Madras High Court
C. Umashankar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 December, 2013
Author: N. Paul Vasanthakumar
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, P. Devadass
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10-12-2013 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and The Honourable Mr.Justice P. DEVADASS Writ Petition No.2505 of 2013 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 C. Umashankar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by The Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. Sundaradevan, Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministr of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, rep.by its Registrar, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.79 of 2010 dated 19.7.2012, quash the same and consequently declare Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 as unconstitutional, void and of no effect and also quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No.80/2009-1, dated 19.1.2009. For Petitioner : Mr.V. Selvaraj For 1st Respondent : Mr.PH.Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader For 2nd Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent : Mr.M.Devendran, Standing Panel Counsel for Central Government 4th Respondent : Central Administrative Tribunal ORDER
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
By consent of bothsides the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner, who is an IAS Officer, serving in the State of Tamilnadu, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal made in O.A.No.79 of 2010 dated 19.7.2012, dismissing the writ petition filed by him praying to declare Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 as unconstitutional, void and of no effect, and also to quash the charge memo issued to him by the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu/first respondent herein in Letter No.80/2009-1, dated 19.1.2009.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal for making the above said prayer arose due to the issuance of the Charge Memo dated 19.1.2009 for his alleged violation of Rule 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, and decision to initiate disciplinary action under Rule 8 (Major penalty of all India Services). In the said charge memo it is alleged by the first respondent that in the letter of the petitioner dated 13.10.2008 addressed to the Chief Secretary, he informed that his wife Tmt.Suryakala Umashankar was appointed as HR Executive in M/s.Tessolve Inc, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41; that she has taken up her position in the said Company, with which the petitioner had official dealings since April, 2008; and that, his action in permitting his wife to accept the above employment without previous sanction of the Government amounts to misconduct, particularly Rule 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 3(1) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.
4. After issuance of the charge memo, the petitioner was directed to submit explanation to the charge memo and the petitioner submitted explanation on 4.2.2009, wherein he has stated that his wife had studied Masters degree in Commerce and also B.L degree, who is the daughter of late S.Kasipandian, 1963 batch IAS Officer; that she took up her employment on her own and resigned the said job during December, 2008; that the said fact was intimated to the Government by the petitioner in accordance with rules; that she being a major and an advocate, he is not supposed to advise her regarding her employment; that the Charge memo issued based on the allegation that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty has no basis; that after the petitioner joining in TIIC, he apprehended that M/s.Tessolve Inc may seek loan assistance from TIIC and at that time he realised that as his wife joined in the said Company, there should not be any conflict of interest and consequently he submitted a letter on 13.10.2008 intimating the factum of employment of his wife in M/s.Tessolve Inc.; that he had no occasion to deal with the file from the Company seeking loan assistance from TIIC during his period of employment in TIIC and the TIIC never sanctioned loan to the said Company; and in such circumstances there is no basis for framing such charges against him and requested to drop the charges.
5. Not satisfied with the said explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent appointed Dr.N.Sundaradevan, IAS, Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Inquiries as Enquiry Officer through G.O.(2D)No.39 Public (Special.A) Department, dated 20.4.2009. The said Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 30.11.2009 to the first respondent in Letter No.PS/CRA.2/2009. Based on the said report, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent to offer his remarks regarding the findings of the Enquiry Officers' report and after receiving the said letter seeking remarks, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.79 of 2010 with the above said prayer.
6. The contention of the petitioner in the original application was that the Enquiry Officer has specifically given findings that there is no evidence of favouritism shown by the petitioner to M/s.Tessolve Inc. and no evidence is available to show that the petitioner has misused his official position for securing employment for his wife and the petitioner has only failed to seek previous permission of the Government before accepting employment by his wife in M/s.Tessolve Inc. A finding is also recorded to the effect that his wife quit the job before the charges are framed and during her employment she received a sum of Rs.22,000/- per month as consolidated salary and for the entire period of her employment the salary received by her is in the range of Rs.1.75 to Rs.2.00 lakhs only.
7. In the Original application filed, the petitioner has alleged several instances to show the mala fide attitude of the then Government and the present Government of the State. The letters written by him objecting the alleged favouritism sought by the partymen are also filed in the typed set of papers and due to the said fact, the first respondent had issued the charge memo. The other contention of the petitioner in the original application was that Rule 4(2)(b) of the Rules has been complied with by the petitioner by giving report to the Government regarding the acceptance of his wife's employment in M/s.Tessolve Inc., and the report having been sent in compliance of Rule 4(2)(b) the petitioner cannot be charged under Rule 4(2)(a) of the Conduct Rules. The petitioner by abundant caution also challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 4(2)(a) as one of the prayer in the original application.
8. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application without going into the merits of the contentions raised, particularly regarding the contention as to whether the charges framed against the petitioner is maintainable in the light of Rule 4(2)(b) and erroneously upheld the validity of Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. The allegation of mala fide raised was also not decided. The Tribunal merely stated that the respondents have justified the issuance of the impugned charge memo based on Rule 4(2)(a) and the petitioner was permitted to submit his explanation to the enquiry report within 15 days, and the disciplinary authority was directed to pass appropriate orders within one month.
9. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground of mala fide on the part of the Government in initiating departmental proceedings by issuing charge memo on frivolous ground; that the charge itself is not made out in view of the intimation given by the petitioner on 13.10.2008 to the first respondent about the acceptance of employment by his wife from April 2008, i.e, more than three months prior to the issuance of the charge memo on 19.1.2009; that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the first respondent having given a finding in favour of the petitioner holding that there is no evidence of favouritism shown to M/s.Tessolve Inc, and there is no evidence of misuse of official position on the part of the petitioner to secure employment for his wife though he was having official dealings with M/s.Tessolve Inc.; that the first respondent is not justified in proceeding further in the matter based on the charge memo, for the alleged violation of Rule 4(2)(a) as it is not maintainable; and that, Rule 4(2)(a) is unconstitutional as it restricts the family members of the Government servant to take an independent decision while applying for any post, which is in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same is to be declared as void and unenforceable.
10. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit accepting the intimation given by the petitioner on 13.10.2008 about his wife's employment in M/s.Tessolve Inc., from April, 2008 without previous sanction of the Government and therefore the petitioner has violated Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and by virtue of not getting previous sanction of the Government and permitting his member of the family viz., wife to accept employment, petitioner has violated Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Charge memo was issued and the explanation submitted by the petitioner being found not satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who gave findings, wherein the official dealings of the petitioner with M/s.Tessolve Inc., was proved and the petitioner's action in not getting previous sanction of the Government before accepting appointment of petitioner's wife in M/s Tessolve Inc., is proved. Therefore the Government thought fit to proceed further and called for remarks about the Enquiry Officer's findings. Petitioner instead of giving his remarks/explanation to the Enquiry Officer's report has belatedly challenged the charge memo as well as Rule 4(2)(a) in the original application and the same was rightly dismissed. Insofar as the mala fide allegations made against the petitioner in para 6 to 15, 18 to 26, 30 and 32 of the affidavit, the same are not denied/answered by merely stating that the averments made therein do not relate to the prayers made in the writ petition and therefore the same have no significance.
11. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit restricting the prayer challenging the validity of Rule 4(2)(a). It is stated in the counter affidavit that the said rule was incorporated to maintain certain code of conduct and ethics in public employment. Rule nowhere prohibits employment of a family member in private company with which the Government Servant had official dealings, but only requires previous sanction of the Government for such employment and the Rule having been enforced from 1968 with the object of prohibiting misuse of official power to get private gain, the same is valid and the same is not unconstitutional, arbitrary or opposed to public policy. Hence the challenge made by the petitioner insofar as the validity of Rule is concerned, is to be rejected. The other issue namely, the petitioner having given intimation as per Rule 4(2)(b), whether the charge framed for the alleged violation of Rule 4(2)(a) is sustainable, is not answered or explained in the counter affidavit.
12. Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that in spite of raising several mala fide allegations against the first respondent by the petitioner by the ruling partymen and higher officials during previous and present regime in the State, the Tribunal has not even looked into the said allegations, particularly when there is no denial of the averments by the first respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that Rule 4(2)(a) is affecting the rights of the family member of the Government Servant in restricting their choice of getting appointment under the guise of suspicion on the Government servant that they may exert pressure by using official position to get employment for family members, and therefore the said Rule has to be declared as violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which affects the constitutional rights of the family members of the Government servant. The learned counsel further submitted that even as per the conduct Rules viz., Rule 4(2)(b), if a family member accepts employment with any private Undertaking, whether he or she had any official dealings with that private Undertaking and if the same is reported, no proceedings under Rule 4(2)(a) can be initiated, particularly if there is no violation of Rule 4(1) of the Rules, and in this case the Enquiry Officer has given a findings in favour of the petitioner, which is also accepted by the Government, and the same is also taken as a specific ground before the Tribunal to quash the charge memo dated 19.1.2009, and the Tribunal was not justified in directing the petitioner to approach the first respondent with explanation, as the petitioner has alleged mala fide against the first respondent.
13. Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has not obtained previous sanction of the Government before permitting his wife to accept the employment in M/s.Tessolve Inc., and therefore he has violated Rule 4(2)(a) and no urgency was shown to join in the post by the petitioner's wife to claim benefit under Rule 4(2)(a) proviso. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the petitioner having participated in the enquiry and the enquiry report being submitted without waiting for the final outcome, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the charge memo at a later stage merely on the apprehension that some punishment may be imposed on him, as there is likelihood of dropping of the charge by the Disciplinary Authority, as held by the Tribunal and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Additional Advocate General also argued that the Rule under challenge is in existence from the year 1968, to prevent the chance of misuse of position by the Government Servant in getting appointment of his relatives by misuse/influencing official position directly or indirectly. The object of the Rule being not opposed to public policy and promote integrity and devotion to duty, the same cannot be declared as illegal.
14. Mr.M.Devendran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government appearing for 3rd respondent also prayed for upholding the rule by adopting the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal rightly upheld the Rule.
15. We have considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsels.
16. The points that arise for consideration in this writ petition are as follows:
(1) Whether the charge levelled against the petitioner by Charge Memo dated 19.1.2009 can be sustainable, particularly in violation of Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 ?
(2) Whether Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 is in violation of Constitution and void ?
(3) Whether the allegations of mala fide made against the first respondent by the petitioner needs to be gone into ?
17. The petitioner was selected to IAS Cadre by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as a direct recruit in August, 1990 and was allotted to the State of Tamilnadu. After serving in various capacities, in the year 1996 he was appointed as Joint Vigilance Commissioner and he investigated and submitted reports on high level corruption by the ruling party politicians and bureaucrats. Thereafter he served in several capacities, and in the year 2006 he was posted as Managing Director ELCOT. As the Managing Director of ELCOT, he became the Chairman of ELNET and according to the petitioner due to intervention of some ruling partymen, he was transferred to Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (TIIC) and while he was serving in TIIC, his wife, who is a Law Graduate with M.Com Degree, got employment in the company called M/s.Tessolve Inc., and she worked in the said Company from April 2008 to December 2008 as HR Executive on a consolidated pay of Rs.22,000/- per month. As no prior permission was obtained from the Government as per Rule 4(2)(a), petitioner intimated about his wife's appointment to the Government on 13.10.2008 in accordance with Rule 4(2)(b) of the Rules. It appears some tussle arose between the petitioner and the political personalities and with M/s.Sumangali Cable Vision owners, while he was posted at Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd. Thereafter he was posted as Commissioner of Small Savings for few months. Petitioner's caste was also doubted and he was subjected to enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. He filed W.P.Nos.12274 and 15946 of 2010 and the said writ petitions are pending. After change of power in the State of Tamilnadu in the year 2011, he was posted as Special Officer and Managing Director, Co-optex. There also he found some illegalities in giving supply orders to ineligible Powerloom Societies for manufacture of free Uniform cloths worth Rs.44 crores. He refused to allot the work to ineligible Powerloom Societies and allotted works to genuine Powerloom Societies. Hence the present regime is also having grudge against him. Several such instances are narrated by the petitioner in his affidavit and some materials to substantiate the same are also filed in the typed set of papers.
18. The first respondent issued Charge memo dated 19.1.2009, which reads as follows:
"That you, Thiru C.Umashankar, IAS, while holding the post of Managing Director, Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Chennai, from 26.5.2006 to 5.8.2008 and thereafter from 6.8.2008 to 3.11.2008 as Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Chennai, used your position to secure employment for your wife Tmt.Suryakala Umashankar as H.R.Executie in M/s.Tessolve Inc., 11/7 10th Street, Dr.VSI Estate, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041, since April, 2008, with whom you had official dealings and permitted her to accept the employment without the previous sanction of the Government though patently there is no justification for urgency of any sort and with prior knowledge that M/s.Tessolve Inc., might seek loan assistance from TIIC shortly for its Chennai Operations. Therefore you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and exhibited unbecoming conduct. You thereby contravened Rules 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 3(1) of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968."
Petitioner denied the said charge by giving reply on 4.2.2009 and specifically stated that the employment of his wife in M/s.Tessolve Inc was intimated through letter dated 13.10.2008 as required under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Rules and the Charge memo issued is in total disregard of Rules and there is no basis for framing such charge.
19. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Government in G.O.(2D)No.39 Public Department dated 20.4.2009. Petitioner fully co-operated with the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.11.2009 and gave the following findings:
"To summarise:
(i) Thiru Umashankar had official dealings with M/s.Tessolve Inc.
(ii) There is no evidence of any favouritism shown by Thiru Umashankar to M/s.Tessolve Inc.
(iii) There is no evidence of Thiru Umashankar having misused the official position to secure employment for his wife.
(iv) Thiru Umashankar has failed to take previous sanction of the Government before Tmt.Umashankar accepted the appointment with M/s.Tessolve Inc. However, Thiru.Umashankar has deposed that his wife quit the job in December, 2008 before the charges were framed against him; and the carry home salary of Tmt.Umashankar was Rs.22,000/- per month. Thus, pecuniary benefit, if an, accrued to Thiru Umashankar in the entire episode is in the range of Rs.1.75 to Rs.2 lakhs only."
20. On perusal of the above findings of the Enquiry Officer it is evident that though the petitioner had official dealings with M/s.Tessolve Inc., there is no evidence of favouritism shown by the petitioner to M/s.Tessolve Inc. and there is no evidence regarding misuse of his official position to secure employment for his wife. However, he failed to take previous sanction from the Government before accepting employment by his wife in M/s.Tessolve Inc. and during employment from April to December, 2008 she earned salary of Rs.22,000/- per month, roughly comes to Rs.1.75 to Rs.2.00 lakhs. The said report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the first respondent, and thereafter called for petitioner's comments. In spite of giving clear finding regarding no evidence of favouritism and no evidence of misuse of official position for securing employment for his wife, first respondent has chosen to proceed further. Hence the petitioner filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the charge memo dated 19.1.2009 as well as to declare the Rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules as unconstitutional, void and of no effects.
21. Insofar as the first issue framed as to whether the charge framed against the petitioner is sustainable, the relevant rule is to be extracted, which reads as follows:
"4. Employment of near relatives in companies or firms.- (1) No member of the service shall use his position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any member of his family with any private undertaking or Non-Government Organisation.
(2)(a) No member of the Service shall, except with the previous sanction of the Government, permit (a member of his family) to accept employment with any private undertaking or NGO having official dealings with the Government.
Provided that where the acceptance of such employment cannot await the sanction of the Government or is otherwise considered urgent, the matter shall be reported to the Government, and the employment may be accepted provisionally subject to the sanction of the Government.
(b) A member of the service shall, as soon as he becomes aware of the fact of acceptance by a member of his family of an employment with any private undertaking or NGO report to the Government the fact of such acceptance and also whether he has or has had any official dealings with that private undertaking or NGO.
Provided that no such report shall be necessary if the member of the Service has already obtained sanction of, or sent a report to, the Government under clause (a)."
22. It is the consistent case of the petitioner that he has not misused his position or influenced directly or indirectly to secure employment for his wife in M/s.Tessolve Inc., and his wife having got appointment without any influence of the petitioner in the said Company, he intimated the said fact as required under Rule 4(2)(b) as early as on 13.10.2008. In the said intimation it is clearly stated that his wife was employed from April 2008 on consolidated salary of Rs.22,000/- per month. In December, 2008, his wife resigned from the said job. The said fact is also proved in the departmental enquiry conducted based on the charge memo, by a duly appointed Enquiry Officer appointed by the first respondent. A clear and categorical finding is given by the Enquiry Officer that no evidence of favouritism was shown by the petitioner in getting employment for his wife in the said Company and he has not misused his official position for securing employment for his wife. In such circumstances, the charge levelled against the petitioner stating that he has violated Rule 4(1) of the Rules has not been established in the full-fledged enquiry conducted at the instance of the first respondent as per the enquiry report dated 30.11.2009. Rule 3(1) of the Rules mandates maintaining absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service. Petitioner's absolute integrity and devotion to duty is established as he has not violated Rule 4(1) as stated supra. Hence violation of Rule 3(1) of the Rules has not arisen in this case.
23. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the finding given by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner is violation of Rule 4(2)(a). A combined reading of Rule 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) makes it clear that if a Government Servant permits a member of his family to accept employment with any private undertaking or NGO having official dealings with Government servant, without previous sanction of the Government as soon as immediately after the member of the family accepts employment with the private undertaking of NGO, report has to be sent to the Government and if previous sanction of the Government as per Rule 4(2)(a) was obtained prior to joining, no report under Rule 4(2)(b) need be sent. In this case the petitioner had sent the intimation of his wife's employment (though not immediately) on 13.10.2008 and before she resigned from the post and long prior to issuance of the charge memo on 19.1.2009. The petitioner has substantially satisfied rule 4(2)(b) of the Rules and therefore the allegation that the Petitioner has violated rule 4(2)(a) as per the charge memo is unsustainable. Rule 4(2)(b), which is also a statutory rule, is also to be given proper meaning, which enables the Government Servant to meet the contingency where a member of the Government servant's family accepts employment with any private undertaking or NGO, who has any official dealings with the private undertaking or NGO without previous sanction of the Government. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the charge levelled against the petitioner for violation of the Rule 4(2)(a) cannot be sustained. As already stated the Enquiry Officer himself gave a finding that there is no violation of Rules 4(1) and 3(1) of the Conduct Rules.
24. It is to be noted at this juncture that even if the petitioner ought to have obtained previous sanction of the Government before permitting his wife to accept employment in M/s.Tessolve Inc, the same is only a technical violation. The charge framed for violation of Rule 4(2)(a) cannot stand independently. The object behind Rule 4(2)(a) being prevention of misuse of official power by the Government servant, once the misuse of power is not proved, not getting prior sanction will not attract the term "misconduct". To attract "misconduct", there must be an indication of lack of devotion to duty. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, the word "misconduct" is defined as follows:
" 'Misconduct' means, misconduct arising from ill-motive, acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake do not constitute such misconduct."
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. In the light of the above findings, the first issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No.2:
26. Insofar as the challenge made by the petitioner regarding the constitutional validity of Rule 4(2)(a), the reason behind the incorporation of the said rule is to maintain absolute integrity in Government service as contemplated under Rule 3(1) read with Rule 4(1), which reads as follows:
"3(1) Every member of the service shall, at all times, maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of a member of the service.
4(1) No member of the service shall use his position or influence directly or indirectly to secure employment for any member of his family with any private undertaking or Non-Government Organisation."
To prevent such misuse of official position directly or indirectly the said Rule is incorporated along with Rule 4(2)(b). Therefore the said rule 4(2)(a) which is promoting probity in Government service and prevent dishonest motive is serving public interest and the same cannot be treated as unconstitutional, even though some hardship is being faced by the family members of the Government servants in getting employment. Further, the rule states that previous sanction of the Government is required only to accept employment with any private undertaking or NGO having official dealings with the Government, which means, a member of the Government servant's family can get appointment in any private undertaking, which has no official dealings with the Government. Thus, family members of the Government servant are not prevented from getting appointment and previous sanction is required only in certain contingencies. Further, there is no prohibition even for getting employment in an undertaking, which had official dealings with the Government and after getting appointment also intimation can be given as per Rule 4(2)(b). Thus, there is no arbitrariness in Rule 4(2)(a). As the said rule is not opposed to public policy or prohibit employment of the family members of the Government servant, there is no violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be declared as unconstitutional or void. Therefore the prayer made to declare the said rule as unconstitutional and void is unsustainable. Thus, this issue is answered against the petitioner.
Issue No.3
27. As the charge memo issued against the petitioner is quashed on the ground of rule position by giving a finding that allegation of violation of Rule 4(2)(a) is not made out, particularly in this case based on the findings given by the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner for violation of Rule 3(1) and 4(1) of the Rules, and in view of the findings given regarding Issue No.1 above by us, we are of the view that the finding regarding allegation of mala fide raised by the petitioner in this writ petition need not be gone into, as the said issue has become academic for the purpose of this case.
28. In fine, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.79 of 2010 dated 19.7.2012 is modified to the following effect.
(a) The charge memo issued against the petitioner by the first respondent dated 19.1.2009 is quashed.
(b) The constitutional validity of Rule 4(2)(a) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 is upheld.
(c) There is no order as to costs.
(d) Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes/No. (N.P.V.,J) (P.D.S.,J.)
Internet : Yes/No. 10th December, 2013
vr
To
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai.
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
and
P. DEVADASS, J.
vr
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.No.2505 of 2013
10-12-2013