B MUKHTHAR PASHA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER TIMCHIRAPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, at the relevant time, was serving as Sub Inspector in the Security Force with the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy. He applied to the second respondent, the Senior Security Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy for permission to grow a beard as he intended to perform Haj Pilgrimage and to sport the beard thereafter also. Permission was granted for a specified period of 45 days, vide letter dated 17th January, 1985. That permission for the specified period, however, was not considered sufficient by the appellant and vide his letter, dated 25th January, 1985. he sought permission to keep the beard beyond the period of 45 days which in any case had lapsed. In his letter, he submitted that Muslims employed in Police, Military and other forces as also in other walks of life were allowed to grow beard and that, therefore, he should not be denied the right to grow beard. THE appellant however, was informed by the third respondent, vide communication dated 6th February, 1985, that being an employee of the Security Force, he was not permitted to keep a beard. He was told that bis conduct was subject to service rules and discipline and any disobedience thereof would be viewed seriously. THE appellant made representations to respondents 2 and 3 and on 15th February, 1985, the third respondent informed the appellant that he could not keep a beard and should come to duty clean shaven, failing which necessary disciplinary action would be taken. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P.No 1363 of 1985 which was dismissed by a very elaborate order by the learned single Judge on 13th July. 1986. THE learnad single Judge concerned himself only with the question whether the refusal by respondents 2 and 3 to the appellant to grow a beard interfered with the appellant's religious rights and was violative of Art. 25 of the Constitution of India and rinding that it was not so, dismissed the writ petition thereby upholding the validity of the communication dated 15th February. 1985 impugned in the Writ Petition.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the find ings recorded by the learned single Judge, we consider it appropriate to extract the com munication dated 15th February, 1985 which was called in question through the writ peti tion, so as to test its validity. The communi cation reads thus:

(3.) SINCE we have found that the impugned direction not to keep a beard has no sanction of any rule, regulation or executive instruction, we decline the invitation to decide the question or express any opinion as to whether the direction contained in the impugned communication is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Art. 25 of the Constitution of India. In refusing the invitation to decide that' question which, in our opinion, does not really arise for determination in this case, we are influenced by the guidelines given by the apex Court in Natesh v. State of Maharashtra 1 , wherein their Lordships observed: