MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was selected and appointed as Officer Surveyor in the year 1959. In 1978 he was functioning as General Secretary of the "Survey of India Class-II Officer's Association By an order dated 20-10-1978, the Surveyor-General of India, Dehradun (U P. State) suspended the petitioner pending enquiry into charges. On the same day, he issued proceedings promoting 22 Officer Surveyors to the posts of Superintending Surveyors, out of whom nine were juniors to the petitioner. The order of suspension was subsequently revoked. However, on 6-11-1978 three charges were framed against the petitioner and served upon him. Those three charges are:-

(2.) After receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, viz., the Surveyor-General of India, disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer to the extent it was in favour of the petitioner. For the reasons recorded by him. he held all the three charges proved against the petitioner and dismissed him from service as not being a fit person to be retained in Government service. Thereupon, the petitioner Preferred an appeal to the Union of India, which was disposed of under the order dated 12-2-1982. Under this order, the petitioner's appeal was allowed to the extent that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him was modified to that of reduction to the next lower post of Surveyor (Selection Grade) on a pay of Rs. 900.00 per month in the scale of Rupees 550-900.00, for a period of five years, with the stipulation that the petitioner will be restored to his original post on the expiry of the period of reduction, and that on restoration, such reduction will not affect his seniority and pay. This order was passed after consulting the Union Public Service Commission and., indeed, the opinion of the Union Public Service Commission was enclosed to the appellate order. The advice of the Union Public Service Commission shows that it held charge No. 3 as not proved, but held charges 1 and 2 partly proved, which details I shall advert to later.

(3.) In this writ petition. Sri Upendralal Waghray, learned counsel for the petitioner, put forward the following contentions: (i) that, the petitioner being a direct recruit to the category of Officer-Surveyors could not have been reduced to the lower post of Surveyor. Therefore, the penalty imposed is incompetent in law, and is unsustainable; (ii) that, inasmuch as the disciplinary authority did not indicate the grounds upon which it was disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer's report, the petitioner had no opportunity of showing cause against those grounds. This has resulted in failure of justice. The order of the disciplinary authority is, therefore, bad for violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) that, the appellate order not being in compliance with sub-rule (2) of R. 27 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, is liable to be set aside; (iv) that, the three letters in question cannot be said to contain any improper or undesirable matter, the making of which can be termed as unbecoming of a Government servant, within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil, Services (Conduct) Rules. The conclusion to the contrary is unsustainable, particularly because the disciplinary authority, being an Army Officer, was unkindly disposed towards the petitioner, who belonged to civilian group and was also the General Secretary of their Association. Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Conduct Rules must be read consistent with the freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed to the citizens of this country, which freedoms are not forfeited by a citizen entering the Government service; and (v) that, in any event, the penalty imposed is totally disproportionate to the charge said to have been proved. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, this Court ought to interfere even on the quest on of penalty.