Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, S.OBUL REDDY
P.Khaja Khan - Appellant
Versus
Postmaster General Andhra Circle Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-23-74
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19(1)(F) - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES, 1964 - RULE 16(4)(I)(B) AND RULE 3(I)(III) - VALIDITY - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - UNBECOMING CONDUCT - ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ENQUIRY OFFICER.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Postmaster General, Andhra Circle, Hyderabad, was served with a charge memo under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for gross misconduct. The charges framed against the appellant were that he lent money to another public servant on interest, thereby contravening rule 16(4)(i)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and that he attempted to assault another public servant, thereby acting in a manner not becoming of a Government servant, contravening rule 3(i)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant submitted his written explanation and a regular enquiry was conducted. A second show-cause notice was given and he submitted his second explanation. Thereafter, an order was passed imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. An appeal preferred by him to the Postmaster General was dismissed. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the compulsory retirement order and the appellate order, contending that rule 16(4)(i)(b) and rule 3(i)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 were unconstitutional and that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that rule 16(4)(i)(b) and rule 3(i)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 were constitutionally valid and were not violative of Article 19(1)(f) or Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the Enquiry Officer was competent to put questions to the witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether rule 16(4)(i)(b) and rule 3(i)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 are unconstitutional? 2. Whether the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that rule 16(4)(i)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which prohibits Government servants from lending money at interest, is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the rule is necessary to maintain discipline and efficiency in the civil service and to prevent Government servants from using their positions for personal gain. The Court also held that the proviso to the rule, which allows Government servants to lend money with the prior sanction of the Government, is a sufficient safeguard against arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions. 2. The Court held that rule 3(i)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires Government servants to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant, is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The Court reasoned that the rule provides sufficient guidance to Government servants as to what conduct is prohibited and that it is necessary to maintain discipline and efficiency in the civil service. 3. The Court held that the enquiry into the charges against the appellant was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the Enquiry Officer did not cross-examine the witnesses in a manner that was prejudicial to the appellant and that the appellant was given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ appeal with costs.
( 1 ) THE appellant is the writ petitioner. He was a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Postmaster general, Andhra Circle, Hyderabad. On 22nd September, 1970 he was served with a charge memo under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for gross misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. The charges framed against the appellant were : that the said public servant, Shri khaja Khan, while functioning as employee of the Postmaster-General s Office, hyderabad, committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he lent money to the extent of Rs. 1,000 on interest to Shri Eugene, another public servant working in the same office as detailed in the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and thereby contravened rule 16 of the Cenral Civil Services (Conduct) rules, 1964.
( 2 ) THAT during the month of April, 1970 and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said public servant, Shri Khaja Khan committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he attempted to assault Shri Eugene, another public servant of the same office and thereby acted in a manner not becoming of a Government servant as detailed in the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour and thereby contravened rule 3 (i) (ii ) of the Central civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964".
( 3 ) HE submitted his written explanation and thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted. A second show-cause notice was given and he submitted his second explanation. Thereafter an order was passed imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement on the appellant. An appeal preferred by him to the Postmaster General was dismissed.
( 4 ) THE appellant had therefore filed Writ petition No. 4297 of 1971. The 1st respondent to the writ petition is the Postmaster-General, Andhra Circle, Hyderabad the 2nd respondent is the Director of Postal Services, Hyderabad, and the 3rd respondent is Sri B. Venkataratnam, who was the Enquiry Officer. A relief by way of certiorari was sought to quash the compulsory retirement order passed by the and respondent and also the appellate order of the 1st respondent, who dismissed the appeal. Our learned brother M. Krishna rao, J. dismissed the writ petition.
( 5 ) THE following points were raised by Sri P. A. Choudary for the appellant: i. Rule 16 (4) (i) (b) of the Central Civil services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which is the subject-matter of the first charge is unconstitutional, being violative of the provisions of Articles 19 (i) (b) of the constitution of India. 2. Rule 3 (i) (iii) relating to the second charge is also unconstitutional on the ground that it is vague and capable of giving rise to arbitrary decisions. It is thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The enquiry conducted is violative of the principles of natural justice because the Enquiry Officer had cross-examined the witnesses at great length.
( 6 ) IT was sought to be contended that the constitution in the matter of fundamental rights guaranteed, makes no discrimination between Government servants and ordinary citizens. According to the learned Counsel, that is clear because Article 33 provided that Parliament may by law determine to what extent any of the fundamental rights, shall in their application to the members of the Armed forces or other forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline amongst them. No such power was conferred upon the Pariament in relation to government servants.
( 7 ) WE will first deal with the impugned provisions in the rules. The relevant portion of rule 16 (4) reads as follows : " 16 (4) (i) : Investment leading and iorrowing : no Government servant shall, save in the ordinary course of business with a bank or a public limited company either himself or through any member of his family or any other person acting on his behalf; (a) * * * (b) lend money to any pers
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
