Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The respondent E. X. Joseph is in the service of the Government of India in the Audit and Accounts Department at Bombay. He was the Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association which consists of non-gazetted staff of the Accountant-General s Office. The said Association was affiliated to the All India Non-Gazetted Audit and Accounts Association. The latter Association had been recognised by Government of India in December, 1956. In May, 1959, the Government withdrew recognition of the said Association. In spite of the withdrawal of the recognition of the said Association, the respondent continued to be its Secretary-General and refused to dissociate himself from the activities of the said Association, though called upon to do so. As a result of his activities, on or about 3-6-1960, he was served with a charge-sheet for having deliberately committed breach of R. 4-B of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules (1955) (hereinafter called the Rules). Appellant 1 O. K Ghosh accountant General, Maharashtra, who held the enquiry, found the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service was served on the respondent.

2. On 25-7-1960, appellant 1 served a memo on the respondent intimating to him that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him for having deliberately contravened the provision of R. 4-A of the Rules in so far as he participated actively in various demonstrations organised in connection with the strike of Central Government employees and had taken active part in the preparations made for the said strike.

3. On 8-8-l960. the respondent filed a writ petition on the original side of the Bombay High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed that a writ of certiorari should be issued to quash the charge-sheets issued against him by appellant 1 in respect of the alieged contravention of Rr. 4-B and 4-A and a writ of prohibition should be issued prohibiting appellant 1 from proceeding further with the departmental proceedings against the respondent. In his petition, the respondent asked for other incidental reliefs.

4.The main ground on which the respondent challenged the validity of the departmental proceedings initiated against him was that Rr. 4-A and 4-B were void in so far as they contravened the "fundamental rights guaranteed to the respondent under Art. 19(1) (a), (b), (c) and (g). This contention was resisted by appellant 1 and appellant 2, the Union of India, who had been impleaded as respondents to the said petition. it was urged on their behalf that the impugned rules were valid and so, the claim for a writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition was not justified.

5.The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. On 18-1-1961, the High Court rejected the petition in so far as the respondent had claimed writs in regard to the enquiry for breach of R. 4-A; the Court held that the said rule was valid and so, the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent in respect of the breach of the said rule could not be successfully impeached. In respect of the proceedings under R 4B, however, the High Court held that the said rule was invalid and so, the departmental proceedings in respect of the breach of the said rule have been quashed. It is against this decision that the appellants, the A. G. and the Union of India, have come to this Court by Appeal No. 378/1962; whereas E. X. Joseph, the respondent, has preferred Appeal No. 379/1962. Both the appeals have been brought to this Court by special leave.

6. The appellants contend that the High Court was in error in holding that R. 4-B was invalid, whereas the respondent urges that R. 4-A was invalid and the decision of the High Court to the contrary is erroneous in law. Before dealing with the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the two impugned rules. These rules form part of a body of rules framed in