The All India Services

Article 312: the all India services. Notwithstanding anything in Chapter VI of Part VI or Part XIV, if the Council of States has so declared by a resolution supported by two-thirds of the members present and voting, Parliament may by law provide for the creation of one or more all India services, including an all India judicial service, common to the Union and the States. Clause (2) deems the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service to be so created. Clauses (3) and (4), inserted by the Forty-second Amendment, deal with the proposed all India judicial service.

Article 312A, inserted by the Twenty-eighth Amendment 1972, gives Parliament power to vary or revoke the conditions of service of persons appointed by the Secretary of State before independence.

Articles 313 and 314 are transitional: article 313 continues the pre-Constitution law until otherwise provided, and article 314, which protected the conditions of service of officers appointed by the Secretary of State, was omitted by the Twenty-eighth Amendment.

Articles 315 to 323 create the Public Service Commissions, and article 320(1) makes it the duty of the Union Public Service Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union, which includes the all India services.

Why the arrangement is federally strange

The officer is recruited by the Union but employed by the State. A District Magistrate is an Indian Administrative Service officer allotted to a State cadre, working under the State government, drawing pay from the State.

But the State cannot dismiss the officer. Because an all India service is a service of the Union for the purposes of article 311, the authority competent to remove is a Union authority. A State may suspend and may report, and the ultimate disciplinary power is not its own.

And the officer's career depends on the Union. Empanelment for senior Union posts, deputation to the Union and promotion within the service are all controlled centrally, so an officer serving a State knows who decides their future.

The argument for the arrangement. Sardar Patel called the services the steel frame of India, and argued in the Constituent Assembly that an officer able to speak frankly to a Chief Minister without fear of dismissal is a protection for the rule of law in a State. The services also carry practice and standards across the country and give the Union a way of knowing what is happening in the States.

The argument against. A State government responsible to its own legislature for law and order and for administration cannot control the officers who deliver both. That is a real derogation from the accountability that makes a State government answerable, and it is the reason State governments have asked for the arrangement to be revisited.

A worked example

A State government wishes to remove the Director General of Police, an Indian Police Service officer, after a serious failure. What can it do?

It may transfer the officer within the State. Cadre postings inside a State are within the State's power, subject to the rules and to any minimum tenure prescribed for the office.

It may place the officer under suspension and may initiate disciplinary proceedings under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969.

It may not dismiss or remove the officer. Article 311(1) provides that no member of an all India service shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed; appointment is by the President, so removal is a Union decision.

And whatever it does must satisfy article 311(2) and article 14. An inquiry with notice of the charges and a reasonable opportunity to be heard is required unless one of the three exceptions in the second proviso applies. And a transfer that is in substance a punishment is examinable: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555. Facts. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu was moved to two posts he said were inferior and alleged the transfers were mala fide, is the standing authority. Held. The plea of mala fides failed on the facts, but that article 16 is an instance of the concept of equality in article 14, that equality is a dynamic concept, and that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, so that arbitrary State action is by that fact unequal and violates article 14. Why it matters here is that the case arose from precisely this situation: a senior all India service officer and a State government disagreeing, and the constitutional check being article 14 rather than the service rules.

Distinctions

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the Union runs State administration. Day to day postings, work and supervision inside a State are the State's.

It does not mean an all India service officer is beyond discipline. The rules provide a full disciplinary code; what the State lacks is the final power of removal.

It does not mean Parliament may create such a service at will. Article 312 requires a resolution of the Council of States supported by two-thirds of the members present and voting, so the States' own chamber is the gatekeeper, exactly as under article 249.

And it does not mean the all India judicial service exists. Article 312 has permitted one since the Forty-second Amendment, and repeated proposals have not produced it, largely because of objections from the States and the High Courts about control over the subordinate judiciary under article 235.

Quick revision

Article 312: Parliament may create an all India service, including an all India judicial service, if the Council of States so resolves by two-thirds of the members present and voting; the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service are deemed to be so created by clause (2). Article 309: the appropriate legislature regulates recruitment and conditions of service, with rules by the President or Governor meanwhile. Article 310: office held during the pleasure of the President or Governor. Article 311: no dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, and no dismissal, removal or reduction in rank except after an inquiry with notice of the charges and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, subject to three exceptions in the second proviso. Article 312A: power to vary the conditions of service of pre-independence appointees. Articles 313 and 314: transitional, 314 omitted in 1972. Recruited by the Union, serving the State, removable only by the Union. Patel's steel frame against the State's loss of control. E.P. Royappa: equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, and a punitive transfer is examinable under article 14.

Test yourself

1. What must happen before Parliament may create a new all India service? The Council of States must declare by a resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or expedient in the national interest.

2. Why can a State not dismiss an Indian Administrative Service officer? Because article 311(1) forbids dismissal or removal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, and members of an all India service are appointed by the President, so removal is a Union decision.

3. State the doctrine of pleasure and the two safeguards that qualify it. Article 310: except as expressly provided, a civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor. Article 311 qualifies it by requiring removal only by an authority not subordinate to the appointing authority, and an inquiry in which the person is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

4. Name the three exceptions in the second proviso to article 311(2). Conviction on a criminal charge; where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry; and where the President or Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold one.

5. State the argument for and against the all India services in one sentence each. For: an officer who cannot be dismissed by the State government can administer the law without fear, and the services carry common standards and information across the country. Against: a State government answerable to its legislature for law and order cannot control the officers who deliver it.

6. Does an all India judicial service exist, and why not? No. Article 312 has permitted one since the Forty-second Amendment, but repeated proposals have failed, largely because of objections from the States and the High Courts, whose control over the subordinate judiciary rests on article 235.