SOLOMAN RAJU Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these two writ petitions are all employees of the Union Government of India, working in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. They were charged on several counts of misbehaviour lor contravention of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the 'Conduct Rules') The above Conduct Rules, in so far as it is necessary to notice them for disposing of these writ petitions, read thus:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution and after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, the President hereby makes the following rules, namely:- The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Short title, commencement and application 1) These rules may be called the Centra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2) They shall come into force at once. 3) Save as otherwise provided in these rules and subject to the provisions of the Indian Foreign Service (Conduct and Discipline) Rules, 1961, these rules shall apply to every person appointed to a civil service or post (including a civilian in Defence Service) in connection with the affairs of the Union".

(2.) For the alleged violation of the above Conduct Rules, the authorities had initiated against these writ petitioners departmental inquiries under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules'.)

(3.) These writ petitions have been filed challenging the legality of those departmental inquiries. The main ground of objection urged by the petitioners against the legality of these inquiries is that the abovementioned Conduct Rules do not apply to them. It is argued by the petitioners basing themselves on the language of the preamble to the Conduct Rules hatt the conduct were made by the President of rules India in exercise of hispowers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is argued by them that under Article 309, rules can only be made by the President for those appointed in connection with the affairs of the Union. It is further argued that the Conduct Rules would be inapplicable to the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners were not appointed exclusively in connection with the affairs of the Union of India. This argument of the petitioners is based on two premises:- (a) the power of the President to make service rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution extends only to those who were appointed exclusively in connection with the affairs of the Union, (b) all those appointed to the Audit and Accounts Department should be treated as not having been appointed exclusively in connection with the affairs of the Union. As the petitioners in the above premise could not be regarded as having been appointed exclusively in connection with the affairs of the Union and as the power of the President under the proviso to Article 309 to make service rules would enable him to make service rules only for those appointed exclusively in connection with the affairs of the Union the petitioners argued that the above Conduct Rules would not apply to them. On that premises the petitioners argued no question of the Conduct Rules would arise in their cases and that therefore, no departmental inquiries could awfully be initiated against them.