P N RANGASWAMY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COIMBATORE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions are connected. The petitioner in both of them is one p. N. Rangaswami, who, at them time we are concerned with, was employed as a permanent Mathematics Assistant in the service of the Coimbatore Municipality. The terms of his service were governed by the statutory rules issued under the district Municipalities Act. Rule 14 of the Personal Conduct of Officers and servants of Municipal Council Rules states-

(2.) TAKING up first for consideration W. P. No. 1331 of 1964, the petitioner's contentions were twofold. Firstly, he contended that there was no acceptable evidence before the respondent-Commissioner for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had contravened R. 14 aforesaid. Secondly, it was contended that the rule itself was violative of Art. 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution guaranteeing the right which all citizens of India are entitled to enjoy, in the matter of forming associations or unions.

(3.) TAKING up for consideration first, the second point mentioned above, it appears to me that Rule 14 of the service rules aforesaid deals with an entirely different matter from the freedom to form associations or unions guaranteed in Art. 19 (1) (c)of the Constitution. Rule 14 is designed in the interest of discipline and good government, on the assumption that active participation of Government servants in politics in any of the specific ways mentioned in Rule 14, will not be conducive to discipline or to the efficient conduct of the administration. But Art. 19 (1) (c) of the constitution gives liberty to all citizens, which will include Government servants to form associations or unions as long as the exercise of that right does not infringe any of the limitations laid down in Art. 19 (4) which saves the operation of existing laws as well as future laws imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order or morality. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this context, kameswar Prasad v. State of Bihar, dealing with the right of a government servant to take part in peaceful demonstration, but not strikes in the context of Rule 4 (1) of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules and O. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph, dealing with a similar right in the context of Rule 4-A of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1955, were concerned with this aspect of the matter, i. e. , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to assemble peacefully and freedom to form association under the appropriate subdivisions of Art. 19 (1) of the Constitution. But taking active part in politics as specified in Rule 14, like taking part in subscribing in aid of or assisting in any way, any political movement in India, must be viewed as an objectionable conduct on the part of a Government servant harmful to good discipline and efficiency of service and should not be confused with the several freedoms mentioned in Art. 19 of the Constitution. In the decision of this Court reported in Dakshinamurthi v. State of Madras, to which I was a party, which dealt with a conduct rule for the guidance of police officers, analogous to Rule 14 above mentioned, the Bench observed: