Coming to clause (3), this has been deliberately introduced. Suppose, this clause (3) was not there, what would be the position? The position would be that any person, who has not been given notice under sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c), would be entitled to go to a court of law and say that he has been dismissed without giving him an opportunity to show cause. Now, courts have taken two different views with regard to the word ‘satisfaction’: is it a subjective state of mind of the officer himself or an objective state, that is to say, depending upon circumstances? It has been felt in a matter of this sort, it is better to oust the jurisdiction of the court and to make the decision of the officer final. That is the reason why this clause (3) had to be introduced that no Court shall be able to call in question if the officer feels that it is impracticable to give reasonable notice or the President thinks that under certain circumstances notice need not be given.
