IMPORTANT POINT
No Government servant shall in any radio broadcast or in any document published in his own name, or anonymously, pseudonymously, or in the name of any other person, or in any communication to the press, or in public utterance, make any statement of facts or opinion.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondents no. 3 and 4 through video conferencing.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.07.2020 suspending the petitioner in exercise of powers under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Rules'), particularly Rule 5 thereof.

3. Apart from the prior history of service details elaborately stated in the petition, the petitioner at the time of suspension was working as a Primary Teacher at Por Primary School under the District Primary Education Officer, Vadodara (DPEO). By the order dated 20.07.2020, the petitioner has been suspended from service. Reading the order of suspension indicates that the petitioner on 17.07.2020 posted on the Facebook, a Gujarati post, the translated version of which would read as under:

“That the statement of the Education Minister is not trustworthy and it is a chinese statement”

3.1 The post on facebook was made through his mobile phone. Reading of the order of suspension indicates and so also from the affidavit-in-reply where the posts are produced, that as a teacher in a group of colleagues on the Facebook he had liked posts criticizing the functions of the officials of the Education Department in branding them as three monkeys who see nothing, hear nothing or talk nothing. These posts were in context of the assurance given by the Minister of Education for redressing the grievance of the teachers in context of their demand for grade pay of Rs.4200/-.

3.2 One of the posts on facebook read as under:

“This man Rao has done nothing and only addresses the media. Remove him from Vadodara City”

The person referred to as 'Rao' in the post is the Secretary, Education Department. The order of suspension indicates that since the petitioner has violated Rule 9 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service Conduct Rules, he is placed under suspension.

4. Mr. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the order of suspension entails serious civil consequences and therefore must be quashed and set aside. He would further submit that on a show cause notice being issued on 17.07.2020, the petitioner came upfront and tendered an unconditional apology as according to him, the posts were made under the stress of the corona pandemic afflicting the State. Mr. Vyas would invite the attention of the court to the checklist and submit that the authorities have branded the petitioner as mentally unstable which is misconceived and causes grave and irreparable injury to the stature of the petitioner as a teacher. Mr. Vyas would pitch his argument on the anvil of the statement being a right enshrined inasmuch as Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which gives him the right to freedom of speech and expression and the government cannot be intolerant inasmuch as finding these facebook posts as being so inconvenient to order suspension.

4.1 In support of his submissions, Mr. Vyas places reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in the case of Jayant Sarvottamrao Kharwadkar vs. The State of Maharashtra rendered in Writ Petition No. 2302 of 2018. He would submit that before the Bombay High Court it was the case in which an Assistant Town Planner in the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation was issued a chargesheet for commenting on facebook about unworthy persons who got an opportunity to speak in the House. The contention of the petitioner therein was that the comment was not directed against any political party as a class and there was freedom of speech and expression. He would rely on paras 12 to 20 of the decision and submit that these communications are not having anything to do with the official functioning of the corporation and are only in consonance with