SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(J&K) 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
T.S. Doabia, J.
Swadesh Mitter Bakshi - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No. 284/2001
Decided On : 06 September, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: Surinder Kour
Advocate For Respondent: J.P. Singh
Advocate For Respondent: Ravinder Gupta
Advocate For Respondent: S.S. Nanda
Advocate For Respondent: V.R. Wazir
Advocate For Respondent: L.K. Moza

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of an express prohibition on political activity in an employer's regulations may preclude the prevention of an employee from participating in such activities.

Headnote:

Political Activity - University Employee - Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1956, Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules of 1971 - Rule 14(1)(2) - The court discussed the service conditions of the employees of the University of Jammu, the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1956, and the Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules of 1971. It highlighted the specific provisions of Rule 14(1)(2) of the Conduct Rules and the University's own regulations regarding the conduct of teachers. The court also referred to relevant case law to establish the distinction between a government servant's right to take part in political activity and the disciplinary action that may ensue.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to prevent a reader at the University of Jammu from participating in political activities, citing service conditions governed by specific rules and regulations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the University's regulations did not expressly prohibit an employee from engaging in political activities, and the employer had no objection to such participation. It also emphasized the distinction between a government servant's right to take part in political activity and the disciplinary action that may follow.

Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of service conditions governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1956, and the Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules of 1971, in relation to an employee's participation in political activities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of an express prohibition on political activity in the University's regulations and the distinction between a government servant's right to take part in political activity and the disciplinary action that may ensue.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in preventing the employee from participating in political activities, given the absence of a specific prohibition in the University's regulations.

1. Petitioner has come to this Court with a plea that respondent No. 4 who is a Reader in the University of Jammu, cannot take part in the political activity. It is stated that if he takes part in this activity, then, the respondent authorities are supposed to take disciplinary action against respondent No. 4.

2. The argument raised by the petitioner is that the service conditions of the employees of the University are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1956. It is also stated that the services of respondent No. 4 are governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Employees (Conduct) Rules of 1971. It is accordingly submitted :-

(i) That the respondent No. 4 cannot take part in a political activity and cannot be a member of any political party,

(ii) That in case any Government servant including respondent No. 4 takes part in any political activity, then, he renders himself liable to disciplinary action.

3. The further submission which has been made by the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 is a public servant in terms of Section 21, sub-Clause 15 of the RPC and as such, in his capacity as public servant, he cannot take part in any political activity. It is also submitted that the University of Jammu is a corporate body having a perpetual succession and being a creation of Statute is to be treated like any other Government authority. What is sought to be urged is that if a Government servant cannot take part in any political activity, then, the same parameters should apply to the employees of the University.

4. As specific reliance is being placed on Rule 14 (1) (2) of the Conduct Rules,

1971, it would be apt to notice this provision:-

"14. Taking part in political or anti-secular and communal activities- (1) No Government employee shall take part in political or anti-secular and communal activities, or subscribe in aid of any political party or any organisation engaged in anti-secular or communal activities or assist in any way any political movement in the State or in any other part of India or relating to the affairs of the Union of the State....

(2) No Government employee shall permit any person dependent on him for maintenance or under his care or control to take part in, or in any way assist, any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be subversive of Government as by law established in India or in the State."

The stand taken by the University be now noticed.

5. A clear stand has been taken by the respondent authorities that so far as the code of conduct is concerned, it has been provided for specifically by the University at its own level. It is stated that Statute 10-A, 11 and 12 deal with the manner in which a teacher is to conduct himself. For facility of reference, the Regulations 10-A, 11 and 12 are also being reproduced below:

"10-A: A teacher shall-

(i) perform his academic duties such as lectures, demonstrations, assessment, guidance and invigilation conscientiously and with devotion;

(ii) be impartial in the assessment of students;

(iii) refrain from exploiting official facilities and staff for personal ends and misuse of privileges;

(iv) refrain from inciting students against other students, colleagues or administration on grounds of caste, creed, religion, race, sex, region or language;

(v) refrain from raising questions of caste, creed, religion, race, sex, region or language in his relationship with his colleagues and using the above considerations for improvement of his prospects;

vi) carry out the decisions of the appropriate administrative authorities/bodies and academic bodies of the University pertaining to his normal duties. This will not inhibit his right to express his difference with their policies or decisions; provided that the expression of opinion is made at a proper time and place and in a dignified manner; and

(vii) not divulge any confidential information relating to the affairs of the University to any person not authorised in resp























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top