Doctrine of Pleasure

Introduction

Civil Servants are considered as the back bone of the administration. In order to ensure the
progress of the country it is essential to strengthen the administration by protecting civil
servants from political and personal influence. So provisions have been included in the
Constitution of India to protect the interest of civil servants along with the protection of
national security and public interest. Part XIV of the Constitution of India deals with Services
under The Union and The State. Article 310 under this doctrine also under Article 311,of
the Indian Constitution provides a legal immunity to Administrative Officials and Civil
Servants from the harshness and un-reasonableness of Political Heads. This immunity
protects the Civil Servant's position against the mis-use of law and procedure against them,
ensuring their safety and protection. The doctrine of Pleasure is one of these concepts which
has been introduced in India under British rule. Under this doctrine, the civil servants were
regarded as servants of the crown and these civil servants served at their pleasure.

Meaning of Doctrine of Pleasure

The doctrine of Pleasure, originating in England, allows the Crown to terminate the services
of civil servants without notice, ensuring that civil servants work at the Crown's pleasure.
This means that civil servants cannot sue the Crown for wrongful termination or seek
damages due to such termination. The doctrine is based on public policy, meaning that if
the Crown believes a civil servant's removal is against public policy, they can remove them
without any legal action. Civil servants work at the Crown's pleasure, and they cannot seek
damages for wrongful termination.

History and Origin

The doctrine of pleasure, which originated in England and came to India during British rule,
is derived from the Latin phrases 'durante bene placito' and 'durante bene placito regis'.
It refers to the King's good pleasure and the King's infallibility as a representative of God.
The Crown, as the ultimate authority, could dismiss civil servants at any time it wished,
without giving notice or stating reasons for termination. Civil servants were not allowed to
question the reasons for their termination, and even a contract could not prevent the Crown
from dismissing them.

During British rule, the Crown exercised this doctrine to remove any civil servant at any time
they wanted, working only under the goodwill of the Crown. The East India Company had
supreme authority to dismiss civil servants whose appointments had been made by it in the
East India Company. The doctrine was first incorporated in the Charter in 1833 and later
acknowledged in British India with its insertion in Section 240 of the Government of India
Act, 1935.

In the post-independence era, English law still has a wide impact on the Indian legal system.
This doctrine states that employees of the government are similar to the Crown's civil
servants, who carry out their responsibilities at the whim of the employer. Employees have no
right to question the employer in case of dismissal.

Scope of the doctrine of pleasure

The doctrine of pleasure refers to the tenure of civil servants under the Crown. In the
Shenton v. Smith (1895) case, the Privy Council emphasized the importance of this doctrine,
stating that without this doctrine it would be challenging to remove public servants whose
service would negatively impact the State. This doctrine was also upheld in Dunn v. Queen
(1896), where it was observed that public servants have no fixed tenure and can be terminated
at any time at the Crown's discretion. This means that civil servants can only hold office at
the Crown's pleasure, implying that civil servants can only hold office at the Crown's
pleasure.

Constitutional Provisions in Relation to Doctrine of Pleasure

Article 155 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the Governor of a State is appointed
by the President and holds the office during the pleasure of the President.

Article 310 of the COI states that the civil servants (members of the Defence Services, Civil
Services, All-India Services or persons holding military posts or civil posts under the
Centre/State) hold office at the pleasure of the President or the Governor as the case may
be.

310- Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State.- The Constitution mandates
that individuals in defence, civil service of the Union, or all-India service, or holding related
posts, hold office during the pleasure of the President. Civil service of a State or civil post
under a State can hold office during the pleasure of the State Governor. However, a person
holding a civil post under the Union or a State may be appointed without being a member if
the President or Governor deems it necessary to secure the services of a person with special
qualifications.

Exceptions to the doctrine of pleasure

The doctrine of pleasure does not apply to the holders of these offices. However, they
can be removed from the office on the grounds of ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’
by following the procedure provided by the constitution in Article 310 and hence those
servants shall be excluded from it. The following persons have constitutionally secured
tenure as follows:

 The Supreme Court and the High Court judges. (Article 124 and Article 217
respectively);
 The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (Article148);
 Chairman and Members of Public Service Commission (Article 317) and
  The Chief Election Commissioner (Article 324).

Restrictions on the Doctrine of Pleasure

The doctrine of pleasure in India is subject to certain restrictions, including the enforceable
contracts between civil servants and the government, and the constitutional guarantees of
fundamental rights. Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution impose restrictions on
the free and unfair use of the doctrine of pleasure, requiring reasonable use and prohibiting
arbitrary exercise. Article 14 prohibits the arbitrary exercise of doctrines based on religion,
race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 15 also prohibits termination of services based on
religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Article 16 ensures equal treatment without
unreasonable discrimination. The Indian Constitution also restricts the application of the
doctrine of pleasure to the tenure of High Courts, Supreme Court judges, Chief Election
Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor-General, and Public Service Commission
members.

Article 311 of the COI provides the following safeguards to civil servants against any
arbitrary dismissal from their posts:
 It imposes restrictions on the removal of a civil servant.
 It provides for civil servants being given a reasonable opportunity for a hearing on the
charges against them.

Landmark Case Laws of Doctrine of Pleasure

State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (1954)

the Supreme Court while discussing the rights of civil servants in India, held that a civil
servant has the right to sue for arrears of his salary, due from the government. This was a
progressive judgment that allowed the civil servants to reach courts for seeking their pending
salaries and arrears.

Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh where it was held that when dismissal of a civil
servant was found to be unlawful, he was entitled to get his salary from the date of dismissal
to the date when his dismissal was declared unlawful.

The Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel case - examined exceptions to Article
311(2), where disciplinary inquiry can be omitted by authority. The Supreme Court ruled that
the prudency test must be applied, considering the facts and circumstances on a case-by-case
basis. The court also stated that a civil servant convicted of criminal charges can be dismissed
or removed without departmental inquiry based upon public policy

Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India has held that under
Article 311 the safeguards are applicable to both permanent and temporary servants
Doctrine of Pleasure in UK

The doctrine of pleasure, developed in the United Kingdom, refers to the Crown's right to
remove or dismiss a public employee at any time. This doctrine is based on the sovereign
right of the Crown, where the King is considered the representative of God and has ultimate
power. Civil servants hold office at the Crown's pleasure and can be dismissed at the Crown's
discretion. The Crown's decisions are final in all appointments and removals. If civil servants
are hired on a contractual basis, the Crown has the absolute power to keep or remove them
from their service. If they are dismissed, they do not receive compensation or have the right
to challenge the Crown's decision to appoint them. Therefore, making a contract at the time
of their appointment or recruitment into a service does not protect civil servants from being
dismissed by the Crown, as the contract has no value in the eyes of the law.

UK India

The doctrine of pleasure in the UK can be

The doctrine of pleasure in India can be applied to
applied to all civil servants, irrespective of any
most of the civil servants, with a few exceptions.
exceptions.

If the civil servants are appointed based on any If the civil servants are appointed on a contractual
contract or on a contractual basis, then the basis, then the State cannot terminate a civil servant
Crown can also terminate a civil servant without a reasonable ground, and the contract will
without giving notice or a reason. be enforceable in a court of law.

Any actions taken against the civil servants by If the State takes an action against a civil servant
the Crown cannot be challenged in a court of that seems wrong, it can be challenged in a court of
law. law.

The relationship of the Crown with its civil The relationship of the State with its civil servants
servants is unilateral and absolute in nature. is neither unilateral nor absolute in nature.

Recent Judgements

In Union Of India And Others v. Major S.P. Sharma And Others (2014), officers
suspected of espionage from Pakistan were tried under Section 18 of the Army Act, 1950.
The espionage activities occurred from 1975 to 1985, posing a national threat to the nation's
security. The officers were terminated from their offices and appealed to the Delhi High
Court, but their special leave petition was dismissed. The aggrieved parties then moved to the
Supreme Court, arguing that the grounds of alleged misconduct in espionage had not been
tried by a Court Martial. The Supreme Court ruled that the court can only review whether
actions for termination of service were taken on the basis of relevant evidence and cannot
determine what grounds would be sufficient to do so. The court also stated that no
justification is needed for using the doctrine of pleasure. The Supreme Court upheld the
right of the President to appoint a person to hold his office at his pleasure, whose service
can be terminated without stating the reason for doing so. The authority will not be held
accountable for terminating a public servant from his post.

In Sunny K. George v. State Of Kerala (2016), the Syndicate of Mahatma Gandhi

University filed a writ petition claiming that the government changed their nominations after
a notification, which they argued was unfair and arbitrary. They also argued that the tenure
after the appointment is four years, making any subsequent notification illegal and arbitrary.
The Kerala High Court ruled that the doctrine of pleasure does not grant an unfettered right to
act arbitraryly, and the removal or dismissal of public servants can be done at the authority's
pleasure without valid reasons or grounds.

In Rajendra Prasad Baudh v. State Of U.P.Thru Secy. Housing (2016), a Buddhist

petitioner filed a writ petition in Allahabad High Court to challenge the state government's
nomination for the position of Vice President of the International Bauddh Research Institute
in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner argued that the appointment was unfair and arbitrary, as the
nominated person was Hindu. The court emphasized that doctrine of pleasure guarantees the
right to remove a public servant from office, but with certain restrictions. The authority does
not have the right to dismiss a public servant at its whim, as this would lose the morality of
the doctrine.

Conclusion

The doctrine of pleasure, adopted from the British legal system, has been modified to suit
India's social structure. The judiciary has played a crucial role in balancing the arbitrary
aspects of this doctrine. However, the principle of 'the King can do no wrong' is not suitable
for India's situation. To ensure fairness, guidelines should be provided for exceptions, and
dismissals can be invalid if not followed. This would provide speedy redressal for aggrieved
parties.