Government servants' conduct is regulated by specific rules, and actions outside official duties can still constitute misconduct if they undermine integrity or reflect poorly on their position.

JUDGMENT

1. In the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 issued to him vide memorandum dated 3.8.2021 by the Joint Director, School Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.

2. The petitioner is working as Senior Teacher (Mathematics) since the year 2000 and at present is posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Baberi, Bansur in District Alwar. He has been issued charge sheet under Rule 16 which is under challenge in the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations levelled in the charge sheet do not constitute misconduct under Rule 3, 4 or 11 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations in the charge sheet against him is of circulating certain messages on whatsapp/facebook which is hit by his fundamental right of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. He contended that his status of Government servant can, in no way, impinge upon his right of speech and expression. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that since, the act of circulating the messages do not pertain to discharge of his official duty and hence, the charge sheet in question deserves to be quashed. He, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India & Anr.-(2014) 10 SCC 589, a Division Bench judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jayant vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.-[2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 656] and a judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in the case of Smt. Lipika Paul vs. State of Tripura & Ors., WP (C) No.1363/2019 dated 9th January, 2020.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. Indisputably, the messages in question have been circulated by the petitioner through whatapp/facebook. The question is whether the messages so circulated, detailed in the statement of allegations appended with the charge sheet, constitute misconduct under the Rules of 1958 or not and if yes, this not having been done in discharge of his official duty, whether the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed?

6. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 provides inter alia that every government servant shall at all times maintain devotion to duty and dignity of office. Rule 4(ii) expects from a government servant not to behave in public in a disorderly manner unbecoming of his position as a Government servant. The relevant provisions of Rule 11 says that no Government servant shall, by no means of communication, make any statement of fact or opinion which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government.

7. If, the views/statements circulated by the petitioner as contained in the statement of allegation are examined on the touch stone of the code of conduct prescribed under the Rules of 1971, this Court is satisfied that the language employed in some of the messages such as no.(2), (3), (4) and (6), is highly objectionable, inappropriate or indecent to be used/circulated by a Government servant and being directed against particular political party(ies) as also against particular political figure(s), invites applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1971. Further, some of the messages circulated by the petitioner appear to have dwelt into the realm of unfair and adverse criticism of the government. The petitioner, who is working as a Senior Teacher in a Senior Secondary School since the year 2000, is not only duty bound but is expected also to inculcate high moral standard and discipline in the adolescents, is not expected to be part of circulation of such messages which, undoubtedly, are couched in unparliamentary language. Therefore, in opinion of this Court, contention of the learned counsel that the pet