LexO.K. GHOSH AND ANOTHER versus E. X. JOSEPH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 789 the benefit of s. 10 (2) (xi). In our opinion, s. 10(2)(xi) was inapplicable to the facts of this case. In the result the appeal must fail and it is dismissed. The assessee company shall pay the costs of the respondent. Appeal dismissed. 0. K. GHOSH AND ANOTHER v. E. X. JOSEPH (B. P. SINHA., c. J., P. B. GAJllNDRA.GADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAB GUPTA andJ. C. SHAH, JJ.) Service8 Rule8-ABBOciation of non-Gazetted civil •/,aff- Wilktlrawal of recwnition by Government-Proceeding• agai118t Secretary for refUBal to dis•ociate-Participation in preparation for Btrike-Comlitutional Validity of Rules-Central Civil S.rviwi (Conduct) Rules, 1965, rr. 4(A), 4(B)-Comtitution of India, Art. 19. The respondent, a Central Government servant, who was the Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association- of non- Gazcttcd Staff, was departmentally proceeded against under rr. 4(A) and 4(.B) 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strike of Central Government employees and for refusing to dissociate from the Association after the Government had withdrawn its recognition of it.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 fonda- mental rights under Art. 19 of the Constitution. The High Court held that r. 4(A) was wholly valid but quashed the proceeding under r. 4(.B) which it held to be invalid. Ruic 4(A) 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. 4(B) provided that no Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any services Association whicb the 1962 A.V. Thomas Iii Oo., Lttl. v. Commissimur •f (naomt·lax, (Bon1aJor1) K,,,1to Hidayatullah, J, J96Z 1962 0. K. Ghosh v. E. X. Joseph 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. Government did not recognise or in respect of which recognition had been refused or withdrawn by it.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 4(A) 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 Art. 19(1) (a) and (b), the High Court was in error in holding that the rule was wholly valid. Ka.meshwar Parsad v. The State of Bihar, [1962] supp. 3 S.C.R. 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 s. 4( A) being based on that part of it which was invalid must also be inval;d, It was clear that r. 4(B) of the said Rules imposed res- triction on the undoubted right of the Government Servants under Art. 19 which were neither reasonable nor in the interest of public order under Art. 19(4). The rules clearly showed that in the granting or withdrawin~' of recognition, the Govern- ment might be actuated by considerations other than those of efficiency or ,discipline amongst the services or public order. The restriction imposed by r.4 (B), therefore, infringed Art. 19(1) (c) and must be held to be invalid. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, A.LR. 1960 S,C,. 633 and Rex v. Basudev, [1949] F.C.R. 657, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 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. Dapht,ary, Solicifm-General of India, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants in C. A. No. 378/62 and respondents in C. A. No. 379/62. A. S. R. Chari, M. K. Rarnamurthi, D. P. Singh, and 8. C. Agarwala, for the respondent in C. A. No. 378/62 and Appellant in C. A. No. 379/62. I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 791 1962. October 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENpRAGADKAR, J.--The respondent E.X. 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 Associa- tion which consists of non·gazetted staff of the Accountant-General's Office. The said Association was affiliated to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.