While most commendably according the paramount importance to the highest standards of discipline, uprightness and morality for government servants, the Rajasthan High Court in a most commendable, courageous, cogent and creditworthy judgment titled Hari Singh vs State of Rajasthan in Hari Singh vs State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18980/2017 and cited in [2023:RJ-JP:23836] that was pronounced as recently as on September 20, 2023 has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that when rules prescribe certain code of conduct for government employees and bars them from leading an immoral life, the same cannot be violated on the ground that Indian mythology permits the same. It must be noted that the Single-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur upheld the removal from service of the petitioner a married constable with Rajasthan Armed Constabulary who was found to be in a live-in relationship with a married woman who is also a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). In the fitness of things, the Bench dismissed most commendably the specious and lame contention of the petitioner who cited Indian mythology to justify his conduct.
It merits mentioning that the petition had relied upon judgment in Mahesh Chand Sharma vs State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2067/1999 delivered on 7th March, 2019 in which a coordinate Bench of the High Court while dealing with adultery case had cited Indian mythology as well as customs prevalent in tribal areas. But the Single-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur in this leading case most forthrightly held that, “This Court finds that the said observations of the learned Single-Judge are absolutely out of context and bereft of any reasoning and further not supported by any legal jurisprudence.” Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by the Single-Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging charge-sheet dated 14.09.2007, punishment order dated 31.03.2008, appellate order dated 10.02.2009 rejecting the departmental appeal and order dated 25.05.2017 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary vide order dated 13.04.1995. The petitioner was posted at ‘C’ Company, 12th Battalion RAC (IR) Chanakyapuri, New Delhi and he was served with a chargesheet dated 14.09.2007 issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter ‘the Rules of 1958’).”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 3 that, “The petitioner has pleaded that memo along-with statement of allegations were based on an application submitted by father-in-law of the petitioner containing the false allegations that the petitioner had illicit relations with one Mukesh Kumari.”
As we see, the Bench then while elaborating points out in para 4 that, “The petitioner has pleaded that memo of allegations revealed that the petitioner was married with one Sulochana and out of wedlock, two children were born. The petitioner was having illicit relation with one ConstableMukesh Kumari, who was working in CRPF at New Delhi and she was already a married lady. The petitioner was living with his paramour in an illicit relationship and he did not meet his own legally wedded wife and children. The petitioner in spite of persuasion by his in-laws, continued to maintain illicit relations with his paramour and ignored to look after his wife and children. The said act was treated to be a serious misconduct of leading an immoral life and also an act of indiscipline.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 47 that, “This Court deems it proper to quote Rule 3, 3A and 4 of the Rules of 1971, are as under:-- General.– (1) Every Government servant shall at all times–
(i) maintain absolute integrity; and
(ii) maintain devotion to duty and dignity of office.
(2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority;
(ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, he shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible.
Explanation– Nothing in clause (ii) of sub–rule (2) shall be constituted as empowering a Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.
3A. Violation of the Rules: Any Government servant who commits violation of these rules shall be liable for disciplinary action.
- Improper and unbecoming conduct. – Any Government servant who –
(i) is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude whether in the course of the discharge of his duties or not;
(ii) behaves in public in a disorderly manner unbecoming of his position as a Government servant;
(iii) is proved to have sent an anonymous or pseudonymous petition to any person in authority;
(iv) leads an immoral life;
(v) disobeys lawful order or instructions of superior officer or defies the superior officer;
(vi) without sufficient and reasonable cause, neglects or refuses to maintain his/ her spouse, parent, minor or disabled child who is unable to maintain himself/ herself or, does not look after any of them in a responsible manner;
(vii) willfully tempers with the meter or any other equipment or the power/ water line with a view to causing financial loss to any of the Departments/ Companies providing public utilities like power and water;
-shall be liable to disciplinary action.”
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 48 that, “This Court on perusal of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1971 finds that the government servant as per Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Rules of 1971 shall act all times maintaining devotion to duty and dignity of office.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 49 that, “This Court finds that as per Rule 3A of the Rules of 1971 if a government servant who commits violation of the Rules of 1971, is liable for disciplinary action.”
Be it also noted, the Bench notes in para 50 that, “This Court finds that any government servant who leads an immoral life is liable to disciplinary action as per sub-rule (iv) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1971.”
To be sure, the Bench mentions in para 52 that, “The word ‘misconduct’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as under:-“A forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character, improper or wrong behavior.” Misconduct in offence has been defined as:” Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, wilful in character. The terms embraces acts which the office-holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly and failure to act in the fact of an affirmative duty to act.””
As things stand, the Bench observes in para 54 that, “This Court is primarily required to consider the act of leading immoral life by the petitioner as one of the misconduct or unbecoming conduct of a government servant where allegation is levelled of staying with a married lady, having illicit relation with her and treating the said lady, as his own wife and as such, leading an immoral life and showing indiscipline as well.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 56 that, “This Court finds that a government servant as per the Rules of 1971 has not only to maintain devotion to duty and dignity of office but he has to follow code of conduct and in what manner not only his official duty is required to be performed but apart from his duty hours or while not working in office, he has to follow the norms/conduct Rules, which are prescribed by the employer.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 57 that, “This Court finds that a government servant is a public servant and while discharging his duties in such a status, such an employee has to maintain himself in private as well as public life maintaining high standards and he has to be above the board. The government servant cannot be permitted to assert his right in his private life by not following the norms or conduct Rules which are prescribed by the employer for maintaining high standards.”
For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 58 that, “The relationship of the employee with the employer of a government servant is not of a private character where only two individual persons are governing their relationship as employer and employee.”
Most commendably, the Bench finds no hesitation in holding in para 59 that, “The government servant is supposed to discharge his duties while working in office or even beyond office hours. He is a public servant in the eyes of a general public. The divesting status of a government servant from his office duty hours to lead his personal life the way he likes by leading an immoral life, cannot be countenanced by bestowing unfettered right in favour of such government servant.”
Quite significantly, the Bench holds in para 77 that, “This Court finds, in the present facts of the case, admittedly the petitioner was working in the disciplined police force and while he was staying in a government accommodation with a lady, who was already married with some other person for a considerable period and treated such lady to be her wife and at the same time, he did not keep his wife and children with him and as such, the Disciplinary Authority had rightly come to conclusion that a grave misconduct was committed by the petitioner of leading immoral life and also committed indiscipline.”
Most significantly, the Bench then holds in para 96 that, “This Court finds that the Authorities have not committed an error in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner and passing the order by imposing punishment of dismissal from service.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench concludes by holding in para 97 that, “This Court finds that the present writ petition lacks merit and as such, the same stands dismissed.”
In sum, we thus see that the Rajasthan High Court has made it absolutely clear not leaving even an iota of doubt to linger in the mind of anyone that a government servant is always bound by code of conduct and so cannot be allowed ever to lead immoral life citing Indian mythology. Two wrongs cannot make a right and this is what the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has held so very briefly, brilliantly and boldly which must be always implemented in totality by all the courts in similar such cases concerning government servants! No denying it! Sanjeev Sirohi