The court emphasized that the circular prescribing the dress code was a reasonable classification and did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

1. The Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment & General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 (abbreviated to “1997 Rules”) do not prescribe a uniform/dress code for Clerks and Ahlmads working in Subordinate Courts in Haryana. This piece of information has been supplied to the petitioner by the Public Information Officer in the High Court on a request made in writing.

2. The District & Sessions Judge, Palwal issued a circular, which is impugned in this petition brought under Article 226/227 of our Constitution, vide office circular-notice dated October 09, 2014 asking all officials working in Sessions Division at Palwal to wear a white shirt and maroon tie at work for male officials and white colour suit and maroon dupatta for female officials. Employees were warned in case of violation of the order, strict action would be taken against the erring official. The surprise check carried out in the afternoon at the Judicial Courts in Hodal falling in Sessions Division Palwal on January 29, 2015 discovered the petitioner, then posted as an Additional Ahlmad in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), flouting the dress code. He was not in white shirt and maroon tie as prescribed. He was called to submit his explanation for his act of disobedience, misconduct which was unbecoming of a Government servant. The reply was to be submitted in three days. He did not file reply within time allowed and instead dashed off a letter dated March 12, 2015 to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hodal explaining his position. He referred to the information received by him from the High Court under the RTI Act that there was no uniform or dress code for Clerk/Ahlmad in the Subordinate Courts in Haryana. The petitioner referred to the Haryana Government circular letter dated January 20, 2009 that where dress is prescribed their uniform/ washing allowance has been granted to all Class-IV employees. He pleaded that he had not violated the rules and he be held not guilty of utter disobedience of the order prescribing the dress code. He attached the policy letter dated January 20, 2009 together with his explanation. This was not found satisfactory answer for breach of dress code.

3. He was accordingly issued a memorandum dated April 22, 2015 proposing to proceed against him under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (“1987 Rules”) read with Rule 12(2) of the 1997 Rules which prescribed procedure for inflicting minor punishment on the statement of allegations levelled against a delinquent appended in the charge docket as Annexure-II. He was offered an opportunity to show cause as to why any of the minor punishments enumerated in Rule 4 of the 1987 Rules be not imposed on him. He was asked to submit his defence statement in writing within the time fixed. The allegations as stated earlier was that he had disobeyed the circular of the Sessions Judge on the dress code to be followed during working hours and on a surprise check was found flouting the order.

4. The Learned District & Sessions Judge, Palwal admitted that there were no specific instructions for Class-III officials of the Subordinate Courts regarding uniform or dress code but in order to maintain discipline on the administrative side, instructions were issued regarding wearing of uniform by the officials of the Sessions Division. It is also recorded by her that the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal to which Court the petitioner was attached had recorded an ACR for the year 2014 and in the column of defects, that the petitioner was by nature 'rebellious'. He was offered personal hearing on May 26, 2015 by the Sessions Judge. He made a written response praying that he be provided the uniform mentioned in the letter dated October 09, 2014 or the market value for purchasing the same along with grant of washing allowance. He referred to the decision of the High Court regarding dress code for Bench Clerks with d