( 1 ) IS the phrase unbecoming of Government servant occurring in Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 so mush elastic that it can take within its sweep certain behaviour which may causes some displeasure to his superior and which may not be in accord with the personal beliefs and liking of the superior officer ? Assumed vagueness of the phrase has rendered an unfortunate Head Constable jobless. Hence necessity to interpret and understand the precise meaning of the same.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an armed constable. He challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 7/05/1986 a copy of which has been produced alongwith the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. By this order it is directed that the petitioner be removed from service.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner joined service as an armed police constable in the year 1974. He was at Khambhalia Police Station since March 1978 and was occupying a quarter in the police line. It is also undisputed that the petitioner is a married man. At the relevant time one Bai Samu was staying with him in the police line quarter alongwith his wife and other family members. Sometime in the last week of June or first week of July 1984 there was an accidental fire in the house of the petitioner and Bai Samu had suffered excessive burns. She was removed to hospital but unfortunately she died.

( 4 ) ON 3/09/1985 the respondent authorities served upon the petitioner a charge sheet dated 26/08/1985 It was alleged that the petitioner was a married man and yet without performing any marriage ceremony either as per Hindu rites or according to Mohammedan religion he allowed one Hindu girl Bai Samu to stay with him in the police line quarter. It was alleged that this was an act of immorality and against discipline; normal conduct and not befitting to a police officer who is a member of the disciplined force. The second count of charge was that he allowed the said Hindu girl who was a stranger to stay with him in the Police line quarter without obtaining permission of any officer of the department. It was alleged that this was an act of serious breach of the Rules.

( 5 ) THE petitioner replied to the charge sheet. Departmental proceedings were held against him. Several witnesses were examined. Ultimately the inquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. The inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer and issued a show-cause notice dated 1/04/1986 which was served upon the petitioner on 8/04/1986 By this notice the petitioner was informed that the charges levelled against him were proved and he was called upon to explain as to why the penalty of removal from service should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the same. Thereafter before the order dated 7/05/1986 was served upon him he approached this Court and challenged the legality and validity of the order of removal from service passed by the respondent authorities.

( 6 ) IT is contended on behalf of the respondent-authorities that the charge levelled against the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Clause 3 (1) (iii) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971 The relevant part of the Rule says that every Government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Therefore the short question which requires to be determined in this case is as to whether the allegations made and held proved against the petitioner would amount to misconduct which can be termed unbecoming of a Government servant ? The controversy between the parties is required to be decided by keeping this central question in mind.

( 7 ) AFTER all what was the charge against the petitioner ? The charge has been reproduced hereinabove in para 4. In substance it w