R. RAMANARAO Vs. SCIENTIFIC ADVISER TO MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND DIRECTOR GENERAL DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, DIRECTORATE OF PERSONNEL, NEW DELHI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a labourer working U the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad. From 8th June, 1978 till 30th June, 1978 the petitioner had been in judicial custody. He along with some others was then facing prosecution under Sections 123, 366 and 367 Indian Penal Code After 1.7.1978, when the petitioner came back to service, he had applied for leave and obtained- sanction of leave covering that period, leave application dated 3.7.1978 mentioned that he was not well during 6.6.1978 to 1.7.1978. The authorities came to It of the falsity of his leave application some time in Dec. 1979. Therefore, they have charged the petitioner with violation of Rule 3 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, that he had committed acts, of gross misconduct by furnishing false information his leave application dated 3.7.1978. On the basis of that enquiry had been conducted. The petitioner participated that enquiry. In fact, he was provided with the assistance a defence assistant. Basing upon the evidence in the enquiry the petitioner has been removed from service by an order passed by the Director, Defence Metallurgical Laboratory, Hyderabad. That order was finally confirmed by the Scientific Adviser on 23rd Nov., 1981. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the above order of removal.

(2.) This writ petition was admitted on 29.6.1982. But no records in this case had been produced by the Government of India even to this day. This is a clear act of disobedience to the rule nisi issued by this Court. Further, I am constrained to observe that Sri Subba Rao, who appeared for the Government of India in this case, does not have in his possession even the affidavit and the counter-affidavit and the papers in the writ petition. Consequently, I received no assistance from the counsel.

(3.) Yet I have heard the petitioner's learned counsel and came to the conclusion that this writ petition should be dismissed. The argument of Sri T. Jayanth, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules for the violation of which the petitioner has been removed from service has no application to the facts of the case. The relevant part of Rule 3 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, requires that every Government servant shall, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and maintain devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. In my opinion, that rule as applied to the facts of this case would clearly require the petitioner to inform his employers that he was involved in a serious criminal charge and was in detention in connection with that criminal case. Instead of doing what the rule expects him to do, the petitioner made a false representation in his leave application that he was unwell during the time when he was actually in judicial custody facing serious criminal charges. I, therefore, cannot agree with the first contention of Sri Jayanth that Rule 3 of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules would not apply to the petitioner.