1998 Supreme(SC) 224

1998(2) Supreme 118
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
M.H. Devendrappa -Appellant
versus
The Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation -Respond­ent
Civil Appeal No. 3867 of 1988
Decided on 17-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. S.R. Bhat, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. S.S. Javali, Sr. Advocate and Mr. P.R. Rama­sesh, Advocate.

Important Point
A reasonable code of conduct designed to promote discipline and effi­ciency in service can be enforced by the Government organisation and it cannot be flouted in the name of other freedoms.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 19(2), 19(4)-Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Serv­ice Rules-Rule 22-Right of freedom of speech and expression and right to form associations-Subject to reasonable restriction-Reason­able­ness of Service Rules which curtail certain kinds of activities amongst Government servants in the interests of efficiency and disci­pline-A proper balancing of interests of an individual as a citizen and the right of the State to frame a code of conduct for its employ­ees in the interest of proper functioning of the State is required-Order dismissing the appellant from service under Rule 22 of the Rules of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corpora­tion - Charges against appellant that he being an employee of the Corporation had written a letter to the Governor pointing out misman­agement in the Corporation and issued a press statement of a political nature attri­buting motives to the then Chairman of the Corporation-His act of leaving the office unauthorisedly-Whether this amounted to violation of Rule 22 of the Service Rules?-(Yes)-Appellant’s plea of exercise of his fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c)-Whether sustainable?-(No)-Whether Rule 22 is meant to curtail freedom of speech or expression or freedom to form associations or unions?-(No).

       Held : Rule 22 of the Service Rules is not meant to curtail freedom of speech or expression or the freedom to form associations or unions. It is clearly meant to maintain discipline within the service, to ensure efficient performance of duty by the employees of the Corpo­ration, and to protect the interests and prestige of the Corporation. Therefore, under Rule 22 an employee who disobeys the service Rules or displays negligence, inefficiency or in-subordination or does anything detrimental to the interests or prestige of the Corporation or acts in conflict with official instructions or is guilty of misconduct, is liable to disciplinary action. Rule 22 is not primarily or even essen­tially designed to restrict, in any way, freedom of speech or expres­sion or the right to form associations or unions. A Rule which is not primarily designed to restrict any of the fundamental rights cannot be called in question as violating Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c). In fact, in the present proceedings the constitutional validity of Rule 22 is not under challenge. What is under challenge is the order of dismissal passed for violating Rule 22 when the impugned conduct which viola­tes Rule 22 is held out as an exercise of a right under Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(c). (Para 10)

       In the present case, the restraint is against doing anything which is detrimental to the inter­ests or prestige of the employer. The detrimental action may consist of writing a letter or making a speech. It may consist of holding a violent demonstration or it may consist of joining a political organi­sation contrary to the Service Rules. Any action which is detrimental to the interests or prestige of the employer clearly undermines disci­pline within the organisation and also the efficient functioning of that organisation. Such a Rule could be construed as falling under “public order” clause. (Para 12)

       The same requirements of Rule 22 can be better looked at from the point of view of Article 19(1)(g) as requirements in furtherance of the proper discharge of the public duties of Government service. Rules which are directly linked to and are essential for proper discharge of duties of a public office would be protected under Article 19(1)(g) as in public interest. If these Rules are alleged to violate other free­doms under Article 19, such as, freedom of speech or expression or the freedom to form associations or unions or the freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms, the freedoms have to be read harmoniously so that Rules which are reasonably required in furtherance of one freedom are not struck down as violating other freedoms. (Para 13)

       The fundamental freedoms enumerated under Article 13 are not necessarily and in all circumstances mutually supportive, although taken together they weave a fabric of a free and equal democratic society, e.g. the right to reside and settle in any part of the coun­try can be put in jeopardy by a vociferous local group freely express­ing its view against persons from another part of the country. Freedom of speech of one affects the freedom of movement of another. Exercis­ing the right to form an association may curtail the freedom to ex­press views against its activities. The rights must be harmoniously construed so that they are properly promoted with the minimum of such implied and necessary restrictions. In the present case, joining Government service has, implicit in it, if not explicitly so laid down, the observance of a certain code of conduct necessary for the proper discharge of functions as a Govern­ment servant. That code cannot be flouted in the name of other free­doms. Of course, the courts will be vigilant to see that the code is not so widely framed as to unreasonably restrict fundamental freedoms. But a reasonable code designed to promote discipline and efficiency can be enforced by the Government organisation in the sense that those who flout it can be subjected to disciplinary action. (Para 14)

       Courts have made sure that such impingement is minimal, and Rules are made in public interest and for proper discharge of public duties. A proper balancing of interests of an individual as a citizen and the right of the State to frame a code of conduct for its employees in the interest of proper functioning of the State, is required. (Para 15)

       In the present case, the appellant had made a direct public attack on the head of his organisation. He had also, in the letter to the Governor, made allegations against various officers of the corporation with whom he had to work and his conduct was clearly detrimental to the proper functioning of the organisation or its internal discipline. Making public statements against the head of the organisation on a political issue also amounted to lowering the prestige of the organi­sation in which he worked. On a proper balancing, therefore, of indi­vidual freedom of the appellant and proper functioning of the Govern­ment organisation which had employed him, this was a fit case where the employer was entitled to take disciplinary action under Rule 22. (Para 17)