Supreme Court in the case of Champaklal Vs. Union of India . In this case one of the questions which arose for consideration was whether the preliminary enquiry which was held, before the start of the departmental proceedings, is governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Explaining the nature of the preliminary enquiry and while holding that the provisions of Article 311(2) are not attracted the Supreme Court observed as follows:
(32) “In short a preliminary enquiry is for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of a government servant in which he may or may not be associated so that the authority concerned may decide whether or not to subject the servant concerned to the enquiry necessary under Art. 311 for inflicting one of the three major punishments mentioned therein. Such a preliminary enquiry may even be held ex-parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of government, though usually for the sake of fairness, Explanation is taken from the servant concerned even at such an enquiry. But at that stage he has no right to be heard for the enquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the government and it is only when the government decides to hold a regular departmental enquiry for the purposes of inflicting one of the three major punishments that the government servant gets the protection of Art. 311 and all the rights that the protection implies as already indicated above. There must Therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicated in Art. 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that Article.”
In State of Orissa and Others Vs. Shiva Parashad Das, the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 311 were not attracted when a government servant was suspended prior to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings.
