Issuance of direction in furtherance of any Act, Rules or Regulations.

A.S. Anand, C.J.

1. The Appellant at the relevant time, was serving as Sub Inspector in the Security Force with the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy. He applied to the second respondent, the Senior Security Officer, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, for permission to grow a beard as he intended to perform Haj Pilgrimage and to sport the beard thereafter also. Permission was granted for a specified period of 45 days, vide letter dated 17th January, 1985. That permission for the specified period, however, was not considered sufficient by the appellant and vide his letter, dated 25th January, 1985, he sought permission to keep the beard beyond the period of 45 days which in any case had lapsed. In his letter, he submitted that Muslims employed in police, Military and other forces as also in other walks of life were allowed to grow beard and that, therefore, he should not be denied the right to grow beard. The appellant, however, was informed by the third respondent, vide communication dated 6th February, 1985, that being an employee of the Security Force, he was not permitted to keep a beard. He was told that his conduct was subject to service rules and discipline and any disobedience thereof would be viewed seriously. The appellant made representations to respondents 2 and 3 and on 15th in February, 1985, the third respondent informed she appellant that he could not keep a beard and should come to duty clean shaven, failing which necessary disciplinary action would be taken. Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No.1363 of 1985 which was dismissed by a very elaborate order by the learned single Judge on 13th July, 1986. The learned single Judge concerned himself only with the question whether the refusal by respondents 2 and 3 to the appellant to grow a beard interfered with the appellant's religious lights and was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of India and finding that it was not so, dismissed the writ petition thereby upholding the validity of the communication dated 15th February, 1985, impugned in the writ petition.

2. Before proceeding to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the findings recorded by the learned single Judge, we consider it appropriate to extract the communication dated 15th February, 1985, which was called in question through the writ petition, so as to test its validity. The communication reads thus:

You have been clearly instructed in this office letter No. BHE/SSO/2112515 dt. 6.2.1985 that you are not permitted to cult beard for more than 45 days which was already lapsed on 13.1:1985 and advised to come for duty with clean shave and that there is no concession to be given as Muslim who is working in a disciplined force. Being a Sub Inspector working in an uniformed force, you must adhere to rules and regulations of this department and be an example to others. In spite of following the instructions given to you vide this office letter cited above, you are still growing beard disobeying the orders lawfully issued to you." "You are hereby advised to remove the beard, on or before 22.2.1985, failing which necessary disciplinary action will be taken against you.

3. Cursory look at the above communication shows that disciplinary action was threatened against the appellant in case he did not remove the beard on or before 22nd February, 1985. It is stated in the communication that since the appellant was working in a disciplined, uniformed force, he had to adhere to the "rules and regulations" of the department and the failure to do so could result, in disciplinary action being taken against him.

4. Undoubtedly, if there are any rules, regulations, Standing Orders or even executive instructions prohibiting the keeping of beard by members of the Security Force, the respondents would be well within their rights to direct the employees not to keep a beard. Whether such rule or regulation, etc., would be sustainable in the face of Article 25 of the Constitution of India is a