Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4015
Delhi High Court
Kailash Gambhir, I.S. Mehta, JJ.
S.K. Jasra - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Resopndent
W.P. (C) 7699 of 2013
Decided On : 28-05-2015
For the Respondents:Mr. Manish Mohan, Ms. Sidhi Arora, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh & Ms. Mira Shaheen, Advocates.
Misconduct by a government servant need not be committed in the course of employment, but must have a reasonable connection with the nature and conditions of service. Government servants are expected to maintain high moral values and decent conduct in their personal and private lives.
Headnote:
The court analyzed Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires government servants to do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. The court interpreted 'unbecoming' as conduct that is indecorous, not proper or befitting the position of a government servant. The court also referred to various judgments to establish the scope and interpretation of the rule.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, was accused of behaving inappropriately with the daughter and daughter-in-law of a fellow employee. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a penalty of reduction in rank was imposed. The petitioner challenged the penalty order before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which remanded the case back to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a more severe penalty, which was again challenged before the CAT. The CAT declined to interfere with the penalty order and directed the respondents to take a view regarding the penalty imposed upon the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The issue before the court was whether the conduct of the petitioner was 'unbecoming of a government servant' within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The court held that the conduct of the petitioner, which involved inappropriate behavior with the family members of a fellow employee, was unbecoming of a government servant and violative of the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The court relied on various judgments to establish that misconduct need not be committed in the course of employment, but must have a reasonable connection with the nature and conditions of service. The court also emphasized the importance of maintaining high moral values and decent conduct in the public service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that misconduct by a government servant need not be committed in the course of employment, but must have a reasonable connection with the nature and conditions of service. The court also emphasized the importance of maintaining high moral values and decent conduct in the public service.
Result: The court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant.
Kailash Gambhir, J.:--
1. By way of this present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in O.A being No. 3577/2012 and also the penalty order dated 28.09.2012.
2. For better appreciation of the case at hand, it would be worthwhile to turn to the facts of the case:
“The petitioner was working as a Joint Director in the Directorate of Pay, Pension and Regulations (Directorate of Education of PP&R), Air Headquarters, Ministry of Defence at the relevant time i.e. June 2004 to 30th June 2013. Mrs. Nirmala Devi (complainant) was also posted as a Peon at the same Directorate as that of the Petitioner since 1998, who was attached with Director PP& R. She had a daughter named Sona Bala. The petitioner was asked by the Director, PP& R to lend a helping hand to the Complainant as she had been facing some problems in the Women Cell where her daughter Sona Bala had filed a complaint against her estranged husband. The petitioner extended whatever possible help he could to the complainant as well as her daughter. On 01.08.2006, the petitioner manhandled the daughter of the Complainant, when the petitioner accompanied them to Tiz Hazari Court in connection with filing of a Court case. On 07.08.2006, when Mrs. Nirmala Devi and her daughter had gone to the petitioner’s house to meet the lawyer, the petitioner inappropriately caught hold of Ms. Sona Bala’s hand and offered her Rs. 2000/- to work for him full time. On 29.08.2006, while returning from Gole Market, the petitioner was travelling with Mrs. Nirmala Devi and her daughter Mrs. Sona Bala in his car. He dropped Mrs. Nirmala Devi at her office but insisted to drop Mrs. Sona Bala at home despite her request to drop her at the bus stand. He pressed her thigh in the car which was objected to by her. On 08.12.2006, the petitioner misbehaved with her daughter in the premises of the office of the DCP (South), Hauz Khas. On 28.05.2007 the complainant barged into the office of the petitioner and started calling him names. She filed a complaint with the Grievances Cell of Office of Joint Secretary (Training) & Chief Administrative Office, Ministry of Defence on 31.5.2007 alleging harassment, which was followed by another complaint, dated 11.06.2007 addressed to the Chairperson, Women Complaints Committee, Ministry of Defence. The Complaints Committee which conducted internal enquiry on the complaint of Mrs. Nirmala Devi submitted its report to the effect that it was not a case of sexual harassment of women at work place warranting initiation of departmental action under Rule-3 –C (1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, but that it is a case of sexual harassment of kins of a working woman. After a gap of 14 months, in March 2009 a charge memo was issued to him for behaving in a sexually in-appropriate manner with the daughter and daughter-in-law of the Complainant.”
3. Thereafter, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. After following the due procedure, the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry finding the charges against the petitioner as proved. The petitioner made a detailed representation on 05.02.2010 against the inquiry report. Another representation on 15.03.2010 was made by the petitioner. After considering the facts, circumstances and the representations of the petitioner, the competent authority imposed upon him the “Penalty of reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with further orders that he will not earn increments during these two years and his future increments will remain postponed”.
4. The petitioner submitted a review application dated 11.10.2010 under Rule 29(A) of the Rules 1965 against the penalty order which was rejected vide order dated 10.01.2011.
5. The petitioner thereafter filed an O.A. No. 654/2011 before the learned Tribunal assailing the order of penalty and
