BHAGELU Vs. CIVIL SURGEON JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are three petitioners, who are Bhagelu, Rattu Mali and Ram Khelawan Mali the first named was a chaukidar and the last a gardener in women's hospital Jaunpur. The second was also a gardener but in the District hospital Jaunpur. Both the hospitals are Government institutions under the charge of the Civil Surgeon, Jaunpur.

(2.) All the three applicants were permanent employees under the subordinate services of the Government of this State. Besides the petitioners there were a number of other class IV servants attached to these institutions. These employees formed an association consisting of them with Ram Khelawan as President, Rattu as Secretary and Bhagelu as Treasurer and also applied for its registration under the Trade Unions Act. No. XVI ot 1926. The registration was granted on 25-5-1955. The petitioners' allegation is that the above action on the part of, the class IV employees of the two hospitals was disapproved by the medical officers Incharge of those institutions; consequently they started presenting all sorts of obstacles, including threats to the members to discontinue the union. The insinuation is that the aforesaid adverse attitude of the authorities was due to the resentment which these class IV employees showed by their refusing to give begar to the medical officers. Hence they served 24 out of the 25 members of the union with a charge-sheet under the signatures of the Civil Surgeon as follows;

(3.) The main grievance against the petitioners had been that they had organised a new union which was contrary to the rules framed by the Government in that behalf; as such they were guilty of misconduct. In the charge-sheet that was handed over to them they were also accused of disobedience of orders, but curiously enough no instance was cited in it, except making a vague allegation to the effect "disobedience of orders". Even at the place where the charge mentioned the evidence, which it was proposed to consider in support, no mention was made of any particular incident relating to disobedience of an order. The evidence referred to in the charge was (1) "non-compliance of instructions explained to you by me", and (2) "your written statement etc. before me."" The reference under item (1) to instructions was clear from the averments in paras 4(e), 4(f) and 4(g) to the instructions regarding formation of association by Government servants contained in para 97 of the Manual of Government Orders 1954 Edition. What appeared from the Civil Surgeon's affidavit was that after these employees had formed tho union it was felt that this was not a very proper act on their Dart. It also happened that one Sri Basit Ali, claiming to be the President of the Union approached the Civil Surgeon on 22-3-1955 with certain demands or suggestions on behalf of the members of the union. The Civil Surgeon, who did not like this sort of interference with the hospital administration, assembled the staff of the hospital including the petitioners and explained to them their rights and duties as Government servants vis-a-vis this question. At this meeting the implication of Government Servants' Conduct Rules 17 to 23 was explained. The relevant point in these rules was, firstly, that a Government servant shall not unless so authorised by the Government communicate any information contained in any document etc. to the press and others, and, secondly, that he shall not take Part in any political movement or other activity, which directly or indirectly, may embarrass the Government. Another point that was explained by the Civil Surgeon in this meeting was with regard to the right of a Government servant to form an association.