Case: State of West Bengal &amp; Others Vs. Bata Krishna Burman

two rules were valid.11. The aforesaid conclusion of the Letters Patent Bench really concluded the matter and the respondents writ petition had to be allowed. But the learned Single Judge, as also the learned Judges forming the Letters Patent Bench, went into the question of the validity of the said rules. That, in our view, was not necessary for the purposes of the case. It is true that the learned Single Judge went into the question of the validity of the said rules as it was contended before him that the said rules placed unreasonable restrictions on the respondents freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a) and (b), and were not saved by cl. (2) of that article. Reliance was placed before him on an earlier decision of Sinha. J. in Krishna C. Chatterjee v. Chief Supdt. Central Telegraph Office Calcutta, AIR 1955 Cal 76 where the words in R. 20 (1), namely, "capable of embarrassing" were held to be vague and the freedom of speech and expression having been made therein subject to "the arbitrary subjective satisfaction" of a few persons in authority. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the word "embarrassing" could not be regarded as vague or uncertain, as expressions such as "lending to embarrass the administration of justice" and "calculated to prejudice the fair trial of a case" were well known judicial expressions used in cases of contempt of court, and therefore, R. 20 (l) according to him could not be held to be vague or uncertain. On merits, he found that the impugned order itself showed that the Director had not wholly condoned "the misconduct" of the respondent and that on the other hand, he had been administered a warning not to take part in politics in future. Therefore, the grant of 25 p.c. of his pay only during the suspension period was justified. In this view he dismissed the respondents writ petition. The Letters Patent Bench disagreed with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and thought that the decisions of this Court in Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar 1962 Supp (3) SCR 369 = (AIR 1962 SC 1166 ) and O. E. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 789 = (AIR 1963 SC 812 ) in relation to R. 4 (A) of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 and Rr. 4 (A) and 4 (B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, applied against R. 23 (1) (i) of the rules in question, and held that that rule violated Art. 19 (1) (a) and (b) and was not protected by cl (2) of that Article, and consequent1y, held that rule to be invalid.12. We are of the opinion that In view of the clear statements made by the Director in his counter-affidavit the respondent could not be held responsible for the publication of the said pamphlet. As aforesaid, there was not and could not be such a finding, and therefore, R. 20 could not be invoked against him. Similarly, since even according to the Director, the respondent was connected only with the Arya Samaj, in the absence of any finding that the Arya Samaj was either a political movement or a political organisation, R. 23 also could not be invoked against him. That being the position, the impugned order passed, as a disciplinary measure against him was not sustainable under either of the said two rules and had, therefore, to be quashed. In this view the Letters Patent Bench could have concluded the appeal before it without going into the question as to the validity of the said two rules.13. It is true that the learned Single Judge had cast doubt on the correctness of the decision of Sinha, J. on R. 20 of the said Rules in the case of Krishna C. Chatterjee, AIR 1955 Cal 76 . But he had not based his decision in the present case on any finding that the respondent had published the said pamphlet and was therefore guilty of breach of R. 20. Consequently, R. 20 could not be applied by him against the respondent in the absence of any finding by the Director that the respondent had published the said pamphlet. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Letters Patent Bench to go into the question of the validity of R. 20. Regarding R. 23, that rule was not the subject matter in the case of Krishna C. Chatterjee, AIR 1955 Cal 76 . For the reasons already set out above, R. 23 also could not be pressed into service against the respondent. The learned Single Judge, no doubt, upheld the impugned order but that was on an assumption by him that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, i.e., misconduct of being politically connected. But that assumption was unjustified as there was no such charge against the respondent nor was any finding that he was connected or associated with any political organisation or party. On this ground alone the judgment of the learned Single Judge was liable to be reversed. Thus it was not necessary for the Letters Patent Bench to decide the question of validity of either R. 20 or R. 23 and that question was only academic.14. In these circumstances, we ourselves do not feel called upon to go into the question of the validity of the said two rules on which, we feel, much can be said by both the sides It may be that the view taken by the Letters Patent Bench will bind the State Government whenever it seeks to take action against any one of its servants in future. But the correctness of the view taken by the Bench in this case can be challenged in future by the Government, if it considers it necessary, in a more suitable case. So far as the present case is concerned, the controversy is altogether academic as on merits neither of the two rules could be invoked against the respondent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. It may be noticed that the order did not contain any finding on the four charges served on the respondent or any one of them It did not also state that the respondent had published the said pamphlet or that in consequence of his having published it, he was responsible for embarrassing the Government in its relations with the public or any section thereof, or that the publication by him constituted his participating actively in politics, or that because of such alleged publication by him he was guilty of carrying on propaganda in connection with any general elections or that he was, therefore, guilty of breach of Rules 20 and 23 of the said rules.6. As appearing from thefiled by the Director (Transportation), no such finding was possible as none of the said charges was brought home to the respondent. Indeed, the Director, in the said affidavit, could only say that the documentary and oral evidence adduced in the said enquiry showed; (a) that the petitioner was the secretary of the Arya Samaj at whose instance the said pamphlet had been printed and the respondents name was printed as its publisher, (b) that it was admitted by the respondent that the books and pamphlets of the Arya Samaj were printed at the Satyanarain Press and (c) that the respondent had actively been participating in politics. He conceded that the only conclusion he could come to was that the petitioner (i.e., the respondent) was politically connected although it vas difficult to establish the same from the available records and as a disciplinary measure the petitioner was granted a subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension and warned not to take part in any political activities."It is clear from this concession that it was not possible for the Director to hold, on the available data before him, the respondent guilty of any of the four charges preferred against him. A fortiori he could not be held guilty of having violated Rule 20 or Rule 23 That being so, it is impossible to understand how the order of suspension, the payment to the respondent of only 25 per cent of his basic pay and the warning ad ministered to him, all as disciplinary measures, i.e., as penalties, could possibly beis true, as thestated that the respondent was the secretary of the Arya Samaj at whose instance the said pamphlet had been printed and the respondents name was published therein as its publisher. But the respondents case all throughout was that his name was mentioned in the said pamphlet as its publisher without his knowledge or consent. There was no finding that the respondents case was untrue. In the absence of such a finding and holding the respondent responsible for the publication of the said pamphlet, the charge of violating Rule 20 against him was clearly unsustainable. Further, there was no finding that the said pamphlet contained any statement of fact or opinion which was capable of embarrassing the relations between the Government and the people of India or any section thereof, or the relations between the Government on the one hand and any foreign country or the ruler of any State in India as required by Rule 20 (1).9. The position in regard to Rule 23 was even less sustainable. None of the four charges preferred against him alleged that he had taken part in or subscribed in aid of or assisted in any way any political movement in India or relating to Indian affairs. There was no finding, nor was there any allegation in the Directors saidthat the Arya Samaj, of which the respondent was the secretary, was a political movement in which the respondent had taken part or had rendered any assistance. There being no such charge or finding, the respondent obviously could not be held guilty of any breach of Rule 23. As already stated, the only conclusion arrived at by the Director, if it could at all be characterised as a conclusion. was that the respondent was "politically connected". Such a statement was not a conclusion because the Director did not specify with what movement or party or organisation the respondent was politically connected. The only connection referred to was with the Arya Samaj which was not found or named by the Director as a political movement or a political organisation. The statement, therefore, was not only vague but was a mere speculation on the part of the Director, since it was not based on any evidence andas the Director himself confessed in his"it was difficult to establish the same from the available records". Such a finding was therefore, no finding based on any evidence, and could not be depended upon and made the basis for any disciplinary penalty.10.There was, therefore, no question of either R. 20 or R. 23 being enforced against the respondent. The order imposing the penalty of3/4th of the basic pay and directing to pay to the respondent only 1/4th thereof and the warning issued to him both as and by way of penalties was without any basis and was therefore bad. The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, therefore, was right in allowing the respondents writ petition and setting aside the order even on the assumption that said two rules were valid.11. The aforesaid conclusion of the Letters Patent Bench really concluded the matter and the respondents writ petition had to be allowed. But the learned Single Judge, as also the learned Judges forming the Letters Patent Bench, went into the question of the validity of the said rules. That, in our view, was not necessary for the purposes of the case. It is true that the learned Single Judge went into the question of the validity of the said rules as it was contended before him that the said rules placed unreasonable restrictions on the respondents freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a) and (b), and were not saved by cl. (2) of that article.We are of the opinion that In view of the clear statements made by the Director in histhe respondent could not be held responsible for the publication of the said pamphlet. As aforesaid, there was not and could not be such a finding, and therefore, R. 20 could not be invoked against him. Similarly, since even according to the Director, the respondent was connected only with the Arya Samaj, in the absence of any finding that the Arya Samaj was either a political movement or a political organisation, R. 23 also could not be invoked against him. That being the position, the impugned order passed, as a disciplinary measure against him was not sustainable under either of the said two rules and had, therefore, to be quashed. In this view the Letters Patent Bench could have concluded the appeal before it without going into the question as to the validity of the said two rules.13. It is true that the learned Single Judge had cast doubt on the correctness of the decision of Sinha, J. on R. 20 of the said Rules in the case of Krishna C. Chatterjee, AIR 1955 Cal 76  . But he had not based his decision in the present case on any finding that the respondent had published the said pamphlet and was therefore guilty of breach of R. 20. Consequently, R. 20 could not be applied by him against the respondent in the absence of any finding by the Director that the respondent had published the said pamphlet. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Letters Patent Bench to go into the question of the validity of R. 20. Regarding R. 23, that rule was not the subject matter in the case of Krishna C. Chatterjee, AIR 1955 Cal 76  . For the reasons already set out above, R. 23 also could not be pressed into service against the respondent. The learned Single Judge, no doubt, upheld the impugned order but that was on an assumption by him that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, i.e., misconduct of being politically connected. But that assumption was unjustified as there was no such charge against the respondent nor was any finding that he was connected or associated with any political organisation or party. On this ground alone the judgment of the learned Single Judge was liable to be reversed. Thus it was not necessary for the Letters Patent Bench to decide the question of validity of either R. 20 or R. 23 and that question was only academic.14. In these circumstances, we ourselves do not feel called upon to go into the question of the validity of the said two rules on which, we feel, much can be said by both the sides It may be that the view taken by the Letters Patent Bench will bind the State Government whenever it seeks to take action against any one of its servants in future. But the correctness of the view taken by the Bench in this case can be challenged in future by the Government, if it considers it necessary, in a more suitable case. So far as the present case is concerned, the controversy is altogether academic as on merits neither of the two rules could be invoked against the respondent.