M.H. DEVENDRAPPA versus THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 17-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
" 
1-.. 
M.H. DEVENDRAPPA 
THE KARNATAKA STATE SMALL INDUSTRIES 
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
FEBRUARY 17, 1998 
[MRS. ~UJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Service Rules of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development C 
Corportation-Rule 22-Assistants lvfanager-Letter to Governor levelling 
allegations against the Corporation-Press statement issued attributing 
motives to the Chairman-Proceeded on unauthorised leave-Show cause 
notice issued-Charges framed-Ex-parte enquiry--Dismissal from service--
On appeal, Held, employee who disobeys the rules or displays negligence, D 
inefficiency or does any-thing detrimental to the interest or prestige of the 
Corporation is guilty of misconduct-Employer entitled to take disciplinary 
action under Rule 22-Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 19(l)(a) : 
19(l)(c) & 19(l)(g). 
Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 19(/){a), 19(J)(c) & 19(l)(g)-
E 
Service Rules of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development 
Corporation-Rule 22-Held : Rule is not violative of Constitution. 
The appellant was working as Asstt. Manager of the Respondent 
Corporation and was also the President of its Employees' Welfare Association. 
He wrote a letter to the Governor levelling allegation of mismanagement in F 
the Corporation. A JJress statement was also issued by him attributing 
motives to the Chairman and welcoming his dismissal from the Presidentship 
of the District Congress Committee. When an exJJlanation was called for 
from the a)lpellant, he went on unauthorised leave. A notice was )lublished 
in the news)la)ler calling u11on the a)lpellant tu report back to duty. Then a 
show cause notice was issued for taking action under Rule 22 of the Service 
Rules of the Corporation. Thereafter charges were framed against the 
a1111ellant and were served upon him. The a)l)lellant filed a civil suit for 
injunction hut no injunction was granted. The ap)lellant refused to )lartici)late 
G 
in the enquiry, the exparte enquiry held him guilty of the charges levelled 
again~1 him, and he was dismissed from service. The appellant umucces~fully H 
919 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 1 S.C.R. 
A challenged the said dismissal order before the Single Judge and in appeal 
before the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that by writing ihe letter to the 
GoVemor and releasing the press statement he had exercised his fundamental 
B 
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) as also he 
had exercised his right to form associations or Unions under ,Article 19(1)(c) 
of the Constitution and therefore he could not be dismissed friim·service.. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Employer was entitled to take disciplinary action 
c under Rule 22 of the Service )lules of the Kamataka State Small Industries 
Development Corporation, since the appellant employee had made a direct 
public attack on the head of his organisation. He had also, in the letter to 
the Governor, made allegations against various officers of the Corporation 
with whom he had to work and his conduct was clearly detrimental to the 
D pro11er functioning of the organisation or its internal discipline. Making 
public statements against the head of the organisation on a political issue 
also amounted to lowering the prestige of the organisation in which he 
worked. On proper balancing, of individaul freedom of the appellant and 
proper functioning of the Government Organisation which had employed 
him, this was a fit case where the employer was entitled to take disciplinary 
E action under Rule 22. (931-C-D) 
2.1. The right to freedom of speech and expression is subject to 
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 
1950. Similarly, Article 19(1)(c) is also subjected to reasonable restrictions 
under Article 19(4). Such reasonable restrictions can be made, inter alia, 
F in the interest of public order or morality. Any action which is detrimental 
to the interests or prestige of the employer clearly undermines discipline 
within the organisation and also the efficient functioning of that organisation. 
Such a rule could be construed as falling under "Public Order" clause. 
[925-C) 
G 
O.K. Ghosh & Anr. v. E.X Joseph, [1963] Supp. 1 SCR 789. Referred 
to. 
2.2. A rule which is not llrimarily designed to restrict any of the 
fundamental rights cannot be called in question as violating Art

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.