All the 150 public servants working in a Government department were dismissed from service as most of them participated in a Dharna cum Gherao Programme. No inquiry was conducted on the ground of impracticability. Discuss the validity of such dismissal.

Facts of the Case

All 150 public servants working in a Government department were dismissed from service because they participated in a Dharna-cum-Gherao programme. The Government argued that conducting individual inquiries was impracticable and therefore terminated their services without holding any inquiry. The issue arises regarding the constitutional and legal validity of such dismissal.

Issues in the Case

1. Whether mass dismissal of public servants without conducting an inquiry is valid under constitutional and service law provisions.
2. Whether the right to livelihood (Article 21) and principles of natural justice are applicable to public servants, even in cases of mass disciplinary action.
3. Whether impracticability can justify bypassing inquiry procedures under service rules and constitutional safeguards.

Legal Principles Covered

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 14 – Right to Equality
   • Guarantees protection against arbitrary action.
   • Dismissal without inquiry may violate equality, as each individual’s circumstances are not considered.
2. Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
   • Courts have interpreted Article 21 to include right to livelihood, especially for government employees.
   • Arbitrary termination without due process infringes this right.
3. Article 311 – Protection of Civil Servants
   • No government servant can be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank except after:
     1. Holding an inquiry.
     2. Issuing reasonable opportunity to explain.
   • Exception exists only in emergency or exceptional situations, which must be clearly justified.

B. Statutory / Service Rules

1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
   • Rule mandates disciplinary action must follow inquiry.
   • Impracticability is not a sufficient ground for bypassing inquiry in mass dismissals.
2. Principles of Natural Justice
   • Audi alteram partem (right to be heard): Each employee must have opportunity to defend themselves.
   • Reasoned order: Dismissal must be based on findings of fact, not merely participation in protest.

C. Judicial Precedents

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
   • Emphasized that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable.
   • Arbitrary or collective dismissal without hearing is unconstitutional.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
   • Right to engage in peaceful protest cannot be the sole ground for dismissal without inquiry.
3. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
   • Even temporary or mass disciplinary action requires adherence to procedural safeguards.
4. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 88
   • Confirms fundamental rights protection for public servants against arbitrary executive action.

Possible Judgement / Legal Advice

1. Invalidity of Dismissal Without Inquiry
   • Dismissing all 150 employees without conducting inquiry or giving them opportunity to defend is unconstitutional and illegal.
2. Violation of Articles 14, 21, and 311
   • Arbitrary mass dismissal violates right to equality, livelihood, and protection against summary dismissal.
3. Remedies Available
   • Employees can challenge dismissal before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or High Court under Article 226.
   • Seek reinstatement with back wages, citing violation of procedural safeguards.
4. Advisory Conclusion
   • Participation in Dharna-cum-Gherao, even if unauthorized, cannot justify mass summary dismissal without inquiry.
   • The government should conduct proper disciplinary proceedings for each employee and follow natural justice principles.

About lawgnan

If you or your department faces issues related to mass dismissal without inquiry, understand your constitutional and legal safeguards with expert guidance at Lawgnan.in. Learn how Articles 14, 21, and 311 protect public servants from arbitrary termination and ensure fair, just, and reasonable procedures. Our legal experts explain how to challenge dismissals before tribunals or High Courts, seek reinstatement, and assert the right to livelihood and equality under service law. Visit Lawgnan.in today for detailed analysis, case references, and expert legal advice tailored for government employees.