CHAND MAL OSWAL Vs. SHREE NATH BOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Munsif Magistrate. Pali had dismissed a private complaint lodged by Shri Chandmal. Sales Tax Officer for an offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code against Shri Shrinath Editor Toofan Mail' a local paper of Pali on the around that as required by the rajasthan Government Servants' and Pensioners' Conduct Rules the complainant had not taken the permission of the Government for filing the complaint. Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules was referred to by the learned Magistrate. It reads: A Government servant may not without the previous sanction of the Government have recourse to any court or to the press for the vindication of his public acts or character from defamatory attacks. In granting sanction to the recourse to a court the government will in each case decide whether the government servant shall institute the proceeding at his own expense and if so whether in the event of a decision in his favour the government shall reimburse him 'to the extent of the whole or any part of the costs. Nothing in this rule will limit or otherwise affect the rights of any government servant to vindicate his private acts or character.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate held that the meaning of the first half of the above rule was that a Government servant cannot have recourse to the law courts, if the act complained of concerns the public duty of the Government servant and for it he shall have to seek the permission of the Government first. Con-seqtuently he dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.

(3.) THE complainant went un In appeal to the learned Sessions Judge who has come to a contrary conclusion and has accordingly made a reference recommending that the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint be quashed. He held that the use of the word "may" in Rule 22 was indicative of a discretion in the Government and if the legislature intended to make it mandatory it would have used the word "shall" instead of the word "may. "