DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

UNION OF INDIA v. TULSI RAM PATEL

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-1

Mr. A. NAGESWARA RAO

ASHIRBAD SAHOO
2019082
3rd SEM

Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMET
I genuinely want to advance my sincere gratefulness to our regarded, Mr A. Nageswara Rao , for giving me a golden chance to take up this
research project that is- “UOI vs Tulsi Ram Patel”. I have attempted my best to gather data about the task in different potential manners to
portray clear picture about the given project.

Page | 2
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The objective of the study is to make a detailed analysis of the case of Union of India vs Tulsi Ram Patel and understand why it is relevant.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY-

The scope of the study is limited to the case of Union of India vs Tulsi Ram Patel.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The researcher has adopted doctrinal method of research. The research is based on secondary sources such as articles, newspaper, books, web
sources.

TYPE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

The researcher has used analytical, explanatory and historical method of study for the following research.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The paper will highlight the case of union of India vs tulsi ram patel and also it will highlight all the issues regarding the case.

LITERATURE REVIEW:
The researcher has taken help of various books, articles and various websites. All the sources used by the researcher are primary sources.

Page | 3
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMET............................................................................................................................................................................................2
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................................................................................................3
SCOPE OF THE STUDY-.....................................................................................................................................................................................3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................................................................................3
TYPE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY..................................................................................................................................................................3
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY......................................................................................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW:.....................................................................................................................................................................................3
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel...............................................................................................................................................................................5
FACTS.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Issues raised................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Issues 1.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Court Held...............................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Issue 2..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Arguments Advanced by Union of India..............................................................................................................................................................6
Court Held...............................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Issue 3..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................................................................................8

Page | 4
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel

FACTS
Tulsiram was a Chief auditor whose augmentation was halted for a year. At the point when not given an appropriate clarification by his senior in
regards to this action, he hit the senior with an iron rod. He was eventually convicted under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code against his
uproarious actions. In result of his criminal conviction, he was forced to retire from his post under clause (1) of Rule 19 of the Civil Service
Rules. The CISF force of the Bokaro Plant formed an All India General Association and began a countrywide disturbance to get
acknowledgment for the association. The gravity of the unsettling was with the end goal that the army was called to make sure about the
boundaries. The fomenters were being forced to hand over the ordnance tin by the army as a necessary security measure. Accordingly, the
association counter-terminated on the army. The concerned individual from the association was excused under sub-rule 'b' of Rule 37 of the
CISF rules of 1969 read with clause 'b' of the subsequent proviso to Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution.

The railway servants were allegedly answerable for the episodes that happened in the All India Strike of the railway representatives to force the
government to acknowledge their demands. The strike by the railway workers was proclaimed 'illegal' as it didn't conform to Section 22 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The railway representatives were excused or taken out under clause 2 of rule 14, read with, clause 'b' of the second
proviso of Article 311 (2).

A man was burned alive in a reasonable held in Gwalior in the result of which, individuals from Madhya Pradesh (M.P) Special Police Force and
District Police Force were taken into judicial custody. In reaction to the capture of their partners, different individuals from both the forces
revolted in the reasonable demanding their delivery. Police being the gatekeeper of the law, had violated the law themselves, the specific
circumstance required brief action. Governor of the state under clause 'c' of the second proviso of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India",
excused these individuals.

These Government Servants, as noticed, without a request or a chance of being heard were either taken out or excused from the services. The
penalties so forced, of one or the other excusal or expulsion, were executed by conjuring any of the three clauses of the proviso added to Article
311(2) of the Indian Constitution or under the comparative rules made under the proviso to Article 309. Abused by these requests, all of them
under Article 226 recorded writ petitions in various High Courts to look for relief. Some of these petitions were acknowledged in the appearance
of the Apex Court judgment in Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and Anr. v. T.R. Challappan 1 and some were dismissed at the
beginning. The individuals whose petitions were dismissed documented a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in which the three-judge
seat found that there exists a contention between T.R. Challapan's case and Gopal Krishna Naidu's case. From that point, the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India comprised a five-judge constitution seat wherein all the appeals and petitions were amalgamated and the last issue was recorded
for removal in the current case.

Issues raised
1) What is the extent to which the Doctrine of Pleasure should be exercised?
2) Whether the “second proviso appended to Article 311(2)” is absolute in nature or allows partial inquiries and show cause notices?
3) Whether the “second proviso appended to Article 311(2)” is violative of “Article 14” and the “Audi Alteram Partem” principle of Natural
Justice?

Issues 1
Arguments Advanced by Government Servants-Government servants fought that the Doctrine of pleasure exists in India just as a reflection of
the British laws and accordingly can't be applied in a similar way as that in England, where it is a unique right of the crown. The doctrine ought
not be practiced from an exacting perspective and should generously be supportive of the government servants.

Arguments Advanced by Union of India-The doctrine of pleasure under "Article 310 of the Indian Constitution" and the safeguards to the
standard given to government servants under Article 311 (1) and (2) are totally ordered in the public interest. Essentially, the "second stipulation
under Article 311 (2)" is additionally instituted for public interest and it is an all-around characterized decide that in the event of an
inconsistency among private and public interest, the last beats the previous.2

Court Held
The court held that it is false to state that Doctrine of Pleasure is moved in India through British crown as the doctrine isn't dependent upon any
law or statute made in the British era by the parliament yet it gets its forces based on what is explicitly referenced in the constitution. The
subsequent proviso has been incorporated by the constitution-creators in the constitution with full knowledge as several conversations and debate

1
1975 AIR 2216, 1976 SCR (1) 783
2
www.supremecourtcases.com

Page | 5
about the equivalent were held in the constituent assembly. To demonstrate that it's anything but a simple reflection of British law it should be
contrasted and "Area 240(3) of Government of India Act 1935" which was incorporated by the British on comparable lines as that of the
subsequent proviso. Segment 240(3) just had two clauses when contrasted with the Constitution of India which has three clauses in the proviso
subsequently it tends to be presumed that constitution-creators were very much aware of the presence of the doctrine of pleasure and have
embedded it in public policy in the public interest for the public good. Thus, it should be not limited to any degree and should be continued in
the way given in the constitution of India.3

Issue 2
Arguments Advanced by Government Servant-As indicated by Government Servants, there are numerous stages preceding an inquiry.
Henceforth regardless of whether the inquiry is dismissed, the show cause notice should be given to the worker and clarification of the
equivalent must be incorporated. It isn't important to dismiss the entire inquiry and just a piece of the inquiry should be dismissed according to
current realities and circumstances of the case. The Penalty doesn't go under the umbrella of inquiry consequently regardless of whether the
inquiry is dismissed the concerned representative should be allowed to speak to himself for the proposed punishment.

Arguments Advanced by Union of India -The very essence of the clauses mentioned in the second proviso of Article 311(2) says that it is not
necessary or pragmatic to have any inquiry. When Article 311(2) becomes inapplicable there is no scope of any kind of inquiry, not even partial
inquiry.

Court Held-The disciplinary committee ought to at first choose the punishment without anyone else and if the concluded punishment is
dismissal, removal or reduction in rank an inquiry should be directed. The choice however should be reached by the committee itself with
respect to which one of three penalties should be forced. The prerequisite is that the punishment ought not be arbitrary, gross or messed up.
Under clause 'a' of the subsequent proviso", the conviction of the concerned servant will add up to a proof of his misconduct and in the wake of
taking into consideration the real factors and circumstances by the disciplinary committee, the choice must be taken without hearing the
concerned employee. Inquiry in "clause 'b' of the subsequent proviso" additionally incorporates part of an inquiry. It is additionally a bit much
that the circumstance which is absurd to hold an inquiry should exist before the inquiry starts and come into picture thusly yet it is obligatory
upon the disciplinary committee to refer to the explanation of the preposterousness, otherwise, the request for penalty will be held to be void and
unconstitutional. In clause 'c' of the subsequent proviso", the data revelation in itself is viewed as a danger to the security of the state thus in such
a case, any inquiry will be as biased to the security of the state as the demonstration itself. Here, under this clause, the fulfilment of the President
and Governor in the reproved dismissal need not be in their own capacity yet by some other individual representing them in their constitutional
capacity. The employees actually have alleviation on the off chance that they are bothered by one of these clauses to request a significant
departmental cure referenced in the administration rules. In the event that they are not happy with the given cure, they can conjure the intensity
of the court of Judicial Review. The departmental allure and inquiry are permitted on a condition that the circumstance which conceived at the
hour of the allure, the circumstances referenced in the second proviso of Article 311(2) ought not exist and in the event that they do, the litigant
may request the delay of the application for a sensible time until the circumstance gets typical. At the point when the punishment is forced by the
President or the Governor it isn't dependent upon departmental audit. In the event that the court finds that the "second proviso of Article 311 (2)"
is applied superfluously and has no connection with the facts. Moreover, on the off chance that it is discovered that such move is made by the
disciplinary committee with mala-fide aims, the court in the activity of Judicial Review can strike down the penalty and start an inquiry.4

Issue 3
Arguments Advanced by the Government Servants-Article 311 is dependent upon "Article 14 of the Indian Constitution". The "second
proviso to Article 311(2)" is violative of "Audi Alteram Partem principle" of Natural Justice which is a fundamental piece of "Article 14 of the
constitution". A show-cause notice looking for a clarification of the concerned servant is required and furthermore a notification with respect to
the proposed penalty must be given. Not sticking to these rules for the creation of either of the notices proffers the request for dismissal,
reduction or removal invalid. Arguments Advanced by the Union of India-Article 311 isn't represented by "Article 14 of the Indian constitution".
The Constitution should be deciphered in entirety. Article 14, however applies the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" and thinks about the
guidelines of Natural Justice yet when the "second proviso of Article 311(2)" explicitly bars the principles of Natural Justice, they can't be
compelled to apply the equivalent by response of "Article 14 of the Indian constitution".

Court Held- Article 14 is the constitutional gatekeeper of the Natural Justice however not the originator of the equivalent. Article 14 isn't simply
restricted to assurance against imbalance yet additionally discretion. At the point when the standards of natural justice are not applied by the
state it prompts mediation pulling in Article 14.

3
www.legalserviceindia.com
4
www.indiankanoon.org

Page | 6
It is a grounded principle that Natural Justice is dynamic in nature and applied by various circumstances and necessities. The principles under it
are not inflexible in character and neither is there any legitimate restraint against its application. They are not unchallengeable but rather
adaptable in character and can be changed, rejected, formed and adjusted by the resolution, rules, Constitution and furthermore by the court
under which the case is held. The enactment and the essential situational network may consistently reject the "Principles of Natural Justice"
including the "Audi Alteram Partem" principle; as unequivocally barred in the second proviso of Article 311(2) in this case.

At the point when principles of Natural Justice are unequivocally dodged in a specific piece of the Constitution, it ought not be brought back by
carelessly upholding Article 14 subsequently causing a similar physical issue which was tried to be kept away from through such proviso.

The Principles of Natural Justice should be unhindered and not total in its training, as a definitive objective of the constitution is Social,
Economic and Political Justice. Where they could be accomplished by its express avoidance, the equivalent ought to not be superfluously
delivered to break up the very motivation behind its existence. The option to have a departmental cure and the constitutional right of Judicial
Review gave on an individual is adequate consistence with the prerequisite of Natural Justice.

Conclusion
This judgment is a milestone one as to characterizing the layers of Natural Justice. As prior, Natural Justice being a general guideline was
stretched out to all strategies, rules, and rules which now and again broke up the very motivation behind its being and existence i.e., to give
justice. The extent of Natural Justice was fuher expanded after the Maneka Gandhi case, which broadened the extent of Article 14 to
intervention, in a roundabout way bringing Natural Justice under the umbrella of Article 14. It, therefore, made it a major right to which the
creator consents to a limited degree. In the creator's assessment, the way that the rebelliousness of Natural Justice Principles doesn't generally
prompt assertion is noticeably dismissed. In this Judgment, however it was held that Natural Justice is definitely not a required arrangement and
can be avoided by the unequivocal arrangements of the Constitution, the last piece of the Judgment explains that departmental audit as indicated
by the court is in the affirmation of the principles of Natural Justice along these lines, not explaining the picture as to supreme prohibition and
consideration of the equivalent.5

In the judgment, the entire discussion was on the Doctrine of Pleasure, its existence, and relevance in India. The court has explained the tenet in
an unequivocal way and has closed its different existence to that of England disclosing the precept to the degree of the constitution. It has
expounded on the further extension and its constitutionality by featuring Article 309 of the Indian Constitution which says that any enactment
relating to the standard of administration can be made dependent upon the arrangements of the Constitution. Consequently, all the guidelines as
likewise referenced in the above situations, which had arrangements on the lines of the precept were held to be constitutional regarding Article
310(1) and "Second Proviso of Article 311(2)". In this way, the constitutionality of the "Second Proviso" explains and favours the
constitutionality of Doctrine of Pleasure in other resolutions too. This case is one of the underlying Indian cases which expressly featured and
organized public interests over private interests. It was significantly the contemporary period when the LPG (Liberalization, Privatization and
globalization) strategies of 1990 appeared that the Corporate Interest and public premium were held to go before private premium. It additionally
featured the domain of "Part III of Indian Constitution" by referencing that however these rights are significant, they can't remove the other
constitutional arrangements.

The constitution must be perused in entire and not read with some other constitutional arrangement until and except if explicitly gave to do as
such. This leads the writer to draw a surmising that constitution arrangements don't go under the severe domain of "Article 13 of the Indian
Constitution" however they should be in concordance with each other. A simple irregularity of any constitution arrangement with that of the
major right doesn't deliver the arrangement to be void. The express arrangements of the constitution being conflicting with the Part III will have
their own space until and except if those arrangements are practical for Justice Delivery to the general public and are not unreasonable in any
way as some other constitution arrangement steady with the principal rights.

Extent of legal audit is additionally seen to be verbalized by this judgment as it obviously clarifies that managerial and semi legal bodies are
likewise dependent upon the Judicial Review after they have depleted all the inner cures present with them. It was plainly given and empowered
in the Judgment for the government servants to practice a similar when their case falls under the domain of the "Second Proviso of Article
311(2)".

This judgment in generally is an incredible and a thorough bit of archive which enunciated the general method and law with respect to the
removal of the government employees. This judgment doesn't limit itself in responding to the concerned inquiry however gives it a more
extensive point of view by breaking down other constitutional arrangements also. This judgment is huge as far as Administrative Law as it

5
www.casemine.com

Page | 7
responds to the inquiries and characterizes the extent of Natural Justice, Fundamental Rights and Judicial Review in managerial bodies. It has
given that a legitimate methodology and course must be practiced by the managerial bodies and its partners for guaranteeing that the strategy is
simply, sensible, reasonable and considering public premium.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/9242.pdf
2) https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=tulsiram%20patel
3) https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/9242.pdf
4) https://www.jstor.org/stable/43951125

Page | 8