New Delhi: Article 311(2) has once again been reinforced by the Supreme Court, which ruled that a confirmed public servant cannot be removed from service merely because there are allegations that the appointment was illegal. The Court said that once an employee’s service is confirmed, the constitutional safeguards under Article 311(2) become applicable. Any dismissal without a proper departmental inquiry is unconstitutional unless the case falls under the limited exceptions provided in the Constitution.
Article 311(2): Supreme Court’s Key Ruling
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that confirmation in service is not just an administrative process. It gives a government employee constitutional protection against arbitrary dismissal.
Read also: Supreme Court Split Verdict Explained: How Section 17A of the Corruption Law Shields Public Servants
The Court ruled that if authorities believe there was an illegal or irregular appointment, they cannot simply terminate the employee. They must first conduct a departmental inquiry and provide the employee with an opportunity to defend themselves.
What Does Article 311(2) Say
Article 311(2) of the Constitution protects civil servants from being dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without:
- Informing them of the charges.
- Conducting a departmental inquiry.
- Giving them a reasonable opportunity to present their defence.
The Constitution allows only three exceptions where an inquiry may not be required:
- The employee has been convicted in a criminal case.
- The competent authority records that holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable.
- The President or Governor decides that holding an inquiry is not in the interest of the security of the State.
Background of the Case
The case involved several Junior Clerk-cum-Copyists appointed in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha.
After their services were confirmed, authorities issued show-cause notices claiming that the appointments exceeded the number of advertised vacancies. They later terminated the employees, stating that their appointments were illegal from the beginning. The employees challenged the termination before the High Court but did not succeed. They then approached the Supreme Court.
Article 311(2): Why the Supreme Court Set Aside the Termination
The Supreme Court observed that the authorities dismissed the employees without conducting a departmental inquiry.
The Bench explained that Article 311(2) is not a mere formality. It is a constitutional safeguard that ensures fairness and protects government employees from arbitrary action.
The Court also clarified that questions such as whether an appointment was illegal and whether such illegality justifies dismissal must be decided only through the procedure prescribed under Article 311(2).
High Court’s Error
According to the Supreme Court, the High Court wrongly assumed that an allegation of an illegal appointment alone was enough to terminate confirmed employees.
The Bench stressed that there is an important difference between deciding whether an appointment was valid and following the legal procedure required before taking away a confirmed employee’s job.
Relief Granted by the Court Under Article 311(2)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the employees be reinstated. However, the Court clarified that the authorities are free to begin fresh proceedings if they choose, provided they strictly follow the procedure laid down under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
