Doctrine of Pleasure

Introduction
The Civil Services were introduced in India during the British
rule therefore, their laws and regulations were also applied in
India as per the needs of the country. After the independence
of India, the civil services were provided Constitutional
Status.

The laws of England still have a great influence on Indian

laws. The doctrine of Pleasure is one of these concepts which
has been introduced in India from the British rule. Under this
doctrine, the civil servants were regarded as servants of the
crown and these civil servants served at their pleasure.

What is the meaning of Doctrine of Pleasure?

As mentioned before, this doctrine originated in England. In
England, the Crown is regarded as the Executive head and the
civil services are part of the Executive. The doctrine of
Pleasure means that the Crown has the power to terminate the
services of a civil servant at any time they want without
giving any notice of termination to the servant. Thus the civil
servants work at the pleasure of the Crown which can remove
them at any time. When the civil servants are removed from
their service, they do not have the right to sue the Crown for
wrongful termination and they also cannot ask for damages
undergone due to wrongful termination. This doctrine is based
on the concept of public policy and whenever the Crown feels
that a civil servant should be removed from his office because
keeping him will be against public policy, the Crown can
remove such servant.,

What is the Position of Doctrine of Pleasure in India?

The doctrine of pleasure is also followed in India. Since the
President of India is the Executive Head of the Union and he
enjoys the same position as the Crown enjoys in England, the
President has been vested with the power to remove a civil
servant at any time under this doctrine.

While this doctrine has been adopted in India it has not been
blindly copied in the same manner as it is followed in England
and there are some modifications which exist in India’s
adoption of this doctrine from that of England. In India,
Article 310 of the Indian Constitution embodies the provision
for this doctrine.

According to Article 310, except for the provisions provided

by the Constitution, a civil servant of the Union works at the
pleasure of the President and a civil servant under a State
works at the pleasure of the Governor of that State. This
implies that the operation of the Doctrine of Pleasure can be
limited by constitutional provisions. Under the constitution,
the following are excluded from the operation of this doctrine:

1. Judges of the Supreme Court;

2. Judges of the High Courts;
3. Chief Election Commissioner; and
4. Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

Thus, this doctrine is not absolute and is subject to

Constitutional provisions. The civil servants can also be
excluded from the operation of this doctrine because they
have been provided with some protection under Article 311
and thus this doctrine’s application can be limited to civil
servants as well.

What are the Constitutional Safeguards for Civil

Servants?
The Civil servants have not only been provided with
Constitutional status under Article 308 but they have also
been granted some protection under Article 311. By
providing the civil servants with these protections, the
confidence of the public in the civil services is maintained and
the civil servants are also provided with the assurance that
they can honestly carry out their duties without any fear of
unjust or unlawful removal from their office under this
doctrine.

The following are the protections available to a civil servant

under Article 311 of the Constitution:

1. No dismissal by subordinate authority

Under Clause 1 of Article 311, a civil servant can only be
removed from his services by the authority who had appointed
him or some other person who has the same authority or rank
as the appointing authority. So, any person who is subordinate
in authority to the appointing authority, cannot remove a civil
servant and in case he does remove him, the removal will not
be valid.

Illustration: A, a civil servant who was appointed by C. B

who is a subordinate of C, removes A from his office. Here
such a removal will not be valid because B did not have the
same authority or rank as C (the appointing authority). But if
D, who has the same authority as C, removes A then such
removal will be valid under Clause 1 of Article 311.

2. The reasonable opportunity of being heard

Under Clause 2 of Article 311, the civil servants are provided
with the right of being heard. This right embodies the
principle of natural justice by giving a chance to the civil
servant to prove his innocence.

As per this Clause, to remove a civil servant from his post the
following steps should be followed:

1. Holding an enquiry in the allegations made against the

civil servant. This enquiry is known as departmental
enquiry;
2. Providing the accused civil servant with the
information about what charges have been levelled
against him;
3. Providing such a civil servant with a reasonable chance
of being heard in the case.

This protection is very important because under his Article the

Civil servant is provided with a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. While the clause mentions ‘reasonable
opportunity’ it does not define its meaning. When no
clarification is provided for the meaning of reasonable
opportunity, it appears to be ambiguous protection because
there is no method to determine whether a civil servant was
provided with reasonable opportunity or not. Thus, the
meaning of reasonable opportunity has been taken in the same
meaning as the principles of natural justice are understood.
Thus, a reasonable opportunity means that the accused is
given a chance of presenting his side of the case in order to
disprove the charges levelled against him and he should also
have the chance to:

1. Present his arguments before the body which is

conducting the enquiry;
2. Giving his statements as a witness;
3. Listen to the statements of witnesses against him;
4. Cross-examine the witnesses.

When such an opportunity is provided to a civil servant, the

requirement of reasonable opportunity being afforded to him
will be fulfilled.

Illustration: A is a civil servant and corruption charges have

been levelled against him. A departmental enquiry is made to
look into this matter and find out whether A is guilty or not.
But A is not informed about any of the charges which are
made against him and he has not been given a single
opportunity to argue against these allegations and present
evidence. The enquiry concludes that A is guilty without
listening to A and as a result A is removed from his post. Such
removal can be challenged by A in the Court and it will be
held that the departmental enquiry was not valid and the
removal of A cannot be deemed to be valid as it has violated
the provisions of Article 311 Clause 2.

Who has the right to these protections?

While these protections are provided to the people working
for the Government, all the Government servants cannot avail
of these protections. Thus, only certain people have the right
to be protected under the provisions of Article 311.
The following people have the right to be protected under the
provisions of Article 311:

The members of:

1. Civil service of the Union;

2. All India Service; and
3. Civil service of any State.
4. People who hold a civil post under the Union or any
State.
By the words civil services it has been made clear that the
members of the Armed Forces are not part of the servants who
are covered under the provisions in the Constitution, related to
Civil Servants. In the case of Purshottam Lal Dhingra v.
Union of India, it was held that the protection provided under
Article 311 to the civil servants includes permanently
employed civil servants as well as temporarily employed civil
servants.

What are the exceptions to the protection?

While protection has been provided under Article 311 of the
Constitution to ensure that their interests are protected, these
protections are also subject to some exceptions. When these
exceptions arise in a case, the protection cannot be claimed by
the concerned civil servant. The following are the exceptions:

 If the civil servant has been found guilty of a criminal

offence, in such cases the protection under Article 311
cannot be availed for him and in such cases, he can be
removed for misconduct without getting a chance of
being heard.
Illustration: A is a civil servant who has been convicted by a
court for a crime under IPC. In such case when the enquiry is
made for charges against him, he may not be provided with
the chance of being heard and he can be removed and such a
removal will not amount to a violation of article 311. Also, he
may also be removed without having an enquiry and it will
also be a valid removal.

 In cases where the disciplinary charged with the task of

looking into the allegations made against the civil
servant, thinks that it is not practicable to hold an
enquiry for the same, he has the power to not to hold
such an enquiry. In the case of Union of India and
Another vs Tulsiram Patel and Others on 11 July,
198, explained the scope of this exception. The Court
observed that for determining the impracticability of
holding the enquiry the point of view of a reasonable
man has to be used. If a reasonable man who is in this
situation thinks that holding such an enquiry is not
practicable, then not holding such enquiry will not
amount to a violation of Article 311.
 The last exception to the protection under Article 311
is the reasons of security of the State. This right is
given to the President and the Governor as the case
may be and whenever the President or the Governor is
satisfied that it is not in the interest of the security of
State to hold an enquiry, such an enquiry can be
stopped from taking place. Here, actual threat to the
security is not the focus of this exception but only the
satisfaction of the President or Governor about the risk
of threat to security is enough to invoke this exception.
This exception appears to be a loophole against the
protection to civil servants because satisfaction is a
subjective concept and therefore what a person may
 consider being a threat might not be regarded to be the
same by another person.
Thus, to remove this problem, the Government is required to
inform the Court about the nature of the activity of the civil
servant which is the basis for President’s or Governor’s
satisfaction. If the Court finds the reason to be relevant, then
the exception will be allowed but if the reason is not
satisfactory or the government fails to disclose this
information to the court, the validity of the removal of the
civil servant will not be upheld by the court and this exception
will not be applied in such a case.

What is the role of Indian Judiciary on the Doctrine of

Pleasure?
Judiciary plays a very important role in India by performing
its function as the interpreter of laws. While the doctrine of
pleasure has been adopted from the English Law, Judiciary
has through various cases, provided its judgments regarding
the applicability of this doctrine in India.

In the case of State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid, the rule

regarding the maintainability of a claim by the civil servant
regarding arrears for salary was decided by the Supreme
Court. In England, the rule was that a servant could not sue
the Crown for arrears of salary. The same was argued in this
case. A sub-inspector had been removed from his service on
the ground of cowardice and was later re-hired. He filed a suit
for recovering the arrears of his salary but the Government
contended that he cannot do so under the rule followed in the
doctrine of pleasure. The Supreme Court held that this rule
would not apply in India and thus the sub-inspector had the
right to claim the arrears of his salary.
Similarly, the Court also made a judgment regarding another
important provision of the doctrine of pleasure. In the case of
Union of India v. Balbir Singh, it was held that the Court has
the power to examine the satisfaction of the President or the
Governor as the case may be. If the Court finds that the
satisfaction is based on such grounds which have no relation
to the security of the State then, the Court can hold such a
satisfaction to be based on irrelevant and extraneous grounds
and the dismissal of a civil servant can be held invalid.