Article 311 of the Constitution reads as follows:

"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State

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 posts 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: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply:-

   1. Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

   2. Where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

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

3. If, in respect of such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final"

The procedure laid down in Article 311 is intended to assure, first, a measure of security of tenure to Government servants who are covered by the Article, and secondly, to provide certain safeguards against the arbitrary dismissal or removal of Government servant or reduction to a lower rank. The provisions, being constitutional, are capable of being enforced in a court of law. Where in any case there is an infringement of Article 311, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority are void ab initio and in the eyes of law "no more than a piece of waste paper" and the Government servant will be deemed to have continued in service, or in the case of reduction in rank in his previous post throughout.

The implications of the provisions of Article 311 have been the subject of a close examination by several High Courts and by the Supreme Court. In particular in the cases of Parshotam Lal Dhingra and Khem Chand, the observations made by the Supreme Court give an exhaustive interpretation of the various aspects involved and provide the administrative authorities authoritative guidelines in dealing with disciplinary cases.

The Supreme Court in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel and other (decided on 11.07.1985) has defined the principles to be kept in view by the competent authority while taking action under the second proviso to Art. 311 (2) or corresponding service rules as under: -

1. "When action is taken under clause (a) of the second proviso to Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution or rule 19(i) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 or any other service rule similar to it, the first prerequisite is that the disciplinary authority should be aware that a government servant has been convicted on a criminal charge. But this awareness alone will not suffice. Having come to know of the conviction of a government servant on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority must consider whether his conduct, which had led to his conviction, was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and if so what that penalty should be. For that purpose, it will have to peruse the judgement of the criminal courts and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. In considering the matter, the disciplinary authority will have to take into account the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration and other extenuating circumstances or redeeming features. This, however, has to be done by the disciplinary authority by itself. Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the government servant's conduct was blameworthy and punishable, it must decide upon the penalty that should be imposed on the government servant. This too has to be done by the disciplinary authority by itself. The principle, however, to be kept in mind is that the penalty imposed upon the civil servant should not be grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or one not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case

2. "When action is taken under clause (b) of the second provision to Art. 311 (2), there are two conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before action under this clause is taken against a government servant. These conditions are :-

   1. "There must exist a situation, which makes the holding of an inquiry contemplated by Art. 311 (2) not reasonably practicable. What is required is that holding of inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of a reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate all the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Illustrative cases would be: -

      1. "Where a civil servant, through or together with his associates, terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or

      2. "Where the civil servant by himself or with or through other threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the officer who is the disciplinary authority or members of his family so that the officer is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to be held; or

   2. "Where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails at the time the attempt to hold the inquiry is made. The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the civil servant is weak and is, therefore, bound to fail.

   3. "Another important condition precedent to the application of clause (b) of the second proviso to Art. 311 (2), or rule 19 (ii) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 or any other similar rule is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing the reason or reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Art. 311 (2) or corresponding provisions in the service rules. This is a constitutional obligation and, if the reasons are not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following it would both be void and unconstitutional. It should also be kept in mind that the recording in writing of the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must precede an order imposing the penalty. Despite the legal position that the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry need not find a place in the final order itself yet it would be of advantage to incorporate briefly, the reasons which led the disciplinary authority to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, in the order or penalty. While the reasons so given may be brief, they should not be vague or there should not be just a repetition of the language of the relevant rules.

3. "As regards action under clause (c) of the second provision to Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, what is required under this clause is the satisfaction of the President or the governor, as the case may be, that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry as contemplated by Art. 311 (2). This satisfaction is of the President or the Governor as a constitutional authority arrived at with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministries. The satisfaction so reached by the President or the Governor is necessarily a subjective satisfaction. The reasons for this satisfaction need not be recorded in the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; not can it be made public. There is no provision for departmental appeal or other departmental remedy against the satisfaction reached by the President or the Governor. If, however, the inquiry has been dispensed with by the President or the Governor and the order of penalty has been passed by disciplinary authority subordinate there-to, a departmental appeal or revision will lie. In such an appeal or revision, the civil servant can ask for an inquiry to be held into his alleged conduct, unless at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision a situation envisaged by the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is prevailing. Even in such a situation the hearing of the appeal or revision application should be postponed for a reasonable length of time for the situation to become normal. Ordinarily the satisfaction reached by the President or the Governor, would not be a matter for judicial review. However, if it is alleged that the satisfaction of the President or Governor, as the case may be had been reached malafide or was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds, the matter will become subject to judicial review because, in such a case, there would be no satisfaction, in law, of the President or the Governor at all. The question whether the court may compel the Government to disclose the materials to examine whether the satisfaction was arrived at malafide or based on extraneous or irrelevant grounds would depend upon the nature of the documents in question i.e. whether they fall within the class of privileged documents or whether in respect of them privilege has been properly claimed or not."