Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.45 seconds)Section 240 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Article 310 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Satish Chandra Anand vs The Union Of India on 13 March, 1953
In
Satish Chandra Anand's case (supra), it was a special "
Government of India Act, 1935
Jayanti Prasad vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 23 May, 1951
dismissed ", " removed " or " reduced in rank" ? It has
been said in Jayanti Prasad v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh
(supra) that these are technical words used in cases in
which a person's services are terminated by way of
punishment. Those expressions, it is urged, have been taken
from the service rules, where they were used to denote the
three major punishments and it is submitted that those
expressions should be read and understood in the same sense
and treated as words of art. This leads us to embark upon
an examination of the service rules relating to punishments
to which the Government servants can be subjected.
Section 276 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bihar vs Abdul Majid on 11 February, 1954
Constitution " for the word " Act ". The exceptions
contemplated by the opening words of Art. 310(1) quite
clearly refer, inter alia, to Arts. 124, 148, 218 and 324
which respectively provide expressly that the Supreme Court
Judges, the Auditor-General, the High Court Judges and the
Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his
office except by an order of the President passed after an
address by each House of Parliament, supported by the
requisite majority therein specified, has been presented to
him in the same session for such removal on the ground of
proved misbehaviour or incapacity. These are clearly
exceptions to the rule embodied in Art. 310(1), that public
servants hold their office during the pleasure of the
President or the Governor, as the case may be. Subject to
these exceptions our Constitution, by Art. 310(1), has
adopted the English Common Law rule that public servants
hold office during the pleasure of the President or
Governor, as the case may be and has, by Art. 31 1, imposed
two qualifications on the exercise of such pleasure.
Though; the two qualifications are set out in a separate
article, they quite clearly restrict the operation of the
rule embodied in Art. 310(1). In other words the provisions
of Art. 311 operate as a proviso to Art. 310(1). All
existing laws have been continued by Art. 372, some of
which, e.g., the Code of Civil Procedure make, it possible
for a public servant to enforce his claims
840
against the State. It has accordingly been held by this
Court in the State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (supra) that the
English Common Law rule regarding the holding of office by
public servants only during the pleasure of the Crown has
not been adopted by us in its entirety and with all its
rigorous implications. Passing on to Art. 311 we find that
it gives a two fold protection to persons who come within
the article, namely, (1) against dismissal or removal by an
authority subordinate to that by which they were appointed
and (2) against dismissal or removal or reduction in rank
without giving them a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to
them. Incidentally it will be noted that the word removed
" has been added after the word "dismissed". in both cls.