Art. 311(2) | Confirmed Public Servant Can't Be Terminated Over Alleged Illegal Appointment Without Inquiry: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant whose service is confirmed cannot be terminated from the office merely because there was an alleged illegality in appointment. The Court said that a termination without holding a departmental inquiry would be violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

“Confirmation in service is not a mere administrative formality but it confers upon an employee a substantive status carrying with it enhanced security of tenure and the protection of constitutional safeguards available to a civil servant. Once the appellants had attained the status of confirmed employees, their services could not have been terminated by a simpliciter administrative order founded upon allegations touching the validity of their appointments. Whether the appointments suffered from illegality, whether the appellants had any role to play therein, and whether such illegality warranted termination were all matters requiring adjudication in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Article 311(2).”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while reinstating a service of a Copyist in a office of District & Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, Orissa who was terminated from the service in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

What Does Article 311(2) of the Constitution Say on Termination of a Public Servant?

Clause (2) of Article 311 expressly mandates that no person shall be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Constitution, however, recognises limited exceptions to this requirement. The second proviso to Article 311(2) contemplates three situations in which an inquiry may be dispensed with:

“first, where dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank is founded upon conduct which has led to a criminal conviction;

secondly, where the competent authority records in writing its satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; and

thirdly, where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold the inquiry.”

Background

Briefly put, the Appellants have been appointed to the post of Junior Clerk-cum- Copyist in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, whose services were confirmed later on.

While they were continuing their services, a show-cause notice was issued calling upon them to explain why their services should not be terminated. The notice alleged that their appointments were illegal and irregular, inter alia, on the ground that they had been appointed against vacancies in excess of those advertised under the recruitment notification.

The appellants, thereafter, were terminated from the services on the ground that they had been appointed against posts which were allegedly non-existent and, therefore, their appointments were not merely irregular but void ab initio.

Against the termination, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Appeal Committee of the High Court for Subordinate Courts, comprising three sitting Judges of the High Court. However, after dismissal of their appeal, they invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition, the Appellants moved to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

Setting aside the impugned order, the Supreme Court observed that the Appellants were wrongly terminated from their service without holding a departmental inquiry against them.

“The inquiry contemplated by the Constitution is not an empty formality. It is a substantive safeguard designed to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice before a civil servant is visited with serious civil consequences. The constitutional intent is clear that in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law, public employment cannot be terminated at the unfettered discretion of the employer.”, the Court observed.

The Court noted that since the Appellants' case doesn't fall into any of the exceptions provided under the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, their termination without holding a departmental inquiry was vitiated.

“…the High Court fell into manifest error in proceeding on the assumption that an allegation of illegality in appointment, by itself, authorised the termination of confirmed employees without adherence to the constitutional safeguards. Such an approach overlooks the distinction between the validity of an appointment and the procedure required for depriving a civil servant of his employment after he has acquired protected status under the Constitution.”, the Court said.

“We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the action of respondent No. 1 in terminating the services of the appellants without holding a departmental inquiry is clearly violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down on that ground alone.”, the Court held.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, directing the reinstatement of the Appellants to the service. The Court, however, clarified that “it shall be open for the Respondent authorities to proceed against the appellants afresh, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.”

Cause Title: DEBASHISH MOHAPATRA & ORS. VS. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, JAGATSINGHPUR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 721

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suman Tripathy, AOR Mr. Debashis Patnaik, Adv. Mrs. Sashirekha Satapathy, Adv. Ms. Shruti Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anjuman Tripathy, AOR Ms. Amisha Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Manav Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv.