Order.-The petitioner was a Taluk Head Accountant in the Revenue Subordinate Service in South Arcot District. He was also the President of the NonGazetted Officers’ Association, Tindivanam. The petitioner was charged with contravention of rule 6 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules framed by the Government of Madras. The petitioner admitted the truth of the charge, that, while he was employed as a Taluk Head Accountant at Tindivanam, he sold tickets for a dramatic performance held on 5th June, 1952 and helped to collect funds for his Association, without obtaining the permission required by rule 6 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules. The Collector punished the petitioner by ordering a temporary reduction in rank for a period of three months. It was the validity of that order that the petitioner challenged in his application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari.

The contention of the petitioner, that the procedure adopted by the Collector was in contravention of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, has no substance. Artice 320(3)(c) requires that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted on all disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government of the State in a civil capacity. But the relevant portion of the proviso of Article 320 (3) runs:-

“Provided......the Governor........as respects other services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State may make regulations specifying matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of case or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for a Public Service Commission to be consulted.”

Rule 18 of the Madras Public Service Commission Regulations promulgated under this proviso, specifies the class of cases with reference to disciplinary matters affecting a person serving in connection with the affairs of the State on which alone the Commission need be consulted and disciplinary proceedings taken against a member of the Revenue Subordinate Service is not one of them. Therefore rule 18 is a sufficient answer to the plea of the petitioner, that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) had been violated.

The main contention of the petitioner was that rule 6 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules was unconstitutional as it offended the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed by Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.

Rule 6 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules runs:

“Except with the previous sanction of the State Government if he is the head of a department, or of the head of his department in other cases, no Government servant shall ask for or accept or in any way participate in the raising of any subscription or other pecuniary assistance in pursuance of any object whatsoever.”

Subsidiary Rule:

“Except with the premission of the authority specified in the above rule, a Government servant is forbidden to take any part in the collection of money for any public or local purpose.

”Such permission may, after due consideration, be accorded in all cases where the State Government support the institution by way of grants or otherwise."

What Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantees is the right of a citizen to form associations or unions. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the right to collect funds by all lawful means was incidental to the right to form an association guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The learned counsel referred to Raja Kulkarni v. State of Bombay1. At page 340-41 Bavdekar, J., observed:

”.....it is contended before us that it is no use the Constitution guaranteeing to all citizens the right to form among others Trade Union, in case the right is rendered illusory. That we are prepared to accept. If a Legislature were at any time to enact a law which, while nominally allowing formation of a Union, would make the right to form a Union illusory by preventing the Union from doing anything in the interests of the members, then the leg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document