LexM. N. SAMRATH versus MAROTRAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
13
c
1078
M. N. SAMRA1H
v.
MAROTRAO AND ORS.
AND VICE VERSA
May 4, 1979
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.J
Ufe Insurance Corporation of Jnditl (Staff) Regulations 1960, Regulations
25 and 39 vis-a-vis Section 15(g) of the City of Nagpur G'orporation Act,
1948, arnbit and limit and the imporl and interpretation of -
Whether Rl!gu·
lation 25(4) read with Section 15(g) of the Corporation Act 1948 constitutes
or amounts to an ineligibility or disqualification for a whole ti111e salaried
employee oj L.I.C. to become a member of any local authority.
Clause (g) of Section 15 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 l•ys
down that "no person shall be eligible for election as a Councillor if he is
under the provisions of any law for the time being in force, ineligibie to be
a member of any local authority. Under sub-!ection (4) of the Iife Insurance
Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, "No employee shall canvass
D
or otbenvise interfere or use his influence in connection' with or take part in an
election to any legislature or local authority".
However proviso (iii) to the,
~aid sub-section lays down that "the Chairman may permit an employee to
offer hintself as a candidate for election to a local authority and the employee
so permitted shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this
regulation so as to attract punishment under Regulation 39, ibid.
E
F
H
The appellant (in C.A. 2406/77) and a returned candidate as :i councilk1r
from ward No. 34 of Nagpur was an employee of the Life Insurance Corpo-
ration.
lie had not sought or got the Chairman's pern1ission to
stand for
the election, 'Nith the result the election petition filed by his
nearest rival
respondent I and appellant in C.A. 356 o.f 1978 on this sole ground of taboo
was accepted by the Court's. below.
The direction given by th'e trial court
declaring respondent 1 as an elected candidate was however set aside by the
High Court and hence C.A. 356 of 1978 against that part of the decision by
respondent 1 in C.A. 2406/77.
Allowing C.A. 2406/77 and dismissing CA. 356178. the Court
HELD'
IPcr Krishna Iyer, ].]
1. The impact of Regulation 25(4) is not to impose
ineligibility on an
L.I.C. employee to be a member of a Municipal Corporation. Its effect is not
on the candidature but on the employment itself.
The sole and whole object
of Regulation 25 read with Regulation 39, is to lay down a rule of conduct
for the 1 .. .1.C. employees.
Among the 01any things forbidden are for instauce
prohibition or acceptance of gifts or speculation in stocks and share. Obviously
neither Regulation 32 can be read as invalidating a gift to an L.I.C. employee
under the law of gifts, nor Regulation 33 as nullifying transfer of stocks and
shares speculatively purchased by the L.l.C, employee. · Lik'e1.vise, Regulation
•
.le
-
•
•
.;
j
•
•
M. N. SAMRATH V. MAROTRAO
1079
25 while it does n1andate that the employee shall not participate in an election
A
to a local authority cannot be read as nullifying the election or disqualifyin:
the candidate.
The contravention of the Regulation invites dWciplina.ry aclioa
which may range from censure to dismissal.
[lOBBH, 1089A-B, 1091G]
2. Section I5(g) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 relates to
the realm oi election law and eligibility to be a member of a local autbodty.
Jneliglbility nuist flow from specific provision of laV.1 designed to deny eligi·
bility or to lay down disqualification.
[l089C]
3. If a rule of conduct makes it undesirable, objectionable or punishable
for an employee to participate in election to a local authority, it is a distor-
tion, even an exaggeration out of proportion. of that provision to extract out
of it a prohibition of a citizen's franchise to be a member in the shap! of a
disqualification from becoming a member of a loc:il authority.
The thrust of
Regulation 25 is disciplinary and not disqualificatory.
Its intent imposes its
limit, language U!!ed by a legislature being only a means of communicating its
will in the given environment
This is clear from the fact that t.hb Chair-
man is gh·en the power under Proviso (iii) to Section 25(4) to permit such
participation by an en1ployee depending on the circumstances of each case.
Even the range of punishment is variabl'e.
{1089C-E]
4. There is no ground in public policy to suppott the plea to magnify
lhe disciplinary prescriExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.