ARTICLE 311 & GOVT. EMPLOYEE

ARTICLE 311 & GOVT. EMPLOYEE

The Central Minister of Law, Shri Virappa Moili made a public statement that the corrupt government employees should be dismissed or removed from service and Article 311 of the Constitution of India which is protecting them should be amended or be dropped from the Constitution

So far as the first part of his statement is concerned, we entirely agree with him but the second part of his statement that Article 311 should be dropped from the Constitution requires close examination.

Article 311 provides that –

(1) No person who is a member of the civil service of the union or an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State or holds a Civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an Authority sub-ordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as afore said shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Article 311 of the Constitution does not prohibit the government from dismissing any corrupt government employees, it only provides that the delinquent employee should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of charges made against him. There should be an enquiry against him where he will have the opportunity of explaining his conduct. Article 311 has also authorised the government or the concerned Authority in the government not to hold any enquiry where it is not reasonably practicable. The authorities are required only to record the reasons as to why it is not practicable to hold the enquiry.

If the government is armed with so much of power to dismiss a corrupt government employee, after observing some formalities as required by Article 311 what prompted the Law Minister to think of abolishing such a valuable right of the employee.

If the government employee is corrupt, he should immediately be dismissed from service in the greater interest of the administration, but the case of corruption must be proved against him otherwise the employees who are dutiful but upright and a bit independent minded will be subjected to victimisation, if they fail to act according to the whims of their higher bosses.

This valuable right of a citizen or government employee cannot be taken away arbitrarily without giving him any opportunity of being heard. He is entitled to know the crime he has committed.

We should not forget that we are governed by rule of Law on which the entire Constitutional system of this country is based. The cardinal principles of rule of Law is that nobody should be punished without being afforded an opportunity of hearing. The framers of the Constitution had clearly foreseen this danger while drafting the Constitution.

From our experience we know that the corrupt officers/employees are more cunning than others and are capable enough to escape from the clutches of corruption. There are instances that the officers/employees who are a little independent minded and work according to their conscience are mostly victimised by some power hungry unscrupulous political bosses in the government Corrupt Rulers are not prepared to tolerate this type of employees who have such mentality and who have even love for their state or the country. They are guided by their whims and caprices.

Rulers who are corrupt and arbitrary in nature victimise the employees who did not act according to their illegal dictates, by bringing disciplinary proceedings on changes of insubordination, indiscipline, irregularities and corruption.

Employees are also placed under suspension without having any prima facie case against them. This sort of rulers or senior Officers are well-aware of the fact that when someone is placed under suspension his image in the administration and in the estimation of the public is damaged.

Nobody bothers to know whether he is actually guilty or not guilty. In such a society of ours, should we abolish these great rights of the employees for the whims of some political leaders who without examining the real purpose of this constitutional safeguard threaten to amend or abolish the same for earning some cheap popularity?

If for getting rid of the corrupt employees Article 311 has to be amended or dropped from the Constitution, for getting rid of the corrupt Ministers’/Chief Minister or Prime Minister what laws are contemplated to be enacted by the Law Minister. According to his statement Lok Pal and Lokayukt are to be appointed and should be made more functional. Is it enough to eradicate corruption from the high places?

............................................................

The Government told the Lok Sabha today (24-08-11) it is examining the recommendations of an expert committee which suggested amendment in Article 311 of the Constitution to pave the way for summary dismissal of government officials facing corruption charges after beginning of trial in competent courts.

Minister of state for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions V Narayanasamy said in a written reply that a three-member committee of experts was constituted to examine and suggest measures to expedite the process involved in disciplinary and vigilance proceedings.

He said the recommendations are under examination of the Government.

The Minister said the committee has recommended "Amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution to provide for dismissal from service on charges of corrupt practices after beginning of trial in a competent court."

He said the committee has also suggested that second stage consultations with Central Vigilance Commission in such cases be dispensed with.

The Minister said the committee has recommended a time limit of two months for completion of minor penalty disciplinary inquiries and 12 months for major penalty disciplinary inquiries besides making other recommendations.

Narayanasamy said the committee has recommended a cut in pension and gratuity of officials in case of compulsory retirement as major penalty.

The committee has also recommended setting up of Vigilance Commissions with statutory status in states and introduction of plea bargaining in major penalty disciplinary inquiry, he said

...................................................

The Government is considering a set of proposals to cut the time taken to penalise delinquent Government officials including sacking of officials found to be involved in corruption.

The Government had appointed a three member Committee of Experts to examine and suggest measures to expedite the process involved in Disciplinary/Vigilance Proceedings. The Committee has made a number of recommendations aimed at reducing time taken in conducting and concluding disciplinary proceedings against government servants. In its Report, the Committee has recommended :

· Creation of panels of Inquiry Officers from amongst both serving and retired government servants and enhancement of remuneration for conducting inquiries;

· Prescribing a time limit of two months for completion of minor penalty disciplinary inquiries and 12 months for major penalty disciplinary inquiries;

· Dispensing with second stage consultation with CVC;

· Dispensing with consultation with UPSC in minor penalty disciplinary cases;

· Setting up of Vigilance Commissions with statutory status in the States;

· Introduction of Plea-Bargaining in major penalty disciplinary inquiries;

· Major penalty of compulsory retirement to include cut in pension/gratuity;

· Amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution to provide for dismissal from service on charges of corrupt practices after beginning of trial in a competent court;

The Report of Committee is under examination. This was stated by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri V. Narayanasamy in written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.(24-08-2011)

(Source: extracted from some web pages) 
Posted by:Com. N.C.Singh