Can the appointing authority dismiss a public servant from service by invoking the doctrine of pleasure or is the authority bound by the rule of law?

The law on “the Doctrine of Pleasure” and the

scope of judicial review, is no longer res integra; it has

been settled by the Apex Court and also by this Court in

various judgments. The “Doctrine of Pleasure” has its

genesis under the common law. A public servant could be

dismissed from service by the Crown at its pleasure.

However, the doctrine lost the said trait when it was

applied in India, which is a republic, wedded to the

rule of law functioning under a written Constitution.

The authoritarian doctrine, though couched in an

unfettered manner, is but subject to the rule of law.

While considering the justiciability on the exercise of

the power of Doctrine of Pleasure, there is no

adjudication of any lis. The contours of judicial review

is confined to, finding out if the exercise of the power

was “arbitrary, capricious or malafide”. There is no

requirement of any notice preceding exercise of the

power, or to assign any cause for exercise of the power.

Though there is no need to assign reasons, the need for

a valid and compelling reason, exists. In exercise of

the doctrine of pleasure, the principles of natural

justice have no application. [See Deepak v. University of

Kerala 2014 (1) KLT 520, Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 441; B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 2010 (6) SCC 331]. {Para 24}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO. 33664 OF 2022

DR.K.S.CHANDRASEKAR Vs THE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, 

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023

Dated: 24th day of March, 2023

Print Page

Bombay HC: Mere Recovery Of Tainted Currency Not Sufficient For Conviction Under Prevention Of Corruption Act When Substantive Evidence Not Reliable: Bombay HC

The law is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is the sine quo non for constituting an offence under the P.C. Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The defence is to be tested on the basis of preponderance of probability and certainly not on the criteria of proof beyond all reasonable doubt

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2012

Decided On: 09.03.2022

 The State of Maharashtra  Vs.   Ajay Ratansingh Parmar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vinay Joshi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0852/2022

Print Page

Whether sanction for prosecution of government servant not by given appointing authority is valid?

 Contention regarding validity of sanction: Ext.P19 is the sanction order for prosecution against A-1 and the same was under the signature of the then Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya. PW-18, Sri Kharkongor, Secretary in the Political Department, Government of Meghalaya was examined through whom Ext. P9 sanction order was exhibited.

25. Learned Counsel for A-1 contended that Under Section 6 of PC Act "no court shall take cognizance of offence unless previous sanction is obtained........" and so far as A-1 is concerned, Chief Secretary is not the competent authority to remove A-1 and A-1 was appointed by the Governor and the Governor of Meghalaya is the appointing authority, and therefore the sanction should be to the satisfaction of the Governor and Chief Secretary is only the authority communicating the sanction and the prosecution has not adduced any material to show that appointing authority-Governor of Meghalaya was satisfied that the relevant material to approve the sanction for prosecuting A-1 was placed before him.

26. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had taken us through the evidence of PW-18 and submitted that the Chief Secretary accorded the sanction on the basis of report of CBI placed before him and other materials as reflected in the note sheet of the file and then accorded the sanction for prosecuting A-1 and there is valid sanction for prosecution of A-1. Referring to the evidence of PW-18, the courts observed that the then Chief Secretary accorded the sanction on the basis of the report of CBI as reflected in the note sheet of the file and the sanction order does not suffer from any infirmity.

27. As per Article 166(2) of the Constitution of India, all orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by the Governor and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or executed by the Governor. It was not suggested to PW-18 that Chief Secretary has no power whatsoever to authenticate the orders and instruments made and executed in the name of Governor. During trial, the first accused also did not insist for production of the file nor suggested that the sanction order was not approved by the Governor. Referring to Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the trial court observed that the State must be having certain rules where orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor to be authenticated by certain officers of the State Government, the trial court negatived the contention of the first accused challenging the validity of sanction. We find no merit in the contention challenging the validity of sanction to prosecute first accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2056 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 553/2011) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 2057-58 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2203-2204/2011)

Decided On: 16.09.2014

 Edmund S. Lyngdoh Vs. State of Meghalaya

Print Page