The Supreme Court recently held that a government employee's dismissal, made without a departmental inquiry by merely reciting that holding one was 'not reasonably practicable,' cannot survive judicial review unless the record independently discloses facts justifying that conclusion. A bare paraphrasing of the constitutional language, without underlying material, does not satisfy the safeguard.
Article 310 embodies the 'pleasure' doctrine, but Article 311 qualifies it. Article 311(1) bars dismissal by a subordinate authority, while Article 311(2) mandates an inquiry with notice of charges and a hearing before dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. Its proviso exempts three situations, including where the authority is satisfied, for reasons recorded in writing, that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable. The Court reaffirmed this exception must be construed strictly and requires objective, contemporaneous material, not just recital of the statutory phrase. Service rules under Article 309 remain subject to these Article 311 safeguards.
Remember: Article 310 (pleasure doctrine), Article 311(1) (rank of dismissing authority), Article 311(2) and its three-limb proviso (conviction, impracticability, security of State), and the requirement that 'reasons recorded in writing' must be real and demonstrable, reviewable by courts.