#Article 311

The court quashed an ASI's dismissal, ruling that unsubstantiated fears of witness influence cannot bypass a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)(b). The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with consequential benefits but not back wages, while the department retains the option to initiate a fresh inquiry or await the outcome of criminal proceedings.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a bank’s termination of a probationary employee, ruling that FIRs lodged during probation cannot be used as a ground for dismissal without a proper inquiry, as it breaches natural justice and Article 311. The decision safeguards probationers from stigmatic discharge pending criminal investigations.

The CAT set aside a charge memorandum lacking Finance Minister’s approval, ruling that only the Disciplinary Authority may sanction charge sheets under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The holding confines disciplinary power to the authority, shielding senior revenue officials from ministerial sanction misuse.

The Manipur High Court ruled that a CISF constable cannot be summarily dismissed under Article 311(2) unless the authority’s satisfaction is supported by objective evidence, not merely subjective belief. This safeguards service members from arbitrary termination and mandates a proper departmental enquiry.

Conviction can justify termination of a government employee even when Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act is invoked. The Supreme Court also awarded Rs 5 lakh compensation for the earlier illegal discharge, underscoring that Section 12 offers no protection against service termination.

Allahabad High Court rules that public employment secured through forged documents is void from inception, irrespective of service duration. The court held that no departmental inquiry under Article 311 is required, reinforcing that fraud vitiates all actions in service law.

Gujarat High Court rules that government servants convicted of corruption can be dismissed without a show-cause notice under Article 311(2)(a), prioritizing public interest over procedural safeguards. The judgment reinforces that criminal conviction alone justifies bypassing natural justice protections for civil servants.

Allahabad High Court holds that oral hearing is an implicit requirement under UP Government Servants Rules 1999, even when no witnesses are proposed, to uphold natural justice.