HULAS CHANDRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 19th April, 1983 and 11th June, 1984.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Secretary of the Bikaner Divisional Unit of All India Postal Employees Union Class -Ill. In that capacity the petitioner issued Savingram to Sarvashri K.L. Moza General Secretary of the Union and S.K. Gosh Director General, P&T;, New Delhi for ventilating certain grievances. He was informed by communication dated 22nd January, 1983 that the Department proposed to take action against him under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (here in after referred as the Rules of 1965) for directly sending Savingram. He was served with the statement of charge for this misbehaviour and he was given 10 days time to file reply to this the gravman of the charge was that he has sent a Savingram to the higher authorities in contravention of the instructions issued by the Directer General that certain nominated authorities should be contacted for redress or grievances as contained in Annexure -4. After enquiry the petitioner was found guilty for misconduct for violation of Rule 3(l)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which lays down that every Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. The petitioner was found guilty of this misconduct under the Conduct Rules and for violation of the instructions sent by Director General as contained in Annexure -4 for directly writing to the Director General Post and Telegraph for redress of the grievance as unbecoming of Government servant. He was punished by stoppage of withholding of his increments for a period of 2 years and 3 months.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondent and they have traversed all the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Mridul learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged this punishment and he has submitted that sending of Savingram for redress of his grievance is not an unbecoming of Government servant so as to warrant punishment because there is no prohibition contained in the instructions contained in Annexure -4 that they cannot approach the higher authorities. Secondly he has submitted that it is not a misconduct as defined in the Rules of 1964. Thirdly he submitted that it is not a correspondence and lastly he submits that Circular Annexure -4 is ultra vires of Article 19 (1)(c).