Vol. 13 · pages 1016–1020

983DRAFT CONSTITUTION Provided that it shall be competent for the President in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and for the Governor or, as the case may be, the Ruler of a State in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. 282-A. (1) Except as expressly provided by this Constitution, every person who is a member of a defence service or of a civil service of the Union or of an all-India service or holds any post connected with defence or any civil post under the Union, holds office during the pleasure of the President and every person who is a member of a civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor or, as the case may be, the Ruler of the State. (2) Notwithstanding that a person holding a civil post under the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or, as the case may be, of the Governor or Ruler of the State, any contract under which a person, not being a member of a defence service or of an All-India service or of a civil service of the Union or a State, is appointed under this Constitution to hold such a post may, if the President or, the Governor or the Ruler, as the case may be deems it necessary in order to secure the services of a person having special qualifications, provide for the payment to him of compensation if before the expiration of an agreed period that post is abolished or he is for reasons not connected with any misconduct on his part, required to vacate that post. 282-B. (1) No person who is a member of a 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 subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him: Provided that this cause shall not apply— (a) where a person is dismissed, or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; ( b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give that person an opportunity of showing cause; ( c) where the President or Governor or Ruler, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that person such an opportunity. Tenure of office or persons serving the Union or a State Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in the Union or State.

984 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (3) If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give notice to any person under clause (b) of the proviso to clause (2) of this article, the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be final. 282-C. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Part IX of this Constitution, if the Council of States has declared by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest so to do. Parliament may by law provide for the creation of one or more All-India Services common to the Union and the States, and subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, regulate the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. (2) The services known on the date of commencement of this Constitution as the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service shall be deemed to be services created by Parliament under this article.’ ” Sir, I do not propose, at this stage, to say anything on the amendment I have moved, because the article themselves are quite clear. There are several amendments which may raise some points of criticism, and I shall then be in a position to give the House the explanations that may be necessary in order to dispose of those amendments. ***** *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think my friend has said enough on the point and he need not continue. We have understood his point. We must get through today at least one article. Dr. Monomohan Das : If that is the case, I shall stop. ***** †Mr. President: The honourable Member (Mr. Kamath) has exceeded his time-limit. Does Dr. Ambedkar like to speak? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not accept any of the amendments. [All amendments were negatived.] ***** ARTICLE 282-B ***** ‡Shri R. K. Sidhva: We are prepared to sit and finish. We can sit for seven or eight hours. Mr. President: That is not possible. We cannot sit for eight hours. After all we work like human beings. We cannot work like machines. So All-India Services: *CAD, Vol. IX, 7th September 1949, p. 1088. †Ibid., p. 1090. ‡Ibid., p. 1094.

985DRAFT CONSTITUTION I do not think it will be possible. What do you say, Dr. Ambedkar, is it possible to have an afternoon sitting today? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I expect to be back from the Cabinet meeting at about half past five. If the House is prepared to sit for two hours after that, I am quite prepared, but we have a Drafting Committee meeting from half past five onwards, because unless we are ready with the articles which have already been held up, it will be difficult to proceed. We have to go to another place to obtain a decision and then to come here. If the House so wishes, we can change the sitting of the Drafting Committee to some other time. ***** *Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : ... There are various offences like assault, trespass, technical defamation and similar things which are compendiously described as offences not involving moral turpitude. In all such cases if the office master tries to drive him off, all that we ask for is that he should be given an opportunity to show cause. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay : General): There is no amendment to delete clause (3). Your amendment is only to delete sub-clause (b). Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad : Yes, I have given notice of this amendment too. See amendment No. 246. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : There is an amendment by Mr. Jaspat Roy Kapoor to delete clause (3) of 282B. Mr. President: There is an amendment by the Honourable Member (Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad) also. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: He can go on; I merely wanted to draw his attention. ***** †Mr. President: I shall now put the amendments to vote Dr. Ambedkar, do you wish to say anything? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I should like to say one or two words, Sir. As I listened to the criticisms made by the various speakers who have moved their amendments I have come to the conclusion that they have not succeeded in making a clear distinction between two matters which are absolutely distinct and separate: these matters are grounds for dismissal and grounds for not giving notice. This article 282-B does not deal *CAD, Vol. IX, 8th September 1949, p. 1104. †Ibid., pp. 1112-1114.

986 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES with the grounds of dismissal. The matter will be dealt with by the law that will be made by the appropriate legislature under the provisions of article 282. In what cases a person appointed to the civil service should be dismissed from service would be a matter that would be regulated by law made by Parliament. It is not the purpose of this article 282-B to deal with that matter. This article is 282-B merely deals with, as I stated, the grounds for not giving notice before dismissal so that a person may have an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. The purport of this clause is to lay down a general proposition that in every case notice shall be given, but in three cases which have been mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c), notice need not be given. ‘That is all what the article says. It has been, in my judgement, a very wrong criticism which has been made by my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath that this article is a disgrace or a shame or a blot on the Constitution. Shri H. V. Kamath : (Interruption)... The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I should have thought that that was probably the best provision that we have for the safety and security of the civil service, because it contains a fundamental limitation upon the authority to dismiss. It says that no man shall be dismissed unless he has been given an opportunity to explain why he should not be dismissed. If such a provision is a matter of disgrace, then I must differ from my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath in his sense of propriety. Shri H. V. Kamath : I am referring to the provisos to the article. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am coming to the provisos. So far as clause (2) is concerned, I have no doubt in my mind that everybody who has got common sense would agree that this is the best proviso that could have been devised for the protection of the persons engaged in the civil service of the State. The question has been raised that any person who has been convicted in any criminal case need not be given notice. There, again, I must submit that there has been a mistake, because, the regulations made by a State may well provide that although a person is convicted of a criminal offence, if that offence does not involve moral turpitude, he need not be dismissed from the State service. It is perfectly open for Parliament to so legislate. It is not in every criminal charge, for instance, under the motoring law or under some trivial law made by Parliament or by a State making a certain act an offence, that that would necessarily be a ground for dismissal. It would be open to Parliament to say in what cases there need not be any dismissal. It would be perfectly

987DRAFT CONSTITUTION open to Parliament to exclude political offences. This clause in so many words merely deals with the question of giving notice. Parliament may exempt punishment for offences of a political character, exempt offences which do not involve moral turpitude. That liberty of the Parliament is not touched or restricted by sub-clause (a). I want to make this clear. With regard to sub-clause (b), this has been bodily taken from section 240 of the Government of India Act. I think it will be agreed that the object of introducing section 240 of the Government of India Act was to give protection to the services. Even the British people, who were very keen on giving protection to the civil services, thought it necessary to introduce a proviso like sub-clause (b). We have therefore not introduced a new thing which had not existed before. With regard to sub-clause (c), it has been felt that there may be certain cases where the mere disclosure of a charge might affect the security of the State. Therefore it is provided that under sub-clause (c) the President may say that in certain cases a notice shall not be served. I think that is a very salutary provision and notwithstanding the obvious criticism that may be made that it open a wide door to the President to abrogate the provisions contained in sub-clause (2), I am inclined to think that in the better interests of the State, it ought to be retained. Coming to clause (3), this has been deliberately introduced. Suppose, this clause (3) was not there, what would be the position? The position would be that any person, who has not been given notice under sub-clause (a) or (b) or (c), would be entitled to go to a court of law and say that he has been dismissed without giving him an opportunity to show cause. Now, courts have taken two different views with regard to the word ‘satisfaction’ : is it a subjective state of mind of the officer himself or an objection state, that is to say, depending upon circumstances? It has been felt in a matter of this sort, it is better to oust the jurisdiction of the court and to make the decision of the officer final. That is the reason why this clause (3) had to be introduced that no Court shall be able to call in question if the officer feels that it is impracticable to give reasonable notice or the President thinks that under certain circumstances notice need not be given. Now, another misapprehension which I should like to clear is this. Some people think that under the provisions regarding civil service which I have introduced the Government has an absolute unfettered right to dismiss any civil servant and that this power is aggravated by the introduction of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (2). I submit that