Table of Contents
Introduction and Background
- The doctrine of pleasure has its origins in English law. This means services of civil servants can be terminated at any time by the Crown, without assigning any reason.
- Even if there is a contract of employment involving the Crown, the Crown is not bound by it. In other words, if a civil servant is dismissed from service he cannot claim arrears of salary or damages for premature termination.
The basis of the pleasure doctrine
- Public is vitally interested in the efficiency and integrity of civil services and, therefore public policy requires , public interest needs and public good demands that civil servants who are
- Inefficient,
- dishonest or
- corrupt or
- have become a security risk should not continue in service.
- Constitutional sanction
- Under Article 310(1), except as expressly provided in the Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union of India or of an all India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union of India holds office during the pleasure of the president, and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor of the State.
- Under the constitution, the following are excluded from the operation of this doctrine:
- Judges of the Supreme Court;
- Judges of the High Courts;
- Chief Election Commissioner; and
- Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
- Thus, this doctrine is not absolute and is subject to Constitutional provisions.
Constitutional Safeguards for Civil Servants
- No dismissal by subordinate authority.
- The reasonable opportunity of being heard/inquiry.
Exceptions to the protection given in article 311(2)
- If the civil servant has been found guilty of a criminal offence.
- It is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry
- Security of the State.
Role of Indian Judiciary on the Doctrine of Pleasure
- Supreme Court held in State of Bihar v. Abdul Maj , AIR 1954 SC 245, that the English Common Law has not been adopted in its entirely and with all its rigorous implications. The rule regarding the maintainability of a claim by the civil servant regarding arrears for salary was decided by the Supreme Court.
- In Union of India v. Balbir Singh, the Supreme Court held that the Court can examine the circumstances on which the satisfaction of the president or Governor. If the Court finds that the circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on the security of State, the Court can hold that satisfaction of the president or the Governor which is required for passing such an order has been vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations.
Conclusion
- Difference between British legal system to Indian context.
- Relevancy of Doctrine of Pleasure.
- Corruption among the government officials
Download | Free PDF
WhatsApp