AJIT KUMAR versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 830 · Decided: 10-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 830 
AJIT KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2420 of 2011) 
MARCH 10, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Articles 310, 311(2)(b) - Sub-Judge - Removal from 
service invoking provisions of Article 311 (2)(b) - Held: In the 
facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly 
held that it was not possible to hold an inquiry - Service Law. 
Article 311 (2)(b) read with Articles 233, 234 to 236 - Sub-
Judge - Removed from service with the recommendation of 
High Court withoui holding an inquiry - Held: A Subordinate 
Judge is also a judge within the meaning of provision of Article 
233 read with Articles 235 and 236 - High Court is vested with 
E 'the power to take decision for appointments of subordinate 
judiciary under Articles 234-236 - Power could be exercised 
by High Court to dispense with an inquiry for a reason to be 
recorded in writing and such dispensation of inquiry for valid 
reasons when recommended to the Governor, it is within the 
F competence of the Governor to issue such orders in tenns of 
the recommendation of the High Court in exercise of power 
under Article 311 (2)(b) - Independence of Judiciary -
Separation of powers-Service Law. 
G 
An order was issued by the Governor on 31.7.2003 
for removing the appellant, a Subordinate Judge, from 
service on the basis of a resolution of the Full Court of 
the High Court. The appellant filed a writ petition before 
the High Court contending, inter alia, that the High Court 
H 
830 
AJIT KUMAR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. 
831 
did not have any power to dispense with an enquiry as 
A 
envisaged for the purpose of removal of a judicial officer 
like the appellant and, therefore, the impugned order was 
illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also submitted that 
there was no evidence on record to show that the 
appellant was guilty of any misconduct; that no notice 
~ 
was issued to the appellant before his removal from 
service, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
Aggrieved, 
the writ petitioner filed the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1.1. Under the doctrine of pleasure, which has 
been recognized under our Constitutional framework, all 
civil posts under the Government are held at the pleasure 
c 
of the Government and are terminable at its will. The said 
D 
· power received the constitutional sanction in the light of 
Article 310 of the Constitution of India, and is subject to 
other provisions of the Constitution which include the 
restrictions imposed by Article 310 (2) and Articles 311(1) 
and (2). Although there is a pleasure doctrine, however, 
E 
the same cannot be said to be absolute and the same is 
subject to the conditions that when a government 
servant is to be dismissed or removed from service or he 
is reduced in rank, a departmental enquiry is required to 
be conducted to enquire into his misconduct and only · F 
after holding such an enquiry, if he is found guilty then 
only a person can be removed or'dismissed from service 
or reduced In rank. 
Therefore, under the Indian 
constitutional framework, dismissal of civil servants must 
comply with the procedure laid down in Article 311, and 
G 
Article 310(1) cannot be invoked Independently with the 
object of justifying a contravention of Article 311 (2). 
There is an exception provided by way of incorporation 
of Article 311 (2) with sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). Clause 
(a) relates to a case where upon a conviction of a person 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A by a criminal court on certain charges he could be 
removed from service without holding an enquiry. 
Similarly, under clause (c) an enquiry to be held against 
the government employee could be dispensed with if it 
is not possible to hold such an enquiry in the interest of 
B the security of the State. Sub-clause (b), on the other 
hand, provides that such an enquiry could be dispensed 
with by the authority concerned, after recording reasons, 
for which it is not practicable to hold an enquiry. The 
said power is an absolute power of the disciplinary 
c authority who after following the procedure laid down 
therein could resort to such extra ordinary power 
·provided it follows the pre-conditions laid down therein 
meaningfully and effectively. [Para 10] [837-C-H; 838-A-
F] 
D 
1.2. In the case in hand, the officer concerned was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.