Unit IV — Services, Election Commission & State Liability

“No civil servant shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry.” — the guarantee of Article 311

Subordinate Judiciary & Administrative Tribunals

District judges are appointed and controlled by the High Court (Arts. 233–237), securing the lower judiciary’s independence. Administrative tribunals (the CAT and State tribunals, under Art. 323A, added by the 42nd Amendment) were created to take service and similar disputes off the High Courts — but L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held that tribunals supplement, not replace the constitutional courts: judicial review under Arts. 32/226 is part of the basic structure and cannot be ousted.

Public Service Commissions & Article 311

Civil servants hold office “at the pleasure” of the President/Governor (Art. 310) — but that pleasure is fenced by Article 311:

flowchart TD
    A["Article 311 protection"]:::root
    A --> B["No dismissal/removal by an<br/>authority subordinate to the<br/>appointing authority"]:::leaf
    A --> C["A fair INQUIRY + reasonable<br/>opportunity of being heard"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Three exceptions to inquiry:<br/>(i) conviction (ii) impracticable<br/>(iii) State security"]:::ex

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef ex fill:#FFE6E6,stroke:#8A1E1E,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Article 311 guarantees a government servant a departmental inquiry and a hearing before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, subject to three narrow exceptions (Art. 311(2) proviso). Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) explained when the exceptions apply. The Public Service Commissions (Arts. 315–323) ensure merit-based recruitment and protect the integrity of the services.

The Election Commission (Article 324)

The Election Commission is an independent constitutional authority that superintends, directs and controls the entire election machinery — electoral rolls, the conduct of polls, allotment of symbols, the Model Code of Conduct — for Parliament, State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice-President. Its independence rests on the Chief Election Commissioner’s secure tenure (removable only like a Supreme Court judge). T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995) affirmed its wide powers and independence.

State Liability in Tort & Contract

Contract (Art. 299): a government contract binds the State only if made in the name of the President/Governor and executed by an authorised person in the prescribed form; otherwise it is void — though the State must make restitution (Art. 299/§70 Contract Act) for benefits actually received.
Tort (Art. 300): the State is liable for the torts of its servants in non-sovereign functions (State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, 1962) but historically not for sovereign functions (Kasturilal v. State of U.P., 1965). The modern constitutional-tort cases (Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, 1993) have largely overtaken that immunity by awarding compensation under Arts. 32/226 for violations of fundamental rights, regardless of the sovereign/non-sovereign label.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A person’s gold, seized by the police on suspicion of being stolen, is lost from police custody through negligence. His suit for damages against the State is rejected on the ground that the seizure was a sovereign function. What remedy is available? Decide.

I — Issue

Whether the State can escape liability for negligently losing property seized by the police, by pleading sovereign immunity — and what remedy survives.

R — Rule

Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965): on similar facts the Court denied tort damages, treating police seizure as a sovereign function — the high-water mark of sovereign immunity.
But Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) and the constitutional-tort line hold the State liable to pay compensation under Articles 32/226 for the violation of fundamental rights (here, deprivation of property without authority of law — Art. 300A, and the negligence touching Art. 21), and the sovereign-function defence does not bar that public-law remedy.

A — Analysis

The decoy is Kasturilal itself — citing it alone yields the outdated “no remedy” answer. The modern position is that, even if a private-law tort suit is resisted on the sovereign-function plea, the citizen has a public-law remedy: the State must compensate for the negligent loss of lawfully-held property, the immunity having been steadily eroded as inconsistent with a rights-based Constitution.

C — Conclusion

A remedy is available: the claimant may seek compensation under Article 32/226 (constitutional tort) for the negligent loss of his property; the sovereign-function plea no longer shields the State from that public-law liability.

📄 The full bundle (₹199) has the complete Unit IV — subordinate judiciary & tribunals, Article 311 in full, the Election Commission, and State liability with blueprints — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to the Article 311 inquiry and compulsory-retirement problems. Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199