportunity.
Reasonable opportunity here too refers to the rules according to Principles of Natural Justice.
Broadly, it implies an opportunity to deny the guilt alleged in order to establish innocence, to
defend by examining himself & his witnesses15.

Civil Post

The protective safe guards given under Article 311 are applicable only to civil servants, i.e.
public officers. They are not available to defence personnel. In State of U. P. v A. N. Singh16 the
Supreme Court has held that a person holds a civil post if there exists a relationship of master &
servant between the State & the person holding the post. The relationship is established if the

13 Surath Chandra Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (1970) 3 SCC 548

14 Samaraditya Pal, supra note 11 at 830

15 Krishna lal vij pg: 830

16 AIR 1965 SC 360

9
State has right to select & appoint the holder of the post, right to control the manner & method of
his doing the work & the payment by it of his wages or remuneration.

Dismissal & Removal

Dismissal & removal are synonymous terms, but in law they acquired technical meanings by
long usage in Service Rules. In case of dismissal a person is debarred from future employment,
but in case of removal he is not debarred from future employment17.

No Removal by Subordinate Authority

No removal by subordinate authority does not mean that the dismissal or removal 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.

Reduction in Rank

Reduction in Rank means reduction from a higher rank or post to a lower rank or post & not
loosing place in rank or cadre. In State of Punjab v Kishan Das18 The Supreme Court held that a
mere reduction in the salary in the same cadre is not reduction in rank.

Inquiry

It is mandatory under Article 311(2) to make an inquiry before the dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank of a civil servant. In that inquiry the civil servant has to be informed of the
charges against him & given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Informed of the charges

Informed of the charges, means serving of a charge sheet explaining the reasons of the charges
levied against the concerned officer & statement of allegations against each charge.

Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard

In Khem Ch& v Union of India19 the Supreme Court held that the 'reasonable opportunity'
means:-
17 Mohd. Abdul Salam Khan v. Sarfaraz, AIR 1975 SC 1064.

18 AIR1971SC766

10
(a) An opportunity to deny his guilt & establish his innocence, which he can do only if he is told
what the charges levied against him are & the allegations on which such charges are based.

(b) An opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witness produced against him & by
examining himself in support of his defiance.

(c) An opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be
inflicted on him.

Termination of Service When Amounts to Punishment.

The protection under Art. 311 is available only when the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
is by way of punishment In Parshotham Lal Dhingra v Union of India20 the Supreme Court has
laid down two tests to determine whether termination is by way of punishment-

(1) whether the servant had a right to hold the post or the rank (under the terms of

contract or under any rule)

(2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences

If yes it amounts to punishment.

Suspension

Suspension of a government employee is not a punishment. It is neither dismissal or removal nor

reduction in rank. So the employee cannot claim a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Compulsory Retirement

Compulsory retirement simpliciter is not punishment. It is done in ' public interest' & does not
caste a stigma on the Government servant. So the employee cannot claim an opportunity to be
heard before he is compulsorily retired from service. The Supreme Court of India has issued
certain guidelines regarding compulsory retirement. In State of Gujarat v Umedbhai M.Patel21
the Court laid down the following principles.

19 AIR 1958 SC300

20 AIR 1958 SC 36

11
 1) When the Service of a public servant is no longer useful to the general administration, the
officer can be compulsorily retired in public interest.

2) Ordinarily the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment under

Art. 311 of the Constitution.

3) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood but the order of
compulsory retirement can be based after having due regard to the entire service record of
the officer.

4) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of & be given due
weightage in passing such order. Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential report
can also be taken in to consideration.

5) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid
departmental inquiry when such course is more desirable.

6) If the officer is given promotion despite adverse entries in the C. R., that is a fact in
favour of the officer.

7) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.

In Baikunth Nath v Chief Medical Officer22 the Court issued further clarifications regarding
compulsory retirement.

1) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma.

2) The order has to be passed by the Govt. in public interest. The order is passed on the
subjective satisfaction of the Govt.

3) Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory

retirement. However courts will interfere if the order is passed mala fide or there is no
evidence or it is arbitrary.

21 AIR 2001 SC 1109

22 (1992) 2 SCC 299

12
 4) The Govt. shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in
the matter particularly during the later years' record & performance.

5) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on

showing that while passing it excommunicated adverse remarks were taken in to
consideration. The circumstances by itself cannot be a basis for interference.

Temporary Employees & Probationers

In State Of Punjab & Anr v Sukh Raj Bahadur23 the Supreme Court laid down the following
principles regarding the applicability of Article 311 to temporary servants & probationers.

1. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his
employment & such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Art.
311 of the Constitution.

2. The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination of service have to be

examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial.

3. If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences or casts an aspersion against
his character or integrity, it must be considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter
whether he was a mere probationer or a temporary servant.

4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched

by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in
service, does not attract the operation of Art. 311 of the Constitution.

5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged Art. 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is
appointed, a charge sheet submitted, explanation called for & considered, any order of
termination of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said article.

The Constitution of India through Article 311, thus protects & safegurds the rights of civil
servants in Government service against arbitrary dismissal, removal & reduction in rank. Such
protection enables the civil servants to discharge their functions boldly, efficiently & effectively.
The public interest & security of India is given predominance over the rights of employees. So
conviction for criminal offence, impracticability & inexpediency in the interest of the security of
the State are recognised as exceptions. The judiciary has given necessary guidelines &
clarifications to supplement the law in Article 311. The judicial norms & constitutional
provisions are helpful to strengthen the civil service by giving civil servants sufficient security of
tenure. But there may arise instances where these protective provisions are used as a shield by
23 AIR 1968 SC 1089

13
civil servants to abuse their official powers without fear of being dismissed. Disciplinary
proceedings initiated by Government departments against corrupt officials are time consuming.
The mandate of reasonable opportunity of being heard in departmental inquiry encompasses the
Principles of Natural Justice which is a wider & elastic concept to accommodate a number of
norms on fair hearing. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice enable the courts to set aside the
disciplinary proceedings on grounds of bias & procedural defects24.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAFEGUARDS PROVODED UNDER ARTICLE 311:

The provision to Article 311 (2) provides for certain circumstances in which the procedure
envisaged in the substantive part of the clause need not be followed. These are as follows:

a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct

which has led to his connection on criminal charge; or

b) Where the 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 inquiry25.

These provisions have been explained below in detail:

(a) Conviction on Criminal Charge:

The Supreme Court has emphasised under Art. 311(2)(a), the disciplinary authority is to regard
the conviction of the concerned civil servant as sufficient proof of misconduct on his part. The
authority is to decide whether conviction demands the imposition of any penalty &, if so, what
penalty. For this purpose, the authority has to take into consideration the judgement of the
criminal court, the entire conduct of the civil servant, the gravity of the offence, the impact of the
offence on the administration, whether the offence was of a technical or trivial nature, &
extenuating circumstances if any. This the Disciplinary authority has to do ex-parte & without
giving a hearing to the concerned civil servant26.

24 See for details, I P Massey, Administrative Law (2003), pp.161-212

25 Article 311, Constitution of India

14
The power has to be exercised by the authority fairly, justly & reasonably. Hearing need not be
given while imposing the penalty after conviction on a criminal charge, But the right to impose a
penalty the duty to act justly27.For instance, a government servant convicted for parking in the
no-parking area cannot be dismissed.

(b) Impracticability:
It is important to know that this clause applies only when the conduct of government servant is
such as he deserves the punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Before denying
government servant his constitutional right to an inquiry, the paramount consideration is whether
the conduct of the government is such as justifies the penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction
in rank.

In Tulsi ram Patel case28 the Supreme Court explaining the scope of the clause has said
whether it was practicable to hold the inquiry or not must be judged in the context of whether it
was reasonably practicable to do so. It is not a total or absolute impracticability which is required
by cl. (b). What is requisite is that holding of the inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a
reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. The Supreme Court further
held that the reasonable practicability of holding an inquiry is a matter of assessment to be made
by the disciplinary as he is the best judge of the situation29.

(c) Reasons of Security:

Under (c) the satisfaction has to be that of the President or the Governor as the case may be. The
satisfaction must be with respect to the expediency or inexpediency of holding an inquiry in the
interest of the security of the State. Security of State being of paramount importance all other
interests are subordinate to it, Security of State may comprise a situation of disobedience &
insubordination on the part of members of the police force. In Tulsi ram Patel case 30 the
Supreme Court has clarified that the question is not whether the security of the State has been
affected or not, for the expression cl(c) is in the interest of the security of State. The interest of

26 Jain supra note 8 at 2092

27 Shankar Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1985 772

28 Union of India v. Tulsi ram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416

29 Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 79

30 AIR 1985 SC 1416

15
security of State may be affected by actual act, or even the likelihood of such acts taking place.
So the Court has observed What is required under cl.(c) is not the satisfaction of the President
or the Governor, that interest of the security of the State is or will be affected but his satisfaction
in the interest of security of State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry as contemplated by
Article 311(2).

The government is under obligation to disclose to the court the nature of the activities of the
employee on the basis of which the satisfaction of the President or the Governor was arrived at
for the purpose of passing an order under Article 311(2)(c). In the absence of any indication
about the activities, it would not be possible for the Court to determine whether the satisfaction
was arrived at on the basis of relevant considerations. The government is under obligation to
place relevant material on the basis of which the satisfaction was arrived at subject to a claim of
privilege under Sections 123 & 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

An employee who is convicted on criminal charges need not be given an opportunity to be heard,
before his dismissal from service. However in Divisional personal Officer, Southern Railway v
T. R. Chellappan31 the Supreme Court held that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal
,removal or reduction in rank without holding an inquiry was unconstitutional & illegal. The
objective consideration is only possible when the delinquent employee is being heard. But in
Union of India v Tulshiram Patel32the Court held that the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
of a person convicted on criminal charges is in public interest, & therefore not violative of Art.
311(2) of the Constitution. The Court thus overruled its earlier decision in Chellappan's case.

JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE ON DOCTRINE OF PLEASURE IN INDIA

The Judicial perspective on Doctrine of Pleasure can be discussed in the following cases:
As we all know that rule emanating from the pleasure doctrine is that no servant of the Crown
can maintain an action against the Crown for any arrears of salary. The assumption underlying
this rule is that the only claim of the civil servant is on the bounty of the Crown & not for a
contractual debt.

31 (1976 ) 3SCC 1990

32 (1985) 3SCC398

16
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel 33, justified the
doctrine of pleasure on the basis of public policy, public interest and public good insofar as
inefficient, dishonest or corrupt persons, or those who have become a security risk, should not
continue in service34

The Supreme Court of India in State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid35 refused to follow this rule of the
Doctrine of pleasure. In this case sub-inspector of police was dismissed from service on the
ground of cowardice, was later reinstated in service. But the government contested his claim for
arrears of salary for the period of his dismissal. The Supreme Court in this case upheld his claim
arrears of salary on the ground of contract or quantum muruit i.e for the value of the service
rendered.

Similarly the Supreme Court reiterated the above ruling in Om Prakash v. State of Uttar
Pradesh36 where it was held that when dismissal of a civil servant was found to be unlawful, he
was entitled to get his salary from the date of dismissal to the date when his dismissal was
declared unlawful.

Further in State of Maharashtra v. Joshi 37, it was held that a claim of arrears of salary was held to
be based on contract. Further the judiciary has also acted as checks & balances on the arbitrary
exercise of the power conferred by the doctrine on the president & the Governor. The Supreme
Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab38 held that in spite of finality of Article 311(3) the
finality can certainly be tested in the court of law & interfered with if the action is found to be
arbitrary or malafide or motivated by extraneous considerations or merely a ruse to dispense with
the inquiry.

33 AIR 1985 SC1416

34 M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 6th ed. 2010)

35AIR 1954 SC 245

36 AIR 1955 SC 600

37 AIR 1969 SC 1302

38 AIR 1991 SC 385

17
In Union of India v. Balbir Singh39, the Supreme Court held that the Court can examine the
circumstances on which the satisfaction of the president or Governor. If the Court finds that the
circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on the security of State, the Court can hold that
satisfaction of the president or the Governor which is required for passing such an order has been
vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations.

CONCLUSION

In England, a civil servant holds his office during the pleasure of the Crown. His services can be
terminated at any time by the Crown without giving any reasons. Article 310 of the Constitution
of India incorporates the English doctrine of pleasure by clearly stating that every person who is
a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all India service or holds
any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the
pleasure of the President, & every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds
any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State . But
this power of the Government is not absolute. Article 311 puts certain restriction on the absolute
power of the President or Governor for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of an officer

Thus it can be said that the Constitution makers then at that time had known about the
discrepancies like corruption to creep into the civil services, so in order not to grant immunity
from summary dismissal to dishonest or corrupt government servants so that they continue in
service for months together at the public expense & to Public detriment. Also at the same time
the judiciary with its limited judicial review & departmental appeal has ensured that the power to
dismiss has not been misused by the authority.

With the lot many cases coming into light in relation to corruption among the government
officials & the linking of various government officials with anti-social elements the Article 310
& 311 of the Indian Constitution envisaged in the Part XIV act as a check & does not allow the
government officials to make mockery of Law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles/ Papers/ websites -

Statutes:
The Constitution of India, 1949

Books:

39 AIR 1998 SC 2043

18
 1. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 6th ed.
2010)
2. P. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company, 8th ed. 2012)
3. V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Company, 11th ed. 2011)
4. Dr. J. J. Upadhyaya, Administrative law (Central Law Agency Publication)
5. Samaraditya Pal, Law Relating to Public Service (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur, 3th ed. 2011)
6. Madhusudan Saharay, Adoption of Foreign Doctrines by the Supreme Court (Eastern
Law House, ed., 2011)

Websites:

1. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/doctrine-of-pleasure-as-under-the-
indian-constitution-1643-1.html
2. http://www.img.kerala.gov.in/docs/downloads/cp_to_cs.pdf

19