Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 70 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan, Ex General Secretary, AIPEU Group C

 

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 70 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan, Ex General Secretary, AIPEU Group C

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 70

CCS Rules & Principles of Natural justice

1.    Where enquiry need not be held

While the Constitution has provided protection to the civil servants against the doctrine of removal at pleasure, even where a civil servant is removed, dismissed or reduced in rank by way of punishment, the second proviso to Art. 311 (2) lays down that there shall be no need for an enquiry or for giving notice :

(i)      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.

(ii)     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 an enquiry.

(iii)   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 enquiry.

ii. The Constitution Bench in Tulsi Ram Patel explained the effect of each of the three clauses of the second proviso to Art. 311 (2) as below –

(i)      By reason of C! (a) major penalty is not the automatic result of a conviction on a criminal charge. Conviction of offence of trivial nature may not call for any departmental punishment.

(ii)     As far as Cl (b) is concerned the satisfaction must be that it is not "reasonably practicable" to hold the inquiry. It must be inferred that holding of the enquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation.

(iii)   The expression "in the interest of the security of the State" shows that the question that is relevant under CI (c) is not whether the security of the State has been affected but whether there is even likelihood of acts taking place which could jeopardies the security of the State.

[Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398]

2.        Reliefs and Remedies :

Since the provisions of Art. 311 (1) and (2) are mandatory, a dismissal or removal contrary to these clauses is void and inoperative. In respect of actions taken under the second provisio to Art 311 (2) departmental as well as judicial remedies are available. Departmental remedies are provided under the rules concerned relating to different services while judicial remedy under Art. 32, 136 or 226 can be availed under the well established principles of judicial review of administrative action.