Appeals Nos 378 and 379 of 1962
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous petition No 255 of 1960
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India B R L lyengar and R H Dhebar for the appellants in C A No 37862 and respondents in C A No 37962
AS R Chari M K Ranmmurthi D P Singh and section C Agarwala for the respondent in C A No 37862 and Appellant in C A No 379162
791 1962
October 30
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J
The respondent EX Joseph is in the service of the Government of India in the Audit and accounts Department at Bombay
He was she Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association which consists of non gazetted staff of the Accountant General s Office
The said Association was affiliated to the All India Non Gazetted Audit and Accounts Association
The latter Association had been recognized by the Government of India in December 1956
In May 1959 the Government withdrew recognition of the said Association
In spite of the withdrawal of the recognition of the said Association the respondent continued to be its Secretary General and refused to dissociate himself from the activities of the said Association though called upon to do so
As a result of his activities on or about June 3 1960 he was served with a charge she sheet for having deliberately committed breach of Rule 4b of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1955 hereinafter called the Rules
Appellant No 1 0
K Ghosh Accountant General Maharashtra who held the enquiry found the respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him
Accordingly a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service was served on the respondent
On July 25 1960 appellant No 1 served a memo on the respondent intimating to him that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him for having deliberately contravened the provisions of Rule 4A of the Rules in so far as he participated actively in various demonstrations organised in connection with the strike of Central Government employees and had taken active part in the preparations made for the said strike
On August 8 1960 the respondent filed a I writ petition on the original side of the Bombay 792 High Court under article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that a writ of certiorari should be issued to quash the charge sheets issued against him by appellant No 1 in respect of the alleged contravention of Rules 4 B and 4 A and a writ of prohibition should be issued prohibiting a appellant No 1 from proceeding further with the departmental proceedings against the respondent
In his petition the respondent asked for other incidental reliefs
The main ground on which the respondent challenged the validity of the departmental proceedings initiated against him was that Rules 4A and 4B were void in so far as they contravened the fundamental rights guaranteed to the respondent under article 191 a b c and g
This contention was resisted by appellant No 1 and appellant No 2 the Union of India who had been impleaded as respondents to the said petition
It was urged on their behalf that the impugned Rules were valid and so the claim for a writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition was not justified
The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
On January 18 1961 the High Court rejected the petition in so far as the respondent had claimed writs in regard to the enquiry for breach of Rule 4A the Court held that the said Rule was valid and so the departmental proceedings initiated against the respon dent in respect of the breach of the said Rule could not be successfully impeached
In respect of the proceedings under Rule 4B however the High Court held that the said Rule was invalid and so the departmental proceedings in respect of the breach of the said Rule have been quashed
It is against this decision that the appellants the AG and the Union of India have come to this Court by Appeal No 3781962 whereas E XJoseph the respondent has preferred Appeal No 3791962 Both the appeals have been brought to this Court by special leave
793 The appellants contend that the High Court was in error in holding that Rule 4B was invalid whereas the respondent urges that Rule 4A was invalid and the decision of the High Court to the contrary is erroneous in law
Before dealing with the contentions of the parties it is necessary to set out the two impugned Rules
These Rules form part of a body of Rules framed in 1955 under article 309 of the Constitution
Rule 4 A provides that no Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his condition of service
whereas Rule 4 B lays down that no Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any Service Association of Government servants  a which has not within a period of six months from its formation obtained the recognition of the Government under the Rules prescribed in that behalf or b recognition in respect of which has been refused or withdrawn by the Government under the said Rules
The case against the respondent is that he has contravened both these Rules
The question about the validity of Rule 4 A has been the subject matter of a recent decision of this Court in Kameshwar Prasad vs The State of Bihar 1
At the hearing of the said appeal the appellants and the respondent had intervened and were heard by the Court
In that case this Court has held that Rule 4 A in the form in which it now stands prohibiting any form
of demonstration is violative of the Government servants  rights under article 191a  b and should therefore be struck down
In striking down the Rule in this limited way this Court made it clear that in so far as the said Rule prohibits a strike it cannot be struck down for the reason that there is no fundamental right to resort to a strike
In other words if the Rule was 1 1962 Supp 3 SCR 369 794 invoked against a Government servant on the ground that be had resorted to any form of strike specified by Rule 4 A the Government servant would not be able to contend that the Rule was invalid in that behalf
In view of this decision we must hold that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that Rule 4 A was valid as a whole
That takes us to the question about the validity of Rule 4 B
The High Court has held that the impugned Rule contravenes the fundamental right guaranteed to the respondent by article 19 1 c
The respondent along with other Central Government servants is entitled to form Associations or Unions and in so far as this right is prejudicially Rule the said Rule is invalid
The learned Solicitor General contends that in deciding the question about the validity of the Rule we will have to take into account the provision of clause 4 in article 19
This clause provides that article 191 c will not affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes in the interests of public order or morality reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
The argument is that the impugned Rule does nothing more than imposing a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right which is alleged to have been contravened and therefore the provision of the rule is saved by clause 4
This argument raises the problem of construction of clause 4
Can it be said that the Rule imposes a reasonable restriction in the interests of public order  There can be no doubt that Government servants can be subjected to rules which are intended to maintain discipline amongst their ranks and to lead to an efficient discharge of their duties Discipline amount Government employees and their efficiency mayin a sense be said to be related to public order
But in considering the scope of clause 4 it has to be borne in mind that the rule must be 795 in the interests of public order and must amount to a reasonable restriction
The words public order occur even in clause 2 which refers inter alia to security of the State and public order
There can be no doubt that the said words must have the same meaning in both clauses 2 and 4
So far as clause 2 is concerned security of the State having been expressly and specifically provided for public  order cannot include the security of State though in its widest sense it may be capable of including the said concept
Therefore in clause 2 public order is virtually synonymous with public peace safety and tranquility
The denotation of the said words cannot be any wider in clause 4
That is one consideration which it is necessary to bear in mind
When clause 4 refers to the restriction imposed in the interests of public order it is necessary to enquire as to what is the effect of the words in the interests of
This clause again cannot be interpreted to mean that even if the connection between the restriction and the public order is remote and indirect the restriction can be said to be in the interests of public order
A restriction can be said to be in the interests of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is proximate and direct
Indirect or far fetched or unreal connection between the restriction and public order would not fall within the purview of the expression in the interests of public order
 This interpretation is strengthened by the other requirement of clause 4 that
 by itself the restriction ought to be reasonable
It Would be difficult to hold that a restriction which does not directly relate to public order can be said to be reasonable on the ground that its connection with public order is remote or far fetched
That is another consideration which is relevant
Therefore reading the two requirements of clause 4 it follows that the impugned restriction can be said to satisfy as the test of clause 4 only if its connection with public order is shown to be rationally proximate and direct 796 That is the view taken by this Court in The Superintendent Central Prison Fatehgarh vs Dr Ram Manohar Lohia 1
In the words of Patan jali Sastri T in Rex vs Basudev2 the connection contemplated between the restriction and public order must be real and proximate not far fetched or problematical
 It is in the light of this legal position that the validity of the impugned rule must be determined
It is not dispute that the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 19 can be claimed by Government servants
article 33 which confers power on the parliament to modify the rights in their application to the Armed Forces clearly brings out the fact that all citizens including Government servants are entitled to claim the rights guaranteed by article 19
Thus the validity of the impugned rule has to be judged on the basis that the respondent and his co employees are entitled to form Associations or Unions
It is clear that Rule 4 B imposes a restriction on this right
It virtually compels a Government servant to withdraw his membership of the Service Association of Government Servants as soon as recognition accorded to the said Association is withdrawn or if after the Association is formed no recognition is accorded to it within six months
In other words the right to form an Association is conditioned by the existence of the recognition of the said Association by the Government
If the Association obtains the recognition and continues to enjoy it Government servants can become members of the said Association  if the Association does not secure recognition from the Government or recognition granted to it is withdrawn Government servants must cease to be the members of the said Association
That is the plain effect of the impugned rule
Can this restriction be
said to be in the interests of public order and can it be said to be a reasonable restriction  In our opinion the only answer to these questions would be in the negative
It is difficult to see any direct or proximate 1  1949 SCR 657661
797 or reasonable connection between the recognition by the Government of the Association and the discipline amongst and the efficiency of the members of the said Association
Similarly it is difficult to see any connection between recognition and public order
A reference to Rule 5 of the Recognition of Service Association Rules recently made in 1959 would clearly show that there is no necessary Connection between recognition or its withdrawal and public order
Rule 5 enumerates different conditions by clauses a to 1 which every Service Association must comply with and Rule 7 provides that if a Service Association recognised under the said Rules has failed to comply with the conditions set out in Rule 4 5 or 6 its recognition may be withdrawn
One of the conditiOn imposed by Rule 51 is that communications addressed by the Service Association or by any office bearer on its behalf to the Government or a Government authority shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language
Similarly Rule 5g provides that the previous permission of the Government shall be taken before the Service Association seeks affiliation with any other Union Service Association or Federation and Rule 5 h prohibits the Service Association from starting or publishing any periodical magazine or bulletin without the previous approval of the Government
It is not easy to see any rational direct or proximate connection between the observance of these conditions and public order
Therefore even without examining the validity of all the conditions laid down by rule 4 5 or 6 it is not difficult to hold that the granting or withdrawing of recognition may be based on considerations some of which have no connection whatever either with the efficiency or discipline amongst the Services or with public order
It might perhaps have been a different matter if the recognition or its withdrawal had been based on grounds which have a direct proximate and rational connection with public order
That however 798 cannot be said about each one of the conditions prescribed by rule 4 5 or 6
Therefore it is quite possible that recognition may be refused or withdrawn on grounds which are wholly unconnected with public J order and it is in such a set up that the right to form Associations guaranteed by article 191c is made subject to the rigorous restriction that the Association in question must secure and continue to enjoy recognition from the Government
We are therefore satisfied that the restriction thus imposed would make the guaranteed right under article 191c ineffective and even illusory
That is why we see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the High Court that the impugned Rule 4 B is  invalid
In the result appeal No 3781962 fails and is dismissed
In regard to appeal No 3791962 though we have partly reversed the conclusion of the High Court in respect of the validity of the whole of Rule 4 A it appears that the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent in respect ofthe alleged breach of rule 4 A have to be quashed because the alleged contravention of the said Rule on which the said proceedings are based is contravention of that part of Rule 4 A which has been held to be invalid by this Court
The material charge against the respondent in that behalf is that he had deliberately contravene the provisions of Rule 4 A in so far as he has participated actively in the various demonstrations organised in connection with the strike of Central Government employees and took part in the preparations made for the said strike
It will be noticed that the result of the decision of this Court in Kameshwar Prasad s1 case is that in so far as the rule prohibits any form of demonstration it is invalid
It is not invalid in so far as it may prohibit participation in strikes
The charge against the respondent is not that he participated in any strike  the charge is that he participated in the various demonstrations  and that is a charge based upon that part of 1 1962 Supp
3 SCR 369 799 the rule which prohibits demonstrations altogether
It is true that the demonstrations in which he is alleged to have participated actively were organised in connection with the strike  but that does not mean either in fact or in law that he participated in the strike itself
Similarly the charge that he took active part in the preparations made for the said strike also does not mean in fact or in law that he participated in the strike
If he joined demonstrations organised in connection with the strikes or if he took part in the preparations for the strike it cannot be said that he took part in the strike as such and so the charge cannot be reasonably construed to mean that his conduct amounted to a contravention of the rule which prohibits strikes
Therefore though Rule 4 A is partly and not wholly invalid as held by this Court in the case of Kameshwar Prasad1 the particular charge against the respondent being on the basis of that part of the rule which is invalid it must follow that the departmental proceedings based on that charge are also invalid
That is why appeal No 3791962 must be allowed and the departmental proceedings instituted against the respondent for the alleged contravention by him of rules 4 A and 4 B must be quashed
There would be no order as to costs
Appeal 37862 dismissed
Appeal 37962 allowed
1 1962 Supp 3 SCR 369


Summary:
The respondent A Central Government servant who was the Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association of non Gazetted Staff was departmentally proceeded against under rr
4A and 4B of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1955 for participating in demonstrations in preparation of a general strike of Central Government employees and for refusing to dissociate from the Association after the Government had withdrawn its recognition of it
He impugned the validity of the said rules on the ground that they infringed his fundamental rights under article 19 of the Constitution
The High Court held that r 4A was wholly valid but quashed the proceeding under r 4B which it held to be invalid
Rule 4A provided that no Government servant shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with any matter pertaining to his conditions of service and r 4B provided that no Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any services Association which the 790 Government did not recognise or in respect of which recognition had been refused or withdrawn by it
Held that in view of the decision of this Court that r 4A of the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules 1955 in so far as it prohibited any form of demonstration was violative of the Government servants  fundamental rights under article 191 a and b the High Court was in error in holding that the rule was wholly valid
Kameshwar Parsad vs The State of Bihar 1962 supp
3 SCR 369 referred to
Participation in demonstration organised for a strike and taking active part in preparation for it cannot either in law or fact mean participation in the strike
The respondent could not therefore be said to have taken part in a strike as such and the proceeding against him under section 4A being based on that part of it which was invalid must also be invalid
It was clear that r 4B of the said Rules imposed res triction on the undoubted  right of the Government Servants under article 19 which were neither reasonable nor in the interest of public order tinder article 194
The rules clearly showed that in the granting or withdrawing of recognition the Government right be actuated by considerations other than those of efficiency or discipline amongst the services or public order
The restriction imposed by r4 B therefore infringed article 191 c and must be held to be invalid
The Super tenant Central Prison Fatehgarh vs Dr Ram Manohar Lohia  and Rex vs Basudev  referred to