Union of India v. Tulshiram Patel, 1985

Facts

Chief auditor Tulsiram had his rise frozen for a year. After being provided no satisfactory explanation for this behaviour by his superior, he lashed out at his superior with an iron rod. As a result of his disruptive behaviour, he was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. In accordance with subclause (1) of Rule 19 of the Civil Service Rules, he was required to resign from his position as a result of his criminal conviction.

The Bokaro Plant’s CISF founded the All-India General Association and began a nationwide movement to get the group officially recognised. Army was brought in to protect the area because of the seriousness of the unrest. The army demanded the withdrawal of weapons from the agitators as a precautionary step. As a result, the group shot back against the military. Dismissal of the member was permitted under subrule ‘b’ of Rule 37 of the CISF regulations of 1969, in conjunction with paragraph ‘b’ of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution.

The occurrences that took place during the All-India Strike of railway workers are blamed on railway employees in an attempt to have the government give in to their demands. Since the railway workers’ strike violated Section 22 of the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947, it was deemed unlawful and the workers were sent back to work. Train workers were let off in accordance with Article 311 (2) (b) (clause 2), when read with paragraph 2 of rule 14.

After a man was found burnt to death at a fair in Gwalior, many officers from the Madhya Pradesh (M.P) Special Police Force and the District Police Force were arrested. Other members of both groups rioted at the fair to seek the release of their arrested comrades. Since the police, who are supposed to uphold the law, had breached it, immediate action was necessary. ‘Governor of the state under paragraph ‘c’ of the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India,'” terminated these members.

As was shown, these Government Employees were either removed or fired from their positions without any kind of investigation or chance to be heard. Any of the three provisions of the proviso added to Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution or the corresponding regulations created under the proviso to Article 309 were used to carry out the penalty of dismissal or removal. All of them, under Article 226, filed writ petitions with various High Courts, appealing the aforementioned rulings. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway & Anr. v. T.R. Challappan, the court granted some of these petitions and initially denied others. The unsuccessful petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court, and a three-judge panel agreed that the cases of T.R. Challapan and Gopal Krishna Naidu are in conflict. A five-judge constitution bench was subsequently formed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, and all of the appeals and petitions were consolidated before that body.

Issues Raised

1. How much weight should be given to the Doctrine of Pleasure?
2. Do “second proviso appended to Article 311(2)” provisions allow for partial inquiries and show cause notices, or are they absolute in nature?
3. The question is whether the “second proviso appended to Article 311(2)” violates “Article 14” and the “Audi Alteram Partem” concept of Natural Justice.

Contentions

1. Plaintiff

Issue 1- “Article 310 of the Indian Constitution” establishes a notion of pleasure; Article 311 of the same document provides government employees with protections against abuse of power. It is a well-established norm that in the event of a conflict between private and public interest, public interest will take precedence over private interest, and the “second proviso under Article 311 (2)” is similarly implemented for public interest.

Issue 2- In light of the nature of the provisions listed in the second proviso of Article 311(2), it is not required nor practical to conduct any investigation. When Article 311(2) is no longer relevant, no investigation, not even a limited one, may proceed.

Issue 3- “Article 14 of the Indian Constitution” does not apply to Article 311. A comprehensive interpretation of the Constitution is required. The “second proviso of Article 311(2)” expressly excludes the principles of Natural Justice, so even though “Article 14 of the Indian constitution” applies the principle of “Audi Alteram Partem” and takes into consideration the rules of Natural Justice, they cannot be forced to apply the same.

• Defendant

Issue 1- Civil employees argued that the Doctrine of pleasure is just a mirror of British legislation in India and, as such, cannot be implemented in the same way as it is in England, where it is a particular prerogative of the monarch. The idea should be freely applied in favour of government employees rather than strictly applied.

Issue 2- Government employees say there are various procedures to go through before an investigation is launched. Therefore, the show cause notice should be delivered to the employee, and an explanation of the dismissal of the inquiry should be included. Depending on the specifics of the case, it may be appropriate to dismiss just a portion of the investigation. Even if the investigation is thrown out, the employee who is being punished should be given an opportunity to defend himself against the charges.

Issue 3- It should be noted that “Article 14 of the Indian Constitution” overrides Article 311. Natural Justice, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, is undermined by the “second proviso to Article 311(2),” which goes against the “Audi Alteram Partem principle.” It is necessary to issue the affected employee a show-cause notice asking for an explanation and a notification of the potential punishment. If one of the required notifications is not produced in accordance with these requirements, the dismissal, reduction, or removal order will be null and void.

Judgement

Issue1- According to the court, the claim that the Doctrine of Pleasure was introduced to India by the British monarch is false since the doctrine is not governed by any statutes or laws enacted during the British period and instead gets its authority from the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

The second provision of the constitution was added by the delegates to the constituent assembly after careful consideration and extensive debate.

To show that the second proviso is not only a reiteration of British legislation, it may be compared to “Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act 1935,” which the British included along the same lines. The fact that the Indian Constitution’s proviso contains three clauses while Section 240(3) only contains two suggests that the constitution’s authors were aware of the doctrine of pleasure and included it in public policy for the common good.

Therefore, it shouldn’t be limited in any way and should be implemented as outlined in India’s constitution.

Issue 2- An investigation must be performed if the disciplinary committee’s first decision results in termination, removal, or a demotion. However, the committee itself should decide which of the three punishments to impose applies. The penalty can’t be excessive or totally out of line with the crime.

A conviction of the concerned servant under paragraph ‘a’ of the second proviso” shall constitute evidence of his misbehaviour, and the disciplinary committee shall make its judgement without hearing the concerned employee after considering all the facts and circumstances.

“clause ‘b’ of the second proviso” also covers inquiries that are only partially completed. In addition, it is not required that the situation which is unreasonable to hold an inquiry should exist before the inquiry starts and come into picture subsequently; however, the disciplinary committee is required to cite the reason of the unreasonableness, or the order of penalty will be held to be null and unconstitutional. Given that clause ‘c’ of the second proviso” treats exposure of information as a danger to state security, any investigation into the matter would be just as detrimental to state security as the publication of information itself. The President and Governor need not act in their individual capacities to satisfy this provision; rather, any other person acting for them in their constitutional capacities will do.

If an employee feels wronged by any of these provisions, they may still seek the appropriate departmental remedy specified in the service regulations. If they are unhappy with the resolution offered, they may seek judicial review.

Departmental appeal and inquiry are permitted if the circumstances listed in the second proviso of Article 311(2) do not exist at the time of the appeal, and if they do, the appellant may request a reasonable postponement of the application until the situation returns to normal. Punishments handed down by the President or the Governor are not open to internal review.

If the court determines that the “second proviso of Article 311 (2)” is being applied arbitrarily and without basis in the circumstances, it may strike down the provision. Furthermore, the court in the exercise of Judicial Review might strike down the sentence and launch an investigation if it is proven that such action is taken by the disciplinary committee with mala fide intents.

Issue3- Article 14 of the Constitution protects the concept of Natural Justice but did not create it. The scope of Article 14’s protection against arbitrariness and inequity is restricted. Article 14 is violated when the state fails to follow the principles of natural justice.

It is generally accepted that Natural Justice is fluid and should be interpreted and implemented flexibly. their underlying concepts are flexible, and their implementation is not constrained by law. They are not indefeasible but rather malleable and subject to alteration by the legislation, regulations, Constitution, and the tribunal presiding over the case.

The “Principles of Natural Justice,” including the “Audi Alteram Partem” concept, may always be omitted by the law and the necessary situational matrix, as specifically excluded in the second proviso of Article 311(2).

It would be counterproductive to reintroduce the principles of Natural Justice where they are expressly avoided in a certain provision of the Constitution by blindly applying Article 14.

Since achieving Social, Economic, and Political Justice is central to the Constitution’s purpose, its application of the Principles of Natural Justice should be unconstrained and not absolute. The same should not be brought up needlessly to dissolve the very aim of its existence when they may be attained by its unambiguous absence.

Providing an individual with access to both administrative appeals and judicial review satisfies the criteria of Natural Justice.

Conclusion

This historic ruling defines Natural Justice’s tiers. Natural Justice, a universal norm, was applied to all policies, laws, and legislation, often negating its objective of providing justice. The Maneka Gandhi case expanded Article 14 to arbitrariness, implicitly placing Natural Justice within Article 14. Thus, it became a basic right that the author supports. The author believes that non-compliance with Natural Justice Principles does not necessarily lead to arbitrariness is overlooked. Though it was held that Natural Justice is not a mandatory provision and can be excluded according to the explicit provisions of the Constitution, the latter part of the Judgement elucidates that departmental review according to the court is in the confirmation of the principles of Natural Justice, thus not clarifying the image as to absolute exclusion and inclusion.

The judgement debated the Doctrine of Pleasure and its validity in India. The court has explicitly explained the idea and determined its distinct existence from England to the extent of the constitution. It cited Article 309 of the Indian Constitution, which states that any rule of service law might be made subject to the Constitution. Thus, Article 310(1) and the “Second Proviso of Article 311(2)” upheld the doctrine-based principles in the aforesaid instances. Thus, the “Second Proviso” confirms Doctrine of Pleasure’s legitimacy in other acts. This was one of the first Indian lawsuits to emphasise public interests above private ones. The 1990 LPG policies prioritised corporate and public interest above individual interest. It also underlined “Part III of Indian Constitution” by stating that these rights are vital but cannot override other constitutional requirements. The constitution must be read in its entirety unless otherwise stated. This suggests that constitution provisions do not fall within “Article 13 of the Indian Constitution” even if they should be in harmony. Constitutional provisions that conflict with basic rights are not invalid. Until and until such provisions are expedient for justice delivery to society and are not unfair, they will have their own place.

This judgement also clarifies that administrative and quasi-judicial agencies are open to court review after exhausting internal remedies. The “Second Proviso of Article 311(2)” allowed government personnel to exercise the same in the Judgement.

This judgement outlined the government employee dismissal method and legislation in a thorough manner. This judgement answers the issue and analyses other constitutional provisions. This Administrative Law decision clarifies the extent of Natural Justice, Fundamental Rights, and Judicial Review in administrative bodies. It requires administrative entities and stakeholders to follow a fair, just, rational, and public-interested process.

This article is written by Samath Agarwal, an intern under Legal Vidhiya