Service law and administrative law
🔷 Difference Between Service Law and Administrative Law
| Service Law | Administrative Law |
|---|---|
| Branch of law dealing with employment in public service – recruitment, promotion, dismissal, suspension, etc. | Governs the functioning of public authorities and administrative actions. |
| Applies primarily to government servants or public employees. | Applies to all administrative bodies and public authorities. |
| Codified in rules like Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, etc. | Derived from constitutional principles, statutes, and judicial decisions. |
| Focus: Employment terms, service benefits, disciplinary proceedings. | Focus: Power, duties, procedures, and accountability of public authorities. |
| Adjudicated mostly in tribunals like CAT or courts. | Reviewed in courts through writs (Article 226, 32). |
🔷 Important Case Laws – Detailed Explanation
Here are 5 important Indian case laws that have shaped Service Law and Administrative Law:
1. Dhirendra Kumar v. Union of India (1981)
Field: Service Law
Facts:
Dhirendra Kumar, a government employee, was dismissed from service without a proper departmental inquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether dismissal without inquiry violates the employee’s right to protection under Article 311.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards under Article 311 would make the dismissal void. It emphasized that any major punishment must follow proper inquiry.
Key Takeaway:
The protection against arbitrary dismissal is a part of Service Law. The procedure must be followed strictly.
2. State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh (1997)
Field: Administrative Law
Facts:
The petitioner filed a writ of mandamus against inaction of public authorities under Article 226.
Issue:
Whether public authorities can be compelled to act when they fail to perform statutory duties.
Held:
The Court ruled that public authorities cannot act arbitrarily or remain inactive, especially when their duties affect people’s rights. The writ of mandamus was issued to compel action.
Key Takeaway:
This case reinforces accountability of administrative bodies and strengthens citizens’ remedies through administrative law.
3. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Field: Service Law + Administrative Law (intersection)
Facts:
Government employees were dismissed without inquiry on grounds of "security of the state" under Article 311(2)(b), which allows for dispensing with inquiry.
Issue:
Is it justified to dismiss an employee without inquiry under "security of the state"?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that in exceptional situations, inquiry can be dispensed with under Article 311(2)(b), but strict criteria must be satisfied, and reasons must be recorded.
Key Takeaway:
Administrative discretion must be balanced with procedural fairness. Exceptional powers under service rules must be narrowly interpreted.
4. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Field: Administrative Law
Facts:
One of the members of a selection committee for Indian Forest Service was also a candidate for the same post.
Issue:
Does participation of an interested party violate principles of natural justice?
Held:
The Court held that bias (nemo judex in causa sua) – no one can be a judge in their own case – violates the principles of natural justice. The selection was quashed.
Key Takeaway:
Even in administrative actions, natural justice applies fully. Administrative law demands fairness in procedure, not just formality.
5. Shyam Sunder v. State of Punjab (1974)
Field: Service Law
Facts:
A government servant was suspended and his increments were withheld without following a proper procedure.
Issue:
Can service penalties be imposed without due process?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that withholding increments and suspension are penal in nature and must follow disciplinary procedures, including a chance for the employee to be heard.
Key Takeaway:
Service Law ensures procedural protection and fair hearing before imposing service penalties.
🔶 Summary Table
| Case | Area | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Dhirendra Kumar (1981) | Service Law | Dismissal must follow Article 311 procedures. |
| State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh | Administrative Law | Mandamus can compel public duty; administrative accountability. |
| Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel | Both | Exceptions to inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) are narrowly limited. |
| A.K. Kraipak (1969) | Administrative Law | Natural justice applies to administrative decisions. |
| Shyam Sunder (1974) | Service Law | Even minor penalties require procedure and fairness. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments