PRINCIPAL KULDIP CHAND AGNIHOTRI C/O B.B.N. COLLEGE, CHAKMOH, HAMIRPUR Vs. COLLEGE, TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in this case is whether participation in the election time by giving public speech for a candidate contesting the election held under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 would constitute a misconduct for a teacher, who is employed in a college that receives grants from the Government. The impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal held that the petitioner's conduct amounted to a violation of terms of employment and approved the action of the Management in terminating the service. It is this order, which is in challenge before this Court. The clause which is operative and which was relied on by the Tribunal is Clause 20 of the contract of service. It would be apposite to reproduce the same:-

(2.) The language of this clause would show that a teacher cannot be a member representative or office bearer of an association, which is in some way connected with the political party or organisation and shall not engage in any political activity. The Tribunal held that this term must be understood in such a way that it does not lead to absurd interpretation. It held that if an indirect participation could be treated as misconduct such as when he is a member of association, which association is connected with any political organisation or political activity, a fortiorari a direct participation in such political activity must also be taken as a misconduct.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that in a democracy driven through party politics, it is not possible for a person to be apolitical. According to him, it was not as if the petitioner had participated in the election or contested in the election. A mere speech given in support of a candidate ought not to be seen as being engaged in a political activity that can fall foul of Clause 20. I cannot accede to this argument and as it has been found by the Tribunal itself that the issue is not that a person cannot hold a political view; the issue is whether he could express those views in public and indulge in political work on behalf of a political party or a political candidate. The Tribunal itself would hold that the interpretation to Clause 20 cannot be taken in such a way to make a mockery of the stipulation contained in the clause. The Tribunal, in my view, was correct in a meaningful interpretation to the Clause and I find no error in the decision taken.