Back
1965 Supreme(All) 185
Allahbad High Court
R.S.PATHAK
Uma Shanker Singh - Appellant
Versus
Senior Personnel Officer - Respondent
Decided On : 11/29/1965
D. Sanyal, for Petitioner; Standing Counsel, for Respondents.
Headnote:
RAILWAY SERVICE (CONDUCT) RULES - RULE 19(1) - VALIDITY - CHALLENGE - ULTRA VIRES - ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 309 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE OF RULE 19(1) - DEMONSTRATIONS - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - DISCIPLINARY ACTION - MALA FIDES - DEPUTATION - TERMINATION - CHARGE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
Railway employees were suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them for participating in an unruly demonstration and raising derogatory slogans against the Minister of State for Railways. The employees challenged the validity of Rule 19(1) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1956, alleging that it violated their fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution and was ultra vires the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 19(1) was valid and did not violate the fundamental rights of the employees under Article 19 of the Constitution. The court found that the rule only prohibited demonstrations that were prejudicial to public order and other considerations mentioned in clauses (2) and (3) of Article 19, and that it did not impose a blanket ban on all demonstrations. The court also held that the rule was a valid exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution, as it regulated the conditions of service of railway employees.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 19(1) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1956, is ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Rule 19(1) is ultra vires Article 309 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the charge against the employees was valid? 4. Whether the disciplinary action against the employees was vitiated by mala fides? 5. Whether the petitioner, Ganesh Jha, was an employee of the Railway when the demonstration took place? 6. Whether the charge against the petitioner, Narendra Singh, was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 19(1) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1956, is not ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution because it only prohibits demonstrations that are prejudicial to public order and other considerations mentioned in clauses (2) and (3) of Article 19, and it does not impose a blanket ban on all demonstrations. 2. Rule 19(1) is not ultra vires Article 309 of the Constitution because it is a valid exercise of the powers conferred by that Article, as it regulates the conditions of service of railway employees. 3. The charge against the employees was valid because it clearly stated that they were alleged to have participated in and held the demonstration. 4. The disciplinary action against the employees was not vitiated by mala fides because there was no evidence to show that the respondents were acting arbitrarily or that any ulterior motive influenced them in taking the impugned disciplinary proceedings. 5. The petitioner, Ganesh Jha, was an employee of the Railway when the demonstration took place because he continued to be an employee of the Railway during the period of his deputation to the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union. 6. The charge against the petitioner, Narendra Singh, was valid because it clearly stated that he was alleged to have participated in and held the demonstration.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of Rule 19(1) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1956, and the disciplinary action taken against the employees.
2. Dr. Ram Subhag Singh, Minister of State for Railways in the Government of India, decided to visit Gorakhpur on December 5 and 6, 1964. According to the programme drawn up by the Railway Authorities, among other engagements, he was to meet the heads of the departments of the Railway on the first of these two dates at 5.30 in the afternoon and the North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union and the North Eastern Railway Employees' Union on the next day at 11 O'clock in the forenoon. The North Eastern Railway Mazdoor Union, however, pressed for permission to meet him on the afternoon of December 5, 1964, but this was refused. However, when the Minister was attending the meeting with the heads of the various departments in the office of the General Manager on the afternoon of that day, it is said that a large number of railway employees collected outside the office. It seems that the Minister was prevailed upon to address the gathering and thereupon, it is alleged objectionable slogans were shouted by the crowd that had assembled inside the compound of the Officer.
3. On December 7, 1964 the first respondent passed an order suspending the petitioner, Uma Shanker Singh, who is a Senior Clerk employed in the North Eastern Railway. He was also served with a memorandum informing him that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him. The charge, and the allegations regarding the charge, were enclosed. The charge recited that the petitioner had "participated in and or held an unruly demonstration and also indulged in raising derogatory and abusive slogans before and against the Hon, Minister of State for Railway on 5-12-1964 at about 17/45 hours inside the Railway premises in contravention of the Gazette Notification issued in the N. E. Railway Fortnightly Gazette, dated 1st August 1956. This was a breach of Service Conduct Rule No. 19(1)". Similar action was taken in respect of the other petitioners.
4. A number of contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioners. I shall first consider those which are common to this and the connected petitions.
5. The petitioners challenge the validity of R. 19(1) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules. This Rule was inserted in the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules by the following notification :-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby directs that the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1956, contained in Appendix VIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1 (1959 Edn), should be amended as in the advance copy of the correction slip sent herewith.
Advance Correction Slip No. 171, R. 1.
Appendix VIII-RI-Rule 19 :-
Substitute the following for the existing Rule :-
"19 (1) Demonstrations :-
No Railway servant shall engage himself or participate in any demonstration which is prejudicial to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or which involves contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
(2) Joining of Associations or Unions by Railway Servants. - No Railway servant shall join, or continue to be a member of an Association or Union the objects or activities of which are prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty, and integrity of India or public order or morality."
6. The challenge to the validity of R. 19(1) is based on two submissions. It is said that the Rule contravenes sub-cls. (a) and (b) of Cl. (1) of Art. 19 of the Constitution and is not saved by Cls. (2) and (3) of that Article. It is also urged that the Rule falls outside the powers conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitu
