justification, in the absence of any statutory provision, for dismissing a permanent employee without inquiry/reasonable opportunity of defence?

8. What is the justification, in the absence of any statutory provision, for dismissing a permanent employee without inquiry/reasonable opportunity of defence? The Apex Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/01/2004 [2004 AIR 1469, 2004(1 )SCR360 , 2004(2 )SCC105 , 2004(1 )SCALE285 , 2004(1 )JT88 ] was concerned with the termination of service of an IPS officer with 27 years of service on grounds of submitting, at the time of recruitment to the Kerala State Police Service, a false certificate claiming to belong to Scheduled Caste. Observing that the Appellant was provided a reasonable opportunity at the time of scrutiny of the validity of the caste certificate the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to clarify the applicability of Article 311 of the Constitution of India in the following terms: This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder. Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all. Later in the same order, the Apex court, in the following para, expressed its approval for the view of the Patna High Court that one who has secured appointment by fraud is not entitled for any benefit, let alone reasonable opportunity of defence at the time of dismissal from service: The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, AIR 1988 Patna 26. The 30 question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held: "13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in pubic service. Therefore, these rights including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow it." We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid cases.