Union of India v Tulsiram Patel
Rule established
Where a proviso to Article 311(2) is validly invoked, the inquiry and with it the right to a hearing are excluded by the Constitution itself, and natural justice cannot be pleaded to restore them. But the satisfaction must rest on relevant material and be reached in good faith, and despite Article 311(3) it remains open to judicial review for mala fides, absence of material or extraneous grounds.
Facts
- The appeals arose out of the dismissal of a number of government servants in circumstances of large scale collective indiscipline.
- In each case the disciplinary authority dispensed with the departmental inquiry by invoking the second proviso to Art.311(2), on the footing that it was not reasonably practicable to hold one.
- Article 311(3) provides that where a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, the decision of the authority empowered to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank shall be final.
- The servants contended that even where an inquiry is dispensed with, the principles of natural justice require that they be heard before dismissal, and that the finality clause could not exclude that requirement.
- They further contended that the recorded satisfaction was formulaic and disclosed no material.
- A subsidiary question arose as to the effect of the 42nd Amendment, 1976, which had removed the requirement of a second opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty.
Issue
- What is the effect of invoking a proviso to Art.311(2) on the requirements of natural justice, and how far is the authority's satisfaction open to judicial review?
Held
- The Court held that where a proviso is validly invoked, the inquiry stands excluded by the Constitution, and since a hearing forms part of that inquiry, the rules of natural justice stand excluded along with it; natural justice cannot be invoked to restore a right which a constitutional provision has expressly removed. The three provisos operate in defined situations: conduct which has led to conviction on a criminal charge; satisfaction that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry; and satisfaction of the President or Governor that an inquiry is inexpedient in the interest of the security of the State. But the Court held that the safeguard is real. The satisfaction must be that of the authority empowered to impose the penalty, must be based on relevant material and reached honestly, and reasons must be recorded. Notwithstanding the finality declared by Art.311(3), the decision is amenable to judicial review where it is shown to have been arrived at mala fide, or on no material at all, or on considerations wholly extraneous to the proviso relied on. The Court also confirmed that after the 42nd Amendment the "reasonable opportunity" in Art.311(2) is confined to the charges, and there is no longer any right to a second opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
Natural justice is a rule of construction supplying what a statute leaves unsaid; it cannot prevail against an express constitutional provision that dispenses with a procedure. But a power to dispense with a procedure is not a power to act on nothing, and a finality clause protects a decision honestly reached on relevant material rather than an assertion unsupported by any. Requiring reasons to be recorded is what makes that limited review possible.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading case on the provisos to Art.311(2). Always state both halves: natural justice is excluded, but the satisfaction is reviewable.
- Learn the three grounds of review notwithstanding Art.311(3): mala fides, absence of material, and extraneous grounds. Add the requirement that reasons be recorded.
- State the three provisos accurately and note who must be satisfied under each: the disciplinary authority under provisos (a) and (b), but the President or Governor under proviso (c) relating to the security of the State.
- Note the effect of the 42nd Amendment: the opportunity is confined to the charges, so there is no second show cause notice on penalty. This is a frequent examination point.
- In a problem, the decisive question is usually the quality of the recorded satisfaction. A one line recital that an inquiry is "not practicable" discloses no material and is vulnerable, however wide the finality clause.
- Read with Parshotam Lal Dhingra v Union of India 1958, which decides whether Art.311(2) applies at all, and Managing Director ECIL v B Karunakar 1993, which governs the conduct of an inquiry where one is held.
Source
Source: (1985) 3 SCC 398; AIR 1985 SC 1416; Constitution Bench of five Judges; the leading authority on the provisos to Art.311(2); citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.