C.C.S. (C.C.A.) RULES, 1965 – AN INTRODUCTION
III. Learn Conduct rules through Judicial
judgments
6. A civil servant like any other citizen
is entitled to the freedom of political conviction. But by virtue of his
special obligations as a civil servant, he is debarred from giving expression
to his conviction in a manner which will interfere with his official duties as
a loyal Government servant. Therefore, any rule regulating the conduct of
Government servants which prohibits Government servants from taking active part
in politics amounts only to a reasonable restriction and cannot be struck down
as infringing any of the freedoms guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution.
[P.N. Rangaswamy v. Commissioner of
Coimbatore, AIR 1968 Madras, 387.]
7.
Criticism
of Government - Whether misconduct
A rule which
prohibits the Government servants from publishing any document or making any
public utterances, critical of any current or recent policy or action of the
Government amounts to a blanket restriction on their freedom of speech and
expression and prohibits them from making public utterance, even if it be an
utterance relating to their conditions of service, and even at a meeting of the
Government servants, if it has the effect of any adverse criticism of any
current or recent policy or action of the Government. A rule of this kind
cannot be a reasonable restriction of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under
Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
No public interest is going to be
served by requiring a Government servant to refrain from criticizing the policy
or action of the Government relating to his conditions of service or matters
concerning them even if it is to be only in the presence of his colleagues. On
the other hand, public interest requires that the Government servants should be
contended, efficient and disciplined. This cannot be achieved by prohibiting
the Government servants to speak in relation to their conditions of service.
Further, no useful purpose will be served by forming an association of
Government servants if they are prevented to discuss the policy of the
Government in relation to their conditions of service which process may
necessarily involve the criticism of the policy of the Government. It may be
that a rule restricting the Government servants from criticising the
Government's policy or action before the general public may be reasonable
because of his position as a Government servant. But a rule which prohibits a
Government servant from criticizing the Government's policy or action regarding
conditions of service in his own association meetings or circulating any
document among the members of his own association criticizing the Government's
policy or action relating to his conditions of service or connected matters,
cannot be said to impose a reasonable restriction as authorized by clause (2)
of Art. 19 (2) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution
provides that reasonable restriction may be imposed in the interest of
'decency', and permits the State to prohibit the use of obscene language and
gestures but not a fair criticism of the Government's policy or action.
[B. Manmohan v. State of Mysore 1966
(1) Mys. L.J. S.N. 23.]
8. Indisciplined acts Misconduct
Intimidation to a superior officer to
withdraw a report made against the person concerned under threat of assault or
insubordination to a superior officer are acts of indiscipline and gross
misbehaviour.
[Union of India, v. B.C. Gupta, 1980
(2) SLR (Del.).]
9.
The
word indiscipline is a very wide expression. It includes any act or omission
which goes to destroy the established system and order of the organization.
When an employee shows scant regard for w rules and behaves in a way which
disturbs work and causes annoyance to others, action can be taken against him
for indiscipline.
[Madho Singh Daulat Singh v. State
of Bombay, AIR 1960 Bom. 285.]
10. Misconduct committed not in the course
of duty
It is not necessary that a member of
the service should have committed the alleged act or omission in the course of
discharge of his duties as a servant of the Government in order that it may
form the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. In other words, if the act
or omission is such as to reflect on the reputation of the officer for his
integrity or good faith or devotion to duty there is no reason why disciplinary
proceedings should not be taken against him for that act or omission even
though the act or omission relates to an activity in regard to which there is
no actual master and servant relationship. To put it differently, the test is
not whether the act or omission was committed by the appellant in the course of
the discharge of his duties as servant of the Government. The test is
whether the act or omission has some reasonable connection with the nature and
conditions of his service or whether the act or omission has cast any
reflection upon the reputation of the member of the service for integrity or
devotion to duty as a public servant. We are of the opinion that even if
the appellant was not subject to the administrative control of the Government
when he was functioning as Commissioner under the Act and was not the servant
of the Government subject to its orders at the relevant time, his act or
omission as Commissioner could form the subject matter of disciplinary
proceedings provided the act or omission would reflect upon his reputation for
integrity or devotion to duty as a member of the service.
[S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India,
AIR 1967 (2) LLJ 219.]
Sir
ReplyDeleteWe are excited to study the judgemenrs in ccs cca rules🙏