INTRODUCTION:

The Civil Services were introduced in India during the British rule therefore, their laws
and regulations were also applied in India as per the needs of the country. After the
independence of India, the civil services were provided Constitutional Status.

The laws of England still have a great influence on Indian laws. The doctrine of Pleasure
is one of these concepts which has been introduced in India from the British rule. Under
this doctrine, the civil servants were regarded as servants of the crown and these civil
servants served at their pleasure.

Meaning of Doctrine of Pleasure:

As mentioned before, this doctrine originated in England. In England, the Crown is
regarded as the Executive head and the civil services are part of the Executive. The
doctrine of Pleasure means that the Crown has the power to terminate the services of a
civil servant at any time they want without giving any notice of termination to the
servant. Thus the civil servants work at the pleasure of the Crown which can remove
them at any time. When the civil servants are removed from their service, they do not
have the right to sue the Crown for wrongful termination and they also cannot ask for
damages undergone due to wrongful termination. This doctrine is based on the concept
of public policy and whenever the Crown feels that a civil servant should be removed
from his office because keeping him will be against public policy, the Crown can remove
such servant.,

Position of Doctrine of Pleasure in India:

The doctrine of pleasure is also followed in India. Since the President of India is the
Executive Head of the Union and he enjoys the same position as the Crown enjoys in
England, the President has been vested with the power to remove a civil servant at any
time under this doctrine.

While this doctrine has been adopted in India it has not been blindly copied in the same
manner as it is followed in England and there are some modifications which exist in
India’s adoption of this doctrine from that of England. In India, Article 310 of the Indian
Constitution embodies the provision for this doctrine.

According to Article 310, except for the provisions provided by the Constitution, a civil
servant of the Union works at the pleasure of the President and a civil servant under a
State works at the pleasure of the Governor of that State. This implies that the operation
of the Doctrine of Pleasure can be limited by constitutional provisions. Under the
constitution, the following are excluded from the operation of this doctrine.

1. Judges of the Supreme Court;

2. Judges of the High Courts;
3. Chief Election Commissioner; and
4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
Thus, this doctrine is not absolute and is subject to Constitutional provisions. The civil
servants can also be excluded from the operation of this doctrine because they have been
provided with some protection under Article 311 and thus this doctrine’s application can
be limited to civil servants as well.

Constitutional Safeguards for Civil Servants:

The Civil servants have not only been provided with Constitutional status under Article
308 but they have also been granted some protection under Article 311. By providing
the civil servants with these protections, the confidence of the public in the civil services
is maintained and the civil servants are also provided with the assurance that they can
honestly carry out their duties without any fear of unjust or unlawful removal from their
office under this doctrine.

The following are the protections available to a civil servant under Article 311 of the
Constitution:

1. No dismissal by subordinate authority

Under Clause 1 of Article 311, a civil servant can only be removed from his services by
the authority who had appointed him or some other person who has the same authority
or rank as the appointing authority. So, any person who is subordinate in authority to
the appointing authority, cannot remove a civil servant and in case he does remove him,
the removal will not be valid.

Illustration: A, a civil servant who was appointed by C. B who is a subordinate of C,

removes A from his office. Here such a removal will not be valid because B did not have
the same authority or rank as C (the appointing authority). But if D, who has the same
authority as C, removes A then such removal will be valid under Clause 1 of Article 311.

2. The reasonable opportunity of being heard

Under Clause 2 of Article 311, the civil servants are provided with the right of being
heard. This right embodies the principle of natural justice by giving a chance to the civil
servant to prove his innocence.

As per this Clause, to remove a civil servant from his post the following steps should be
followed:

1. Holding an enquiry in the allegations made against the civil servant. This
enquiry is known as departmental enquiry;
2. Providing the accused civil servant with the information about what charges
have been levelled against him;
3. Providing such a civil servant with a reasonable chance of being heard in the
case.

This protection is very important because under his Article the Civil servant is provided
with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. While the clause mentions ‘reasonable
opportunity’ it does not define its meaning. When no clarification is provided for the
meaning of reasonable opportunity, it appears to be ambiguous protection because there
is no method to determine whether a civil servant was provided with reasonable
opportunity or not. Thus, the meaning of reasonable opportunity has been taken in the
same meaning as the principles of natural justice are understood. Thus, a reasonable
opportunity means that the accused is given a chance of presenting his side of the case
in order to disprove the charges levelled against him and he should also have the chance
to:

1. Present his arguments before the body which is conducting the enquiry;
2. Giving his statements as a witness;
3. Listen to the statements of witnesses against him;
4. Cross-examine the witnesses.

When such an opportunity is provided to a civil servant, the requirement of reasonable

opportunity being afforded to him will be fulfilled.

Illustration: A is a civil servant and corruption charges have been levelled against him.
A departmental enquiry is made to look into this matter and find out whether A is guilty
or not. But A is not informed about any of the charges which are made against him and
he has not been given a single opportunity to argue against these allegations and present
evidence. The enquiry concludes that A is guilty without listening to A and as a result A
is removed from his post. Such removal can be challenged by A in the Court and it will
be held that the departmental enquiry was not valid and the removal of A cannot be
deemed to be valid as it has violated the provisions of Article 311 Clause 2.

Right to these protections

While these protections are provided to the people working for the Government, all the
Government servants cannot avail of these protections. Thus, only certain people have
the right to be protected under the provisions of Article 311.

The following people have the right to be protected under the provisions of Article 311:

The members of:

1. Civil service of the Union;

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

By the words civil services it has been made clear that the members of the Armed Forces
are not part of the servants who are covered under the provisions in the Constitution,
related to Civil Servants. In the case of Purshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of
India, it was held that the protection provided under Article 311 to the civil servants
includes permanently employed civil servants as well as temporarily employed civil
servants.
Exceptions to the protection:
While protection has been provided under Article 311 of the Constitution to ensure that
their interests are protected, these protections are also subject to some exceptions.
When these exceptions arise in a case, the protection cannot be claimed by the
concerned civil servant. The following are the exceptions:

 If the civil servant has been found guilty of a criminal offence, in such cases the
protection under Article 311 cannot be availed for him and in such cases, he can
be removed for misconduct without getting a chance of being heard.

Illustration: A is a civil servant who has been convicted by a court for a crime under
IPC. In such case when the enquiry is made for charges against him, he may not be
provided with the chance of being heard and he can be removed and such a removal will
not amount to a violation of article 311. Also, he may also be removed without having an
enquiry and it will also be a valid removal.

 In cases where the disciplinary charged with the task of looking into the
allegations made against the civil servant, thinks that it is not practicable to
hold an enquiry for the same, he has the power to not to hold such an enquiry.
In the case of Union of India and Another vs Tulsiram Patel and
Others on 11 July, 198, explained the scope of this exception. The Court
observed that for determining the impracticability of holding the enquiry the
point of view of a reasonable man has to be used. If a reasonable man who is in
this situation thinks that holding such an enquiry is not practicable, then not
holding such enquiry will not amount to a violation of Article 311.
 The last exception to the protection under Article 311 is the reasons of security of
the State. This right is given to the President and the Governor as the case may
be and whenever the President or the Governor is satisfied that it is not in the
interest of the security of State to hold an enquiry, such an enquiry can be
stopped from taking place. Here, actual threat to the security is not the focus of
this exception but only the satisfaction of the President or Governor about the
risk of threat to security is enough to invoke this exception. This exception
appears to be a loophole against the protection to civil servants because
satisfaction is a subjective concept and therefore what a person may consider
being a threat might not be regarded to be the same by another person.

Thus, to remove this problem, the Government is required to inform the Court about the
nature of the activity of the civil servant which is the basis for President’s or Governor’s
satisfaction. If the Court finds the reason to be relevant, then the exception will be
allowed but if the reason is not satisfactory or the government fails to disclose this
information to the court, the validity of the removal of the civil servant will not be
upheld by the court and this exception will not be applied in such a case.

Role of Indian Judiciary on the Doctrine of Pleasure:

Judiciary plays a very important role in India by performing its function as the
interpreter of laws. While the doctrine of pleasure has been adopted from the English
Law, Judiciary has through various cases, provided its judgments regarding the
applicability of this doctrine in India.

In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, the rule regarding the maintainability
of a claim by the civil servant regarding arrears for salary was decided by the Supreme
Court. In England, the rule was that a servant could not sue the Crown for arrears of
salary. The same was argued in this case. A sub-inspector had been removed from his
service on the ground of cowardice and was later re-hired. He filed a suit for recovering
the arrears of his salary but the Government contended that he cannot do so under the
rule followed in the doctrine of pleasure. The Supreme Court held that this rule would
not apply in India and thus the sub-inspector had the right to claim the arrears of his
salary.

Similarly, the Court also made a judgment regarding another important provision of the
doctrine of pleasure. In the case of Union of India v. Balbir Singh, it was held that
the Court has the power to examine the satisfaction of the President or the Governor as
the case may be. If the Court finds that the satisfaction is based on such grounds which
have no relation to the security of the State then, the Court can hold such a satisfaction
to be based on irrelevant and extraneous grounds and the dismissal of a civil servant can
be held invalid.

Conclusion
While the doctrine of pleasure has been adopted from the British legal system, it has
been modified to suit Indian context as per prevailing social structure in India. The
judiciary has played a key role in balancing the arbitrary aspects of this doctrine by their
power of judicial review.

While England has a Monarch as the Executive head, India elects its Executive head
through elections. So, the principle ‘the King can do no wrong’ is not suitable to the
Indian scenario. Despite the judicial intervention, the exceptions to the protection can
still be misused. Therefore instead of reviewing each and every instance of arbitrariness,
it would be better if certain guidelines are provided which have to be followed while
availing these exceptions. If these guidelines are not followed the dismissal can be held
invalid which will also provide speedy redressal to the aggrieved party.