30th June retirees case - Supreme Court passed comments- noncompliance costs as well as interest may be imposed.

56. Charge of violation of Rule 3 (1) of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, should not be vague

Rule 3 (1) of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, is vague and of general nature. It is obligatory on the disciplinary authority to specify and, if necessary, define with precision and accuracy what constitutes a misconduct. Mere violation of a general provision such as contained in Rule 3 (1) does not constitute a misconduct and no penalty can be imposed for such violation. A charge that rests on the general definition of failure to maintain absolute integrity as a public servant may not be amenable to objective evaluation and may, therefore, lead to arbitrary and unfair penalization of the public servant concerned. 

[A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 S.C. 1361]

57. Act unbecoming of an employee

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) SLJ 34 (A.P.); (1985) SLR 181]

 

58. Lack of devotion to duty

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]

59. Charge of lack of devotion to duty to be proved

A Head Ticket Collector of the Railway was punished for poor collection of revenue on a charge of want of interest and lack of devotion to duty. The punishment order was set aside because it was not established in the inquiry that poor earning was either intentional or due to slackness on his part.

[Debabrata Ghosh v. Union of India 1989 (7) SLR, CAT, Calcutta 708]

60. Prohibition of demonstrations is violative of Fundamental right

From the very nature of things, a demonstration may take various forms. It may be noisy and disorderly. For instance, stone throwing by a crowd may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration, and it can equally be peaceful and, such as, when the members of the group merely wear some badges, drawing attention to their grievances. Therefore, any law which prohibits any form of demonstration by Government servants is violative of their fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution.

[Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 369; 1962 (13) FLR 50; 1962 (1) LLJ 294; AIR 1962 S.C. 1162)

Your's Kayveeyes