https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168385 Article 310's pleasure doctrine remains subject to Article 311, but the second proviso to Article 311(2) expressly excludes the ordinary inquiry and hearing safeguard in cases of conviction, impracticability, or security of the State. Article 14 and natural justice cannot be used to revive a hearing where that constitutional exclusion validly applies; judicial review is limited to whether the proviso was invoked for relevant, bona fide reasons. Service rules framed under Article 309 cannot compel a hearing contrary to the Constitution, and special-procedure rules must be read harmoniously with the proviso. The three clauses operate as distinct exceptions, with clause-specific standards for review. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 12:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168385 Article 310's pleasure doctrine remains subject to Article 311, but the second proviso to Article 311(2) expressly excludes the ordinary inquiry and hearing safeguard in cases of conviction, impracticability, or security of the State. Article 14 and natural justice cannot be used to revive a hearing where that constitutional exclusion validly applies; judicial review is limited to whether the proviso was invoked for relevant, bona fide reasons. Service rules framed under Article 309 cannot compel a hearing contrary to the Constitution, and special-procedure rules must be read harmoniously with the proviso. The three clauses operate as distinct exceptions, with clause-specific standards for review. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168385