Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 43

 

Case Law on Conduct rules

46. Excerpts from "Shorter Constitution of India" by Durga Das Basu

Conditions upon recognition and withdrawal of recognition

Though there is no fundamental right, in relation to an association, to obtain Government recognition, the question arises whether the fundamental right of association may be rendered nugatory by imposing recognition as a condition for dealing with the Government or by imposing unreasonable conditions for the grant or continuance of Government recognition.

(a) To condition the freedom of individuals to form any association they like upon the grant by the Government of recognition to such association, or in other words, to deny the individuals the freedom to become members of any association, not recognised by the Government, constitutes an infringement of freedom of association guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (c).

(b) Even though in the case of Government servants, the State has an interest in the associations formed by the employees, in the interests of efficiency or discipline, the control of the Government over such associations must, in order to be valid, be relatable to 'public order' or 'morality' on which grounds only the freedom of association may be restricted, under Art. 19 (4). Where, therefore, the Government compels an employee to become a member only of a 'recognised association' and then provides that recognition may be refused or withdrawn on grounds unrelated to public order or morality, such restrictions renders illusory the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (c).

[O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph AIR 1963 SC 812 (815)]

47. Association with political party - Breach of Conduct Rules

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.]

48. 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

B. Manmohan V State of Mysore 1966 (1) Mys.L.J.23)

49. Devotion to duty implies due care on the part of an employee in performance of work assigned to him.

Om Prakash Bindal v. Union of India (1984) 2 SLJ 28 (All.); (1984)SLR 391.)

50. Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules merely asks Government servants not to do anything which is unbecoming of a Government servant. What is unbecoming can always be ascertained having regard to the entirety of the conduct and that the sub-rule merely asks him to keep himself within the bounds of administrative decency. It was further held " given common sense" and a sense of decency, it will not be difficult to judge whether, what conduct amounts to unbecoming conduct.

While discipline should be given due importance, one need not be too touchy too. Having regard to the then prevailing clash of interest between two groups in the department and the position occupied by the petitioner at the relevant time, it does not appear reasonable to hold that the petitioner was guilty of conduct unbecoming of a Government servant.

[ Mahendra Kumar v. Union of India (1984), SL) 34 (A.P.) (1985), SLR 181.]