8/7/2019 Kalu

1/3

ETHICS IN BUSINESS

PRESENTATION

A.Whistle Blowing -Earnest FitzgeraldB.White collar crimes -Kalus folly

B. White collar crimes -Kalus folly

Constitutional Protection

The constitution of India under Article 311 operates as a provision to Article. 310(1).Art. 311 gives

protection,

(i) against dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to that by which appointed

(ii) against dismissal, removal or reduction in rank without giving a reasonableopportunity of showing cause against proposed action.

(iii) Protection under Art. 311 available to permanent as well as temporary employees.

(iv) To invoke Art. 311, Court has to apply two tests, viz. a.whether the Government servant has right to the post or the rank or

8/7/2019 Kalu

2/3

b.whether he has been visited with evil consequences

(A)Termination of permanent post Permanent post gives the servant right to hold the post until

he attains the age of superannuation or is compulsorily retired after having put in prescribed service

or post is abolished. His services cannot be terminated except by way of punishment on proper

inquiry after due notice. When a servant has right to a post, the termination or his reduction to a

lower post is by itself a punishment, for it operates as a forfeiture of his right to hold that post . But if

servant has no right to the post and Government has by contract, express or implied or under the

Rules the right to terminate the employment at any time, then such termination is prima facie and

per se not a punishment and does not attract Article. 311 of Constitution.

(B) The article 311 acts as a safeguard to civil servants. It reads as under;

(i) 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 .

(ii) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except

after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a

reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where, it is

proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be

imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be

necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty

proposed: Provided further that this clause 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; or

(b) where the 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 hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest

of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry

(C) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably

practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority

empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final ."

The procedure laid down in Article 311 is intended to assure, first, a measure of security of

tenure to Government servants, who are covered by the Article and secondly to provide certainsafeguards against arbitrary dismissal or removal of a Government servant or reduction to a

lower rank. These provisions are enforceable in a court of law . Where there is an infringement of

Article 311, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority are void ab-initio and in the eye of

law "no more than a piece of waste paper" and the Government servant will be deemed to have

continued in service or in the case of reduction in rank, in his previous post throughout.Article

311 is of the nature of a proviso to Article 310. The exercise of pleasure by the President under

Article 310 is thus controlled and regulated by the provisions ofArticle 311.

8/7/2019 Kalu

3/3

Case Summary

The Central government employees are on the verge of a strike.There is steep divide between the lower employees who want equality and the elitist ICS

officers who believe them to be a nuisance.

Kalu was known to be loud, boisterous and who frequently indulged in unpleasant behavior .Rani Chabra had once complained to Chandra that Kalu had teased her but Chandra failed to

take any action against Kalu.

Rangachari asked Chandra if he had a problem with any of his staff. Chandra took Kalusname in response without thinking much about the consequences.

When the strike failed to take off at midnight, Rangachari arbitrarily served dismissal ordersissued by Tagore to five members including Kalu

.

Chandra realized that Kalus termination was because of the wrongful interpretation of hisearlier statement.

He spoke to Rangachari and Tagore but they failed to give him any justification for thetermination and gave him only ideological discourses.

Considering the fact that the orders were issued only after the strike failed he decided toresign from his post and threatened to go public with the events that unfolded .

The next day the terminations were revoked and Kalu thanked Chandra for saving his job .