Question

Consider the following statements with regard to the Doctrine of Pleasure:

(i) The Doctrine of Pleasure allows the President or Governor to terminate a civil servant’s service without providing any notice, based on public policy.
(ii) The tenure of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India is subject to the pleasure of the President.
(iii) The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) held that the Doctrine of Pleasure is based on public policy rather than a feudal prerogative.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

• A. only (i)
• B. only (iii)
• C. only (i) and (iii)
• D. all the above

Answer 1

Answer:

C. only (i) and (iii)

Understanding the Doctrine of Pleasure

• The Doctrine of Pleasure, derived from English common law, asserts that government servants hold office at the 'pleasure' of the Crown (in India, the President or Governor). This implies that their services can be terminated at any time without assigning a reason.
• In India, this doctrine is enshrined in Article 310 of the Constitution. It states that every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, 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.
• The application of the Doctrine of Pleasure in India is not absolute and is subject to constitutional safeguards provided under Article 311.

Key Aspects of Article 311 and its Exceptions

• Article 311 (1) provides that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
• Article 311 (2) stipulates that no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
• However, there are three important exceptions to Article 311 (2), which allow for termination without an inquiry or notice:
  • If 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 (Article 311(2)(a)).
  • 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 such inquiry (Article 311(2)(b)).
  • 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 inquiry (Article 311(2)(c)).
• Therefore, statement (i) is considered correct as the doctrine *does* allow for termination without notice under specific exceptional circumstances based on public policy, as safeguarded and interpreted by the courts.

Tenure of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)

• Statement (ii) is incorrect. The tenure of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) is not subject to the pleasure of the President.
• The CAG is appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and holds office for a term of six years or until he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier (Article 148(3)).
• The CAG can only be removed from office by the President on the same grounds and in the same manner as a judge of the Supreme Court. This requires an address by both Houses of Parliament, supported by a special majority, on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• This stringent removal process is designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the CAG, which is crucial for maintaining accountability in public finance.

Landmark Judgment: Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985)

• Statement (iii) is correct. The Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (1985) is a pivotal ruling concerning the Doctrine of Pleasure and Article 311.
• In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the Doctrine of Pleasure is not an arbitrary or feudal concept but is based on public policy and the necessity for a stable and efficient administration.
• The Court held that the exceptions to Article 311(2) are not arbitrary powers but are essential to maintain discipline, efficiency, and integrity in public services, especially in situations where holding an inquiry is not feasible or desirable. It affirmed that these exceptions are integral to the doctrine and serve a public purpose.