Doctrine of Pleasure

Introduction:

The concept of civil servants was introduced in India by the Britishers during the British rule. The laws and regulations were applied according to the needs of the county. Civil servants were contemplated as the backbone of the administration. The administration is an important aspect of a good government. To ensure progress in a country the administration must be strong and there should not be any personal or political influence. There are provisions in the Indian Constitution to protect the interests of civil servants. Part XIV of the Indian Constitution contains provisions related to services under Union and State.

Doctrine of Pleasure

Origin of this doctrine is England law. The Crown in England is counted as Executive head and civil servants as a segment of Executive.  In England, the rule was that Crown can terminate the services of a civil servant at any time they want without giving any notice of termination to that civil servant. The civil servant that has been terminated from his services can not question the Crown or sue the Crown for doing this. They don’t have the right to ask for damages under wrongful termination. Basis of the doctrine is the public policy and the Crown can terminate whenever he feels that this civil servant should be terminated from because keeping him will be a violation of public policy.

Doctrine of Pleasure in India

In India, the President enjoys the powers of Crown and is the Executive Head of Union. The President can remove any civil servant in India any time he wants and he doesn’t need to give prior notice about the termination. The civil servant can neither sue the President not he can claim for any damages from the government or the President for the same.

The Doctrine of Pleasure has not been adopted by India as it is in England. There are some modifications made by the Indian government. The provisions for this doctrine are embodied in the Indian Constitution under Articles 310 and Article 311.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 310 states that all the people who are members of Civil Services and Defence Services of Union or of All India  Services hold office during the pleasure of the President. Similarly, all members of the State Services hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Hence, there are some people who are executed from the operation of this doctrine and they are:

1. Judges of the Supreme Court;
2. Judges of the High Courts;
3. Chief Election Commissioner; and
4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India

There are some restrictions in India on this provision. It restricts the excess use of this power and has certain limits to the provision. The services of a permanent government servant can only be terminated in accordance with Article 309 and not by any other means.

Also, Article 311 provides several procedural safeguards for civil servants. Therefore, a civil servant can not be terminated unless mandatory provisions of Article 311 are observed. The safeguards are provided to the civil servants so that they perform their work fearlessly but in their ambit of duty, and so that they have the security of their jobs. Also, these safeguards ensure that there is so injustice happening to people working for the government and that there is no unjust removal of the civil servants.

The following are the safeguards provided in Article 311 of the Constitution:

1. No Dismissal by Subordinate Authority

It states that a person can be only terminated by some higher authority or someone that has the same designation as the terminated person. No subordinate authority can terminate its superior authority. If such subordinate authority removes a civil servant then that dismissal will be an invalid one.

2. Reasonable Opportunity of being Heard

This provision embodies the principle of Natural Justice. All the parties have the right to be heard by the court. Similarly, the civil servant to be terminated must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

According to this clause, the following steps must be followed to remove a civil servant:

• Holing an enquiry to look up to the allegations made against the government servant. This enquiry is known as departmental enquiry
• Giving the information to the accused government servant about the charges that have been levelled against him
• The accused government servant must be then given a reasonable chance to defend himself and he must be heard

This proviso is very crucial for the civil servants one as it is based upon the principle of natural justice. Principle of natural justice takes care that there is no injustice happening and wherever it is applied it ensures that the parties are being heard and there is no man judge in his own case. Thus by reasonable opportunity here means that the accused is given a fair chance to present his side of the case and defend himself also he should be given fair chance to present his argument before the body hearing the case, to give his statement as a witness, listen to the statements of the witnesses against him so that he knows and ensures there are no wrong statements made and if there are any wrong statements he can bring this into court’s notice and to cross-examine the witness.

Right to these Protections

Even though these protections are for the members working for the government, all the civil servants can not avail these protections. Only some people have the right to these protections mentioned under Article 311.

The people have the right to seek protection under Article 311 are as follows-

1. Member of civil service of Union
2. Member of All India Service; and
3. Member  of Civil service of any State
4. People who hold a civil post under the Union or any State

In  Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India [1], it was held that the protection is for permanently employed government servants and temporarily employed government servants. This does not protect the members of the Armed forces. Also, in this case, the Supreme court laid down two tests when the termination is by the way of punishment and they are-

1. Whether the servant had a right to hold the post or the rank?
2. Whether he has been visited with evil consequences?

Exceptions to Article 311

1. No dismissal by subordinate

The exception to this clause is that an officer of the same rank can remove a civil servant. In Mahesh v. State of UP [2], it was seen that the person appointed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, E.I.R., was dismissed by the Superintendent, Power, E.I.R. the court geld that the dismissal was valid as both the officers were of the same rank.

2. Exclusion from the opportunity of being heard

In some cases the accused is not given the opportunity to be heard. Such cases can be-

• When a person is removed or dismissed on the grounds which lead to his conviction on some criminal charge; or
• Where the disciplinary charged with the work of looking into allegations think its not practicable to carry out an inquiry for the same, Union of India and Another vs Tulsiram Patel and Others [3]; or
• where the President or Governor, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not advantageous or convenient to hold such inquiry.

Thus, to avoid unnecessary removals the information must be presented before the court which mentions the work of accused servant that was the reason or basis of President’s or Governor’s satisfaction. The exception must only be allowed if the court finds the reason is a relevant reason and if the government fails to disclose the nature of action that is the basis of satisfaction then the removal must not be upheld by the court.

Role of Judiciary in Doctrine of Pleasure

In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid [4], it was seen that a sub-inspector was removed from his service because of his cowardice but then was re-hired. He claimed for the arrears of his salary but the government resisted that he can not do so under rule followed in the doctrine of pleasure. This rule is applied in England that no accused or removed government servant can sue the Crown for the same. But in India, the provisions are a bit modified and India has this rule of maintainability of a claim by a civil servant for his arears. Further, in this case, the Supreme court said that the sub-inspector had the right to claim arrears of his salary.

Conclusion

This doctrine of pleasure has been embraced by the English laws but has been modified according to the social structure of India. for the smooth administration in the country all the civil servants are given certain safeguards to protect them from unnecessary removals and terminations. Unlike England, “king can do no wrong” is not appropriate in India as here we have Democracy and not Monarchy. The Executive head here is elected by people and can some times do wrong by any reason. Therefore, rather than reviewing each and every illustration or occurrence of arbitrariness, certain guidelines must be followed while availing the exceptions. In case of any misuse of guidelines or when they are not followed then the removal will be held invalid which will account to speedy redressal to the accused government servant.

---

References:

• https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-pleasure/.

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-pleasure/

[1] AIR 1958 SC 36

[2] AIR 1950 SC 70

[3] 1985 AIR 1416

[4] AIR 245, 1954 SCR 786