Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Kumar - Respondent
Decided On : 12-13-84
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1964 - RULE 3 (1) (III) - UNBECOMING CONDUCT - ANONYMOUS AND PSEUDONYMOUS LETTERS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - WRIT PETITION - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - APPELLATE AUTHORITY'S ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Officer Surveyor in the Department of Survey of India, was served with a memo containing three charges, including writing anonymous and pseudonymous letters containing improper remarks against superior officers and the functioning of the Department. An enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer held that the first letter did not contain any improper remarks, the second letter's allegations could not be held false without an enquiry, and the third charge was not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. The respondent appealed to the Union of India, which modified the sentence to reduction in rank for a period of five years. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the appellate order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the writing of anonymous and pseudonymous letters making improper remarks against the Head of the Department and the Department in general undoubtedly amounted to conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and therefore attracted Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The court further held that the appellate authority's order was not in accordance with Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, as it did not apply its mind independently and did not record its own findings.
Issues: 1. Whether the writing of anonymous and pseudonymous letters making improper remarks against the Head of the Department and the Department in general amounted to conduct unbecoming of a Government servant? 2. Whether the appellate authority's order was in accordance with Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibits Government servants from doing anything unbecoming of a Government servant, is intended to forbear any Government servant from committing any act of misconduct. What type of acts can be said to be violative of this rule are not enumerated in the rest of the rules. For the purpose of rule 3 (1) (iii) of these Rules, the court has to see whether the act complained of can be said to be unbecoming of a Government servant. 2. In the present case, the respondent's act of writing anonymous and pseudonymous letters making improper remarks against the Head of the Department and the Department in general undoubtedly amounted to conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. The letters contained improper remarks, and the respondent, as a Government servant, should not have indulged in making such remarks, especially in anonymous letters. 3. Rule 27 (2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, requires the appellate authority to consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record. The appellate authority in this case did not apply its mind independently and did not record its own findings. The order of the appellate authority did not disclose that it had applied its mind to the aspect of whether the findings of the disciplinary authority were warranted by the evidence on record.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal and modified the penalty imposed by the appellate authority to one of withholding of promotion of the respondent for a period of three years with effect from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THIS Writ appeal by the Union of India represented by its Secretary Department of Service and Technology, New Delhi is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy, J.
( 2 ) THE respondent Sri Mahendra Kumar was selected and appointed as Officer Surveyor in the Department of Survey of India in they year 1959. From the year 1978 he has been functioning as General Secretary of the Survey of India Class-II Officers Association. The Surveyor-General of India, Dehradun, U. P. State by his order, dated 20/10/1978 suspended him from service pending an enquiry into certain charges. Subsequently the suspension was revoked. Meanwhile disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as C. C. S. (C. C. and A.) Rules, were initiated and a memo containing three charges was served on him on 6/11/1978 and they are as follows :- " (1) That, the said Shri Mahendra Kumar while functioning as Officer Surveyor in the Centre for Survey Training and Map Production, Survey of India, Hyderabad, during the period February, 1978 wrote an anonymous letter addressed to Lt. Col. (now Colonel) P. Misra, Director, Survey Training Institute (CST and MP), Survey of India, Hyderabad, containing improper remarks, in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, and thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (2) That, the said Shri Mahendra Kumar while functioning as Officer Surveyor in the Centre for Survey Training and Map Production, Survey of India, Hyderabad during February, 1978 and March, 1978 respectively wrote an anonymous letter and a pseudonymous letter both addressed to the Union Finance Minister, containing remarks amounting to complaints against officers of Survey of India and criticising the manner of functioning of Government of India, in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (iii) and Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. (3) That, the said Shri Mahendra Kumar while functioning as Officer Surveyor in the Centre for Survey Training and Map Production, Survey of India, Hyderabad during the period between June 1978 and August, 1978 most improperly circulated anonymous cyclostyled "bulletins" titled "survey of India Civilian Officers Information Bulletin. . . . . . . . " from time to time, which included serious and derogatory allegations against superior officers of Survey of India, intended to create disaffection and division amongst the officers in the department and cause conditions prejudicial to the smooth running of administration and criticising the action of the Central Government in regard to its policies, and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating Rule 3 (1) (iii) and Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964".
( 3 ) AN Enquiry Officer was appointed. Both sides adduced evidence. Before the Enquiry Officer the respondent admitted having written these letters. On the basis of the material on record, the Enquiry Officer held that the first letter which is the subject matter of charge No. 1 did not contain any improper remarks. With regard to charge No. 2, he held that in view of the admission made by the petitioner having written the letters, until and unless an enquiry is held into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made therein, it is not possible to hold that they contained false, unfounded or imaginary complaints. So far as the third charge is concerned, it was held that it is not proved. The report was duly submitted to the disciplinary authority, viz. , the Surveyor-General of India, who disagreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and also held that all the three charges were proved against the respondent and awarded punishment of dismissal from services as not being a fit person to be retained in Government service. Against the said
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
