1979 Supreme(SC) 293

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.*
Manohar Nathusao Samarth, Appellant
Versus
Marotrao and others, Respondents. And Vice-Versa
Civil Appeal Nos. 2406 of 1977 and 356 of 1978, D/- 4-5-1979.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A. P. Deshpande and M. S. Gupta, Advocates, for Appellant; in C. A. No. 2406 of 1977 and Respondent in C. A. No. 356 of 1978; M/s. H. W. Dhabe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, for Appellant in C. A. No. 356 of 1978 and for Respondent in C. A. No. 2406 of 1977.

Headnote:

City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 – Section 15, Sections 20 to 50 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 102, 191 – Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 – Regulation 25 – Election Issue – Appellant was a candidate for election to Corporation of City of Nagpur from Ward 34 and his nearest rival was 1st respondent, although there were other candidates also – Judged by plurality of votes, appellant secured a large lead over his opponents and was declared elected – End of poll process is often beginning of forensic process at instance of defeated candidates with its protracted trial and appeals upon appeals, thus making elections doubly expensive and terribly traumatic – Habit of accepting defeat with grace, save in gross cases, is a sign of countrys democratic maturity – Anyway, in present case, when appellant was declared returned candidate respondent challenged verdict in court on a simple legal ground of ineligibility of former who was, during the election, a development officer under Life Insurance Corporation – Lethal legal infirmity, pressed with success, by respondent was that under Regulation 25 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 framed by LIC, all its employees were under an embargo on taking part in municipal elections, save with permission of Chairman – Appellant who was such an employee and had not sought or got Chairmans permission laboured under a legal ineligibility as contemplated in Section 15 (g) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 – Held, Regulation 25 (4) of the (Staff) Regulations is not a law dealing with elections – Chapter III of the (Staff) Regulations, in which Regulation 25 is found, deals with conduct, discipline and appeals in regard to employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. – A conspectus of the provisions contained in the Chapter, from Sections 20 to 50, shows that it deals with nothing else. – This is a body of provisions defining and controlling the conduct of employees in order to ensure efficiency and discipline in the Corporation, and providing for penalties (Regulation 39) against erring employees. – Regulation 25 prohibits participation in politics and standing for elections. – Regulation 25 (4) forbids an employee not only from taking part in an election to any legislative or local authority, but also from canvassing or otherwise interfering, or using his influence, in connection with such an election. If he does, he will be guilty of a breach of discipline, punishable under Regulation 39. – Regulation 25 (4) is a norm of service discipline. In substance, it is nothing else. – In substance, it is not a provision of election law. It cannot be construed as defining a ground of electoral ineligibility. – All that it says to the employee is: "While you may be eligible for election to a legislature or local authority by virtue of your legal status or capacity, you shall not exercise that right if you wish to conform to the discipline of your service". – The right to stand for election flows from the election law. Regulation 25 (4) does not take away or abrogate the right; it merely seeks to restrain the employee from exercising it in the interests of service discipline. – If in fact the employee exercises the right, he may be punished under Regulation 39 with any of the penalties visited on an employee - a penalty which takes its colour from the relevance of employment, and has nothing to do with the election law. – No penalty under Chapter III of the (Staff) Regulations can provide for invalidating the election of an employee to a legislature or a local authority. – That would be a matter for the election law. – It is significant that when the restraint on standing for election imposed by Regulation 25 (4) has to be removed, it is removed by the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the third proviso. – When he does so, it is as a superior in the hierarchy of service concerned with service discipline. – He does not do so as an authority concerned with elections. – Court find myself, with regret, unable to subscribe to what has been observed by the Madras High Court in Narayanaswamy v. Krishnamurthi, ILR (1958) Mad 513 . – Court would say that the Calcutta High Court in Sarafatulla Sarkar v. Surja Kumar, AIR 1955 Cal 382 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Uttam Singh v. S. Kripal Singh, AIR 1976 Punj & Har 176 (FB) appear to have come to a more accurate conclusion. – Civil Appeal Allowed