Which one of the following statements about dismissal or removal of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or State (Article 311) is not correct?

Question

Question

This question was previously asked in

MPSC Rajyaseva Prelims 2022 (Held on 21 Aug 2022) (GS) Paper-I Official Paper

Protection under Article 311 is not available to military personnel.
The employees of statutory corporations such as the LIC, ONGC are not entitled to the protection of Article 311.
The provisions of Article 311 are applicable to permanent civil servants only and not to temporary servants.
Suspension of government servant from service is neither dismissal nor removal and is not within the scope of protection of Article 311.

Answer 1

The correct answer is option 3

Key Points

Safeguards to Civil Servants

Article 311 places two restrictions on the above ‘doctrine of pleasure’.
In other words, it provides two safeguards to civil servants against any arbitrary dismissal from their posts.
The employees of statutory corporations such as the LIC, and ONGC are not entitled to the protection of Article 311. Hence option 2 is correct.
A civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
The above two safeguards are available only to the members of the civil services of the Centre, the all-India services, the civil services of a state, or to persons holding civil posts under the Centre or a state. Hence statement 1 is correct.
The provisions of Article 311 are applicable to both permanent civil servants and temporary servants. Hence option 3 is incorrect.
Suspension of government servants from service is neither dismissal nor removal and is not within the scope of protection of Article 311. Hence option 4 is correct.

Additional Information

The second safeguard (holding inquiry) is not available in the following three cases:
- Where a civil servant is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct that has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
- Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a civil servant or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason (to be recorded in writing), it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry.
- Where the president or the governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the state, it is not expedient to hold such an inquiry.
The opportunity of being heard was given to a civil servant at two stages the inquiry stage, and the punishment stage.
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 abolished the provision for a second opportunity. Hence, the Option 4 statement is correct.