A notably long ruling, it addressed a wide range of topics and goals and could serve as a guide for administrative bodies and civil workers who are fired, demoted, or demoted in accordance with “Articles 309, 310, and 311 of the Indian Constitution.” To make it easier for the reader to understand every important detail regarding a given issue or topic and to avoid having to read the entire judgment, the author has separated the case into three main issues.
In situations of removal, dismissal, and reduction in rank of civil servants, the division deals with the doctrine of pleasure, Inquiry, and Natural Justice, primarily with reference to “Article 310(1),”
union of india v tulsiram patel Case Facts
- Tulsiram, the chief auditor, had his promotion stopped for a year. He struck out at his supervisor with an iron rod after receiving no convincing explanation from him for this behaviour.
- He was found guilty and given a jail sentence under section 332 of the indian penal code due to his disruptive behaviour. Because of his criminal conviction, he was obliged to resign from his job in line with subclause (1) of Rule 19 of the Civil Service Rules.
- The CISF of the Bokaro Plant established the All-India General Association and started a national campaign to obtain official recognition for the group. Because of how terrible the rioting was, the army was called in to guard the region.
- As a precaution, the army insisted that the agitators surrender their weapons. The organization retaliated against the military as a result. Under subrule “b” of Rule 37 of the CISF regulations of 1969 and paragraph “b” of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution, the member may be dismissed.
- Railway workers assign blame for the events that transpired during their All-India Strike in an effort to pressure the government to accede to their demands.
- The industrial dispute act of 1947’s Section 22 was breached by the railway workers’ strike, which was declared illegal and the workers were ordered back to work. When read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of rule 14, train employees were released in compliance with Article 311 (2) (b) (clause 2).
- Many policemen from the Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) Special Police Force and the District Police Force were detained after a man was discovered burned to death at a fair in Gwalior.
- To demand the release of their detained allies, other members of both factions staged riots at the fair. Since the law had been broken by the police, who were meant to enforce it, urgent action was required.
- These members were ended by the statement, “Governor of the state under paragraph (c) of the second proviso of article 311(2) of the indian constitution.”
union of india v tulsiram patel Issues
- To what degree ought the Doctrine of Pleasure to be applied?
- Does the “second proviso appended to article 311(2) of the indian constitution” permit show-cause notices and partial inquiries, or is it absolute in nature?
- Is there a violation of both Article 14 and the Natural Justice principle of Audi Alteram Partem by the “second proviso appended to article 311(2) of the indian constitution”?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Article 310 of the Indian Constitution creates the concept of pleasure, and Article 311 of the same text safeguards public servants from the misuse of authority. Public interest always wins out over private interest in a conflict; this is a well-established rule, and the public interest is also served by the use of the “second proviso under Article 311 (2).”
- Given the contents of Article 311(2)’s second proviso, it is not necessary nor feasible to carry out any research. No investigation, not even a restricted one, may continue when Article 311(2) is no longer applicable.
Respondent:
- The civil servants contended that the Doctrine of Pleasure cannot be applied in the same manner as it is in England, where it is a specific prerogative of the monarch, because it is merely an imitation of British law in India. Instead of being severely enforced, the concept ought to be liberally used in favour of government personnel.
- According to government officials, there are a number of steps that must be taken before starting an investigation. As a result, the employee should receive the show cause notice along with a justification for the dismissal of the inquiry. It might be permissible to reject some of the investigation, depending on the details of the case. It is important to provide the sacked employee a chance to refute the allegations, even in the event that the investigation is dismissed.
union of india v tulsiram patel Judgment
- In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, prior to depriving a government employee of his constitutional right to an investigation, it would be necessary to determine if the employee’s actions warranted a dismissal, removal, or decrease in status.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
