The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that once a government employee attains confirmed status in service, the employer cannot terminate that employee merely by alleging irregularities in the original appointment. Such action, the Court held, must comply with the constitutional safeguards under Article 311(2), including the conduct of a proper departmental inquiry unless one of the limited constitutional exceptions applies.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta restored the services of a Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist employed in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha, holding that the termination order violated the protections guaranteed to civil servants under the Constitution.
Confirmation Brings Constitutional Protection
The Court underscored that confirmation in public service is far more than a routine administrative step. It grants an employee a substantive legal status that carries enhanced security of tenure.
According to the Bench, once an employee has been confirmed, the employer cannot sidestep constitutional safeguards by issuing a simple administrative order based on allegations that the appointment itself was illegal. Questions regarding the legality of an appointment, the employee’s involvement, if any, and whether such alleged defects justify dismissal must all be examined through the procedure mandated under Article 311(2).
Scope of Article 311(2)
The judgment reiterates that Article 311(2) bars the dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a civil servant without first conducting an inquiry in which the employee is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
The Constitution permits dispensing with such an inquiry only in three exceptional situations:
- when the action follows a criminal conviction;
- when the competent authority records in writing that holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable; or
- when the President or the Governor concludes that an inquiry would not be in the interest of the security of the State.
Outside these narrowly defined exceptions, the constitutional requirement of an inquiry remains mandatory.
How the Dispute Arose
The appellants had been appointed as Junior Clerk-cum-Copyists in the District & Sessions Judge’s establishment and were subsequently confirmed in service.
Years later, they received show-cause notices alleging that their appointments were irregular because they had allegedly been recruited against vacancies exceeding those advertised. The authorities further claimed that the posts were non-existent, rendering the appointments void from the outset.
Based on these allegations, their services were terminated.
Their challenge before the Appeal Committee of the High Court for Subordinate Courts failed, as did their writ petition before the High Court. They then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Finds Constitutional Violation
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the authorities had bypassed the constitutional procedure by removing confirmed employees without initiating departmental proceedings.
The Bench observed that the inquiry contemplated under Article 311(2) is not a procedural ritual but a substantive safeguard rooted in the principles of natural justice. Public employment, it said, cannot be taken away at the unfettered discretion of the employer in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.
The Court further noted that the case did not fall within any of the exceptions permitting the dispensing of an inquiry. Therefore, the authorities were bound to follow the constitutional procedure before terminating the employees.
It also found fault with the High Court’s reasoning, observing that allegations regarding the legality of an appointment cannot, by themselves, justify dispensing with the protections available to a confirmed civil servant. The legality of an appointment and the procedure required to remove an employee after confirmation are distinct legal questions, the Bench emphasized.
Employees Reinstated
Setting aside the termination orders, the Supreme Court directed that the appellants be reinstated in service.
However, the Bench clarified that the authorities are not barred from initiating fresh proceedings. If they choose to pursue action against the employees, they must do so strictly in accordance with law and only after fully complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
