Sir, the object of article 282-B is obviously to give security and protection to Government servants so that these government servants may feel that they shall not be punished in any way whatsoever, unless and until a reasonable opportunity has been given to them to show cause why any order punishing them in any way whatsoever may not be passed. But, Sir, while the object of this article is to give this sense of security and protection to these government servants, unfortunately this article is so worded that what is provided in the substantive portion of clause (2) is being taken away by the subsequent long and detailed provisos which follow. So, what has been conceded in the substantive portion of this clause is being taken away by the provisos which follow. This article has been framed on the model of section 240 of the old Government of India Act. In fact, that section 240 of the Government of India Act has been bodily taken over from there and incorporated here, but with two additions both of which go against the interests of the Government servants. The two portions of this proposed article which have been added to section 240 of the Government of India Act are sub-clause (c) of clause (2) and clause (3) of this article. My submission is that it is the inherent, fundamental and elementary right of every person not to be condemned unheard. We should not take away this inherent and fundamental right in the case of government servants. It is true that this right has been recognized, in this article, but as I have submitted, merely to recognize the right at one place and take it away substantially, though not altogether, in another, by providing various provisos that have been mentioned herein, does not appear to be fair.
