9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 4(A) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. 2. Validity of Rule 4(B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. 3. Departmental proceedings against the respondent based on alleged contraventions of Rules 4(A) and 4(B). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Rule 4(A) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955: The respondent was charged with contravening Rule 4(A) by participating in demonstrations related to a strike of Central Government employees. Rule 4-A prohibits any Government servant from participating in any demonstration or resorting to any form of strike in connection with matters pertaining to his condition of service. The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Kameshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, where it was held that Rule 4-A, in so far as it prohibits any form of demonstration, is violative of the Government servants' rights under Article 19(1)(a) & (b) and should be struck down. However, the prohibition on strikes was upheld as there is no fundamental right to resort to a strike. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in holding Rule 4-A valid as a whole. Since the charge against the respondent was based on participation in demonstrations, which is the invalid part of Rule 4-A, the departmental proceedings based on this charge were deemed invalid. 2. Validity of Rule 4(B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955: Rule 4-B prohibits Government servants from joining or continuing as members of any Service Association of Government servants that has not been recognized by the Government or whose recognition has been withdrawn. The High Court held Rule 4-B invalid as it contravened the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c), which allows Government servants to form associations or unions. The Supreme Court examined whether the restriction imposed by Rule 4-B could be justified under Article 19(4), which allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. The Court concluded that the connection between the recognition of associations and public order was neither direct nor proximate. The conditions for recognition under the Recognition of Service Association Rules, 1959, did not necessarily relate to public order or the efficiency and discipline of Government servants. Therefore, the restriction imposed by Rule 4-B was not reasonable and thus invalid. 3. Departmental proceedings against the respondent based on alleged contraventions of Rules 4(A) and 4(B): The respondent had been served with charge-sheets for contravening Rules 4(A) and 4(B). The High Court quashed the proceedings related to Rule 4(B) but upheld those related to Rule 4(A). Upon appeal, the Supreme Court found that since Rule 4-A is invalid in so far as it prohibits demonstrations, and the charges against the respondent were based on participation in demonstrations, the departmental proceedings under Rule 4-A were also invalid. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the departmental proceedings against the respondent for contraventions of both Rules 4-A and 4-B. Judgment: - Appeal No. 378/1962 by the appellants (Accountant-General, Maharashtra, and the Union of India) was dismissed. - Appeal No. 379/1962 by the respondent was allowed, and the departmental proceedings against him were quashed.
|
