Article 311 of the Indian Constitution provides protection to government servants by

laying down certain safeguards against arbitrary or punitive actions that may be
taken against them. This article establishes the procedure for imposing major
penalties such as dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank, and ensures that
government servants are given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.

The relevant part of Article 311 states:

(1) 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.

(2) No such person as aforesaid 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.

The main provisions of Article 311 can be summarized as follows:

1. Protection against dismissal or removal by subordinate authority: Article 311

prohibits the dismissal or removal of a government servant by an authority
subordinate to the one by which they were appointed. This ensures that such
decisions are made by higher authorities and are not subject to arbitrary or
vindictive actions.
2. Inquiry and opportunity to be heard: Article 311 mandates that no
government servant can be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank without an
inquiry. The individual must be informed of the charges against them and
given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in their defense.

Case law related to Article 311:

1. Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways (1964): In this case, the
Supreme Court held that the inquiry mentioned in Article 311(2) is a domestic
inquiry, and the principles of natural justice must be followed. The court
emphasized that the government servant should be provided with a copy of
the charges, given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and allowed to
present their own defense.
2. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): The Supreme Court in this case
clarified that Article 311 is not applicable in cases of compulsory retirement. It
held that the power of compulsory retirement does not amount to dismissal
or removal under Article 311(2) and does not require a formal inquiry.
3. Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991): In this case, the Supreme Court
held that the protection under Article 311(2) does not apply if the charges
against the government servant are so serious that it is not reasonably
 practicable to hold an inquiry before imposing the penalty. In such cases, the
government may dispense with the inquiry and proceed with the imposition
of penalty after giving the employee an opportunity to make a representation.

These cases highlight the importance of following the principles of natural justice,
providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and ensuring a fair inquiry before
imposing major penalties on government servants under Article 311 of the Indian
Constitution.