Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 23 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 23 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan

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.]