Confirmed court staff cannot be sacked without enquiry under Article 311, holds Supreme Court

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that terminating confirmed Junior Clerks over recruitment irregularities without a departmental enquiry violates Article 311(2), and ordered reinstatement.

The Supreme Court has set aside the termination of court staff who had attained confirmed status in service, holding that their dismissal without any departmental enquiry breached the safeguards under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal of Debashish Mohapatra and others, who had been recruited as Junior Clerk-cum-Copyists in the Jagatsinghpur subordinate judiciary. The Court found that even if the appointments were made against posts said to be in excess of those advertised, confirmed employees could not be removed by a simple administrative order. It quashed the termination, the order of the High Court Appeal Committee, and the Orissa High Court judgment upholding them, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits.

How the dispute reached the Court

An advertisement dated 16 October 2017 was issued by respondent No. 1 for eight posts of Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist. The appellants applied, sat the written examination, and were selected. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were issued appointment orders on 23 July 2018 and joined on 1 August 2018. Appellant No. 3 was appointed on 8 March 2019 and joined on 18 March 2019.

By order dated 25 April 2022, all three were confirmed in service against substantive posts, acquiring the status of confirmed government servants.

A show-cause notice dated 28 February 2023 was then issued to them and eight others from the same recruitment, alleging that they had been appointed against vacancies in excess of those advertised. By order dated 10 March 2023, respondent No. 1 terminated their services, treating the appointments as void ab initio for being made against posts said to be non-existent.

Their appeal before the Appeal Committee of the High Court for Subordinate Courts, comprising three sitting Judges, was dismissed on 12 December 2023. The Orissa High Court dismissed their writ petition under Article 226 by judgment dated 11 December 2024, affirming the terminations.

What the Court held on Article 311

The Court framed the short question as whether termination of confirmed employees without any departmental enquiry violated Article 311. It recorded that no departmental enquiry whatsoever was conducted before the terminations.

The Bench held that Article 311 is not an empty formality but a substantive constitutional protection insulating civil servants from arbitrary deprivation of service. It described the provision as a constitutional manifestation of the guarantee against arbitrariness in Article 14.

Clause (2) of Article 311 requires an inquiry in which the person is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court noted the second proviso allows dispensing with an inquiry only in three narrow situations: conviction on a criminal charge; a recorded satisfaction that inquiry is not reasonably practicable; and the President or Governor's satisfaction on grounds of State security.

The respondents, the Court said, neither held an inquiry nor demonstrated that the case fell within any exception. The constitutional mandate therefore “stood attracted in full force.”

Why confirmation mattered

The Court accepted that public employment must follow the constitutional mandate of equality and that appointments made dehors procedure cannot ordinarily subsist. But it held the authorities, in their anxiety to correct a perceived irregularity, overlooked an equally fundamental safeguard.

Confirmation, the Bench held, is not a mere administrative formality but confers a substantive status carrying enhanced security of tenure. Once the appellants were confirmed on 25 April 2022, their services could not be ended by a simpliciter administrative order founded on allegations about the validity of their appointments. Whether the appointments were illegal, whether the appellants had any role, and whether that warranted termination were all matters requiring adjudication under Article 311(2).

Appointments against anticipated vacancies

The Court examined the Orissa District and Subordinate Courts' Non-Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008, framed under Article 309. It noted the Rules contain no substantive provision on how the number of vacancies is fixed, and that the only reference appears in Provision (5) of Appendix-A.

That provision empowers the District Judge to appoint candidates against vacancies “that have occurred or may occur” within one year of the first appointment from the select list. The Court read this as permitting appointments against anticipated vacancies within the prescribed one-year period, subject to that limitation.

It recorded that the respondents did not contend the appellants were appointed against unsanctioned posts. The appellants had been discharging duties, drawing regular salaries, and enjoying service benefits, showing the authorities themselves treated the posts as sanctioned.

The Court further noted no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or mala fides was made against the appellants. Any irregularity was attributable to the appointing authority, not to the selected candidates.

Order

The Court set aside the Orissa High Court judgment dated 11 December 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13706 of 2024. It quashed the termination order dated 10 March 2023 and the Appeal Committee order dated 12 December 2023.

The appellants were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The Court left it open to the competent authority to proceed against them afresh, strictly in accordance with law and after complying with Article 311(2).

Allowing an impleadment application (I.A. No. 203269 of 2025) by similarly situated persons whose services were terminated by the same order on identical grounds, the Court extended the benefit of the judgment to them and directed their reinstatement in terms of the same direction. The appeal was allowed.