Human Rights in the Indian Armed Forces: An Analysis of Article 33 by U. C. Jha & Dr Sanghamitra Choudhury

Author:U. C. Jha & Dr Sanghamitra Choudhury [Jha, U. C. & Choudhury, Sanghamitra]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Military, Political Science, Law, Human Rights
ISBN: 9789388161220
Google: RfPEvQEACAAJ
Goodreads: 43216717
Publisher: VIJ BOOKS INDIA
Published: 2019-10-01T00:00:00+00:00

2

O. K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph 1963 Supp (1) SCR 789 : AIR 1963 SC 812 : 91962) 2 LLJ 615, decided on 30 October 1962 [five Judge Bench].

HEADNOTE:

The respondent, a Central Government servant, who was the Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association of Non-Gazetted Staff, was departmentally proceeded against under Rule 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strike of Central Government employees and for refusing to dissociate from the Association after the Government had withdrawn its recognition of it.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 fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. The High Court held that Rule 4(A) was wholly valid but quashed the proceeding under Rule 4(B) which it held to be invalid. Rule 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 Rule 4(B) provided that no Government servant shall join or continue to be a member of any services Association which the Government did not recognise or in respect of which recognition had been refused or withdrawn by it.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 Rule 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 Article 19(1) (a) and (b), the High Court was in error in holding that the rule was wholly valid.

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 invalid. It was clear that Rule 4(B) of the said Rules imposed restriction on the undoubted right of the Government Servants under Article 19 which were neither reasonable nor in the interest of public order tinder Article 19(4). The rules clearly showed that in the granting or withdrawing, of recognition, the Government right be actuated by considerations other than those of efficiency or discipline amongst the services or public order. The restriction imposed by Rule 4 (B), therefore, infringed Article 19(1) (c) and must be held to be invalid.

Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 18 January 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Miscellaneous petition No. 255 of 1960.

JUDGMENT:

1. The respondent E.X. Joseph is in the service of the Government of India in the Audit and Accounts Department at Bombay. He was the Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association which consists of non-gazetted staff of the Accountant-General’s Office. The said Association was affiliated to the All India Non-Gazetted Audit and Accounts Association. The latter Association had been recognized by the Government of India in December, 1956.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.