PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P8 request and to take emergent action against respondents 5 to 11 in accordance with Ext.P1 Rules and for a further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to prohibit respondents 3 and 4 from allowing full-time Government servants from standing and contesting the election to the various Bodies of the CSI Sabha in violation of Ext.P1 Rules.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, which is the CSI Central Kerala Diocese, is a religious congregation following the Christian faith and the organisation has been registered as a non-trading company under the Companies Act. The petitioner is a member of the Sabha ever since he attained majority and is the Secretary of the Trust known as the Council for Social Justice, fighting against injustice in the society. The petitioner submits that the governance and administration of the Sabha are at two levels. At the grass-root level of the local Church, there is a Church committee and there is an Apex Body which is called the Diocese Council. The election is conducted to the Church Committee as well as to the Diocese Council. The Diocese Council is presided by the Bishop. The Sabha is having colleges, schools, hospitals, retreat centers and other non-religious institutions and the governance is controlled and directed by the elected Council. The petitioner submits that for the past several years, there is a tendency of Government servants to contest in the elections of the Council and by virtue of their official positions there is a likelihood of corruption and nepotism under the cover of the membership in the council. To curb such activities, the 1st respondent had amended the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 (1960 Rules for short) in 2014 by adding Rule 67A. Ext.P1 is the amended Rule as published in the official gazette. The Rule reads thus:

(3.) The petitioner submits that one Mathew Joseph who was a Legal Officer of the Law Department violated the above conduct Rules and contested in the election and continued to hold the post of a Councillor in the diocese council. A writ petition was filed, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing the Government to take appropriate action. The Government thereafter issued Ext.P3 order whereby Sri Mathew Joseph was punished for misconduct by the imposition of a minor penalty. The finding in Ext.P3 order was that there is a violation of Rule 67A of the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960, and Shri Mathew Joseph was directed to abstain from continuing as an office-bearer of CSI East Kerala Diocese and report forthwith. The petitioner submits that in similar circumstances by Ext. P4 judgment the Madras High Court had also interdicted Government servants from participating in the election of CSI Church. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had made Ext.P5 request to the 3rd respondent to instruct the Election Officers not to allow the Government servants to contest the election to the CSI Council. Ext.P6 is the information received under the Right to Information Act, wherein the Public Information Officer has informed the applicant that as per G.O.(P)No.27/2014/PNARD, the Government servants are prohibited from holding any post in the management of any religious or communal organisations even though they can act as members. The Government order referred to is Ext.P1 amendment to the Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules. The petitioner submits that under Chapter 14B Rule 5 of the Kerala Education Rules(KER for short), no teacher shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government take part in the promotion, registration or management of any bank or company. It is submitted that the Sabha is a company and will come within the prohibition. The writ petition was filed alleging that the election to the CSI Council is going to be finalised by 30/1/2021. Respondents 5 to 8 are Government servants to whom Ext.P1 is applicable. Respondent is working as a Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Kottayam, the 6th respondent is a government servant, the 7th respondent is a Surveyor under the Survey Department, the eighth respondent is a clerk in the Health Department, the 9th respondent is a Higher Secondary School Teacher in an aided school, the 11th respondent is a Lower Primary School Assistant in an aided school and the 10th respondent is the Headmistress in an unaided Higher Secondary School. The petitioner submits that respondents 5 to 11 are disqualified to contest in the election. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 representation to the 2nd respondent, which is the nodal department, to take action regarding the violation of conduct rules. The petitioner submits that no action has been taken on Ext.P8 so far. The writ petition has been filed in the above circumstances. The petitioner has thereafter filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 producing Exts.P9 to P14 as additional documents, which are representations made complaining about the violation of conduct rules by respondents 5 to 11, before additional respondents 12 to 17, who are superior officers of Respondents 5 to 11 and were sought to be impleaded in I.A.No.1 of 2021.