Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Jyotsanaben Aryabandhu vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 8 October, 2015

Author: J.B.Pardiwala

Bench: J.B.Pardiwala

               C/SCA/8107/2001                                            CAV JUDGMENT




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8107 of 2001



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

         ==========================================================

         1   Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
             see the judgment ?                                                            NO

         2   To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
                                                                                           NO
         3   Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
             judgment ?                                                                    NO

         4   Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
             as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or
                                                                                           NO
             any order made thereunder ?


         ==========================================================
                         JYOTSANABEN ARYABANDHU....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR NIRZAR S DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR SWAPNESHWAR GAUTAM AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 4 - 5
         MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
         RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         ==========================================================

                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

                                    Date : 08/10/2015


                                    CAV JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 17

HC-NIC Page 1 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT 1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India, the petitioner, a compulsorily retired Nagarpalika Employee, has  prayed for the following reliefs:

18 (A) Your Lordship may be pleased to admit the writ petition;
(B) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ   in   the   nature   of   mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate   writ,   order   or   direction   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   impugned   resolution   dated   25.1.2001 [Annexure "A"], and the impugned order dated September 1,   2001,   passed   by   the   Director   of   Municipalities,   [Annexure   "B"],   and   further  be   pleased   to  direct   the  respondents  to  permit  the  petitioner  to   discharge   her   duties   without   disturbance   and   to   pay   the   salary   to   the   petitioner regularly; 

(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ   in   the   nature   of   mandamus   or   any   other   appropriate   writ,   order   or   direction   directing   the   respondents   to   pay   salary   for   the   period   from   October 1997 to November 1999 to the petitioner with interest @ 18%   per annum;

18(CC) This Hon'ble Court may be issue a writ of mandamus or any other   appropriate writ or direction by directing the respondents to pay all the   retiral and pensionary benefits by treating her retirement as retirement by   way   of   superannuation   retirement   as   she   has   attend   the   age   of   superannuation   pending   the   impugned   order   dtd.   30/3/10   passed   by  respondents Municipality in the interest of justice." 2 The   facts   giving   rise   to   filing   of   this   writ   application   may   be  summarized as under:

2.1 The appellant joined the service of the Mehsana Municipality as a  Clerk   on   18.2.1970.   She   was   promoted   as   the   Internal   Auditor   on  December 1, 1974. By an order dated 6.8.2004, she was placed under  suspension.   The   same   became   a   subject   matter   of   the   Special   Civil  Page 2 of 17 HC-NIC Page 2 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT Application No. 8312 of 1993. While issuing rule, this Court stayed the  suspension of the  appellant. During the  pendency of the Special Civil  Application she was exonerated vide Resolution dated 6.4.2004. In the  interregnum she was superseded by two junior officers. Thereupon, she  filed Special Civil  Application  No. 2979 of 1993 which is pending. In  January, 1997, she was transferred from the post of Internal Auditor to  that of Community Organiser. She challenged the same in the Special  Civil  Application  No. 1892 of 1997 on the ground that she could not  have been transferred without her consent.
2.2 In the meanwhile, on receipt of copy of the complaint made by  Shri   Chinubhai   K.   Barot   to   the   Chief   Election   Commissioner   that   the  appellant   was   indulging   in   political   activities,   the   Collector,   Mehsana  ordered initiation of departmental enquiry against her. She was served  with   the   charge­sheet   dated   7.2.1997.   On   receipt   of   the   memo   of  charges, the appellant submitted application dated 24.2.1997 for supply  of   the   documents   specified   therein.   By   an   order   dated   3.4.1997,   the  Collector, Mehsana directed that the copies of the documents applied for  by   the   appellant   be   made   available   to   her.   However,   the   concerned  authority supplied to the appellant only the copy of the complaint made  by Shri Chinubhai K. Barot. Thereafter, she filed reply dated 29.4.1997  and denied the allegation levelled against her. On being summoned by  the Enquiry Officer, the appellant submitted application dated 28.7.1997  Page 3 of 17 HC-NIC Page 3 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT against the conduct of inquiry by an officer who was junior to her till  1993.   However,   her   objection   was   not   attended   to   by   the   concerned  authority and the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry. On receipt  of the enquiry report, which contained a finding that the charge levelled  against   the   appellant   has   been   proved,   the   President   of   Municipality  passed   order   dated   23.10.1997,   vide   which   penalty   of   compulsory  retirement was imposed on the appellant. The Special Civil Application  No. 8133 of 1997 filed by the appellant against the order of punishment  was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 29.11.1999. He held that  non­supply of the enquiry report had resulted in violation of the rules of  natural justice. Thereafter, the appellant was reinstated in service vide  the order dated 22.11.1999. Soon thereafter, she was served with a copy  of   the   enquiry   report   and   called   upon   to   show   cause   against   the  proposed   punishment.   She   challenged   the   re­initiation   of   the   inquiry  proceedings in the Special Civil Application No. 35 of 2001, which was  dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 10.4.2001 because during the  pendency of the Special Civil Application, Mehsana Municipality passed  a   resolution   dated   25.1.2001   again   imposing   penalty   of   compulsory  retirement on her.
2.3 The   appellant   challenged   the   resolution   of   the   Municipality   by  filing   an   appeal   before   the   respondent   No.5.   Initially   the   respondent  No.5   stayed   the   resolution   of   the   Municipality   but,   after   hearing   the  Page 4 of 17 HC-NIC Page 4 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT representatives of the appellant and the Department, he dismissed the  appeal   of   the   appellant.   As   a   sequel   to   this,   she   was   removed   from  service with effect from 6.9.2001.
2.4 The appellant challenged the resolution of the Municipality and  the order passed by the respondent No.5 by filing writ petition under  Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   which   was   registered   as   the  Special Civil Application No. 8107 of 2001. She pleaded that the enquiry  held against her is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice  inasmuch as she had not been supplied copies of the documents and was  not given  reasonable  opportunity  of defence. She  assailed the  finding  recorded by the Enquiry Officer and order passed by respondent No.5 on  the ground that the same were based on surmises and conjectures. She  referred to the police report which contained a finding that she was not  involved in political activities  and submitted that the contrary finding  recorded by the Enquiry Officer was not based on any tangible evidence. 

She   also   questioned   the   order   of   punishment   on   the   ground   of   non­ application of mind and malafide exercise of power by the concerned  authorities of the Municipality.

3 It appears that this writ petition was heard in the past by a learned  Single Judge of this Court and vide order dated 03.12.2004, the same  was ordered to be rejected. Against the above referred order passed by a  Page 5 of 17 HC-NIC Page 5 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal  No.1068 of 2005 which came to be allowed by a Division Bench of this  Court vide order dated 02.08.2005. The appeal was allowed only on the  ground   that   the   order   passed   by   a   learned   Single   Judge   was   not   a  speaking   order.   The   Division   Bench   allowed   the   appeal   observing   as  under:

If the order under challenge is scrutinised in the light of what we   have observed above, there is no difficulty in holding that the same does   not   satisfy   the   requirement   of   the   speaking   order.   In   our   opinion,   the   learned  Single  Judge  ought to have  dealt with the points  raised  by the   petitioner   questioning   the   legality   of   the   departmental   enquiry   held   against her and the punishment imposed by the competent authority, as   also the order passed by respondent No.5 The failure of the learned Single   Judge to do so has certainly caused serious prejudice to the appellant.
For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The order   of the learned  Single Judge is set aside. The Special Civil Application  is   admitted for hearing. The same may now be listed before an appropriate   Single Bench as per roster."

4 Accordingly, the matter was placed before this Court and the same  was heard. 

5 Mr.   Nirzar   Desai,   the   learned   advocate   appearing   for   the  petitioner   vehemently   submitted   that   the   impugned   order   of   the  Directorate of Municipalities dated 01.09.2001 and the impugned action  of   the   respondent   -   Municipality   retiring   the   petitioner   compulsorily  could be termed as illegal, improper and violative of the provisions of  the Constitution of India. 

6 He submitted that the entire career of his client has been ruined  Page 6 of 17 HC-NIC Page 6 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT on   account   of   such   illegal   and   highhanded   action   on   the   part   of   the  Municipality. He submitted that the inquiry proceedings could be said to  have been vitiated on account of number of illegalities committed by the  inquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. He submitted that  the allegations or rather the charge against the petitioner that she had  taken part in a political movement are absolutely baseless and contrary  to the evidence on record. 

7 Mr. Desai submitted that his client attained superannuation during  the pendency of this petition and has been denied the pensionary and  other retiral benefits, despite the fact that this Court, in an order passed  in the Special Civil Application No.16249 of 2007 dated 28.06.2007, had  directed   the   respondents   to   consider   the   claim   of   the   petitioner   for  pensionary and other retiral benefits. He submitted that the respondents  vide order dated 30.08.2007 very highhandedly informed the petitioner  that   she   was   entitled   only   to   compassionate   pension   and   not   regular  pension as she was made to retire compulsorily by way of punishment.  8 He  submitted   that in  such circumstances  referred to above, the  impugned resolution dated 25.01.2001 passed by the Municipality and  the order dated 01.09.2001 passed by the Directorate of Municipalities  be quashed. 

9 On the other hand, this petition has been vehemently opposed by  Page 7 of 17 HC-NIC Page 7 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT Mr.   Mehul   Sharad   Shah,   the   learned   advocate   appearing   for   the  Mehsana   Nagarpalika.   Mr.   Shah   pointed   out   Rule   179   of   the   Rules  framed by the Mehsana Municipality, which reads as under: 

"(1) An officer or servant of the municipality shall not take part in, or   subscribe   in   aid   of,   any   political   movement   in   India   or   any   political   movement   relating   to   India   affairs.   Where   there   is   room   for   doubt,   whether   any   action,  which   such   officer  or   servant  propose   to   take   will   contravene   this   rule,   he   shall   refer   the   matter   to   the   Collector   of   the   District  through  the president  of the Board  and  there  after  shall  act in  accordance with such orders as may be passed by the Collector. 
(2) Such officer  or servant  not canvas  or otherwise  interfere  or use his   influence in connection with or take part in any election to a legislative   body; 

Provided  that such officer  or servant,  if qualified  to vote  at such   election,  may exercise  his right to vote,  but if he does so, shall give  no   indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted.  (3) Such officer  or servant  who  issues  an address to electors  or in any   other manner publicily announces himself or allows himself to be publicly   announced   as   a   candidate   or   prospective   candidate   for   election   to   a   legislative body shall be deemed for purposes of sub­rule (2) to take part in   an election to such body. 

(4)   The   provisions   of   sub­rule   (2)   shall   also   apply   in   the   cases   of   an   election   to   any   municipal   council,   school   board   or   other   elective   local   body."

10 He submitted that the petitioner was found indulging in political  activities and for such act of misconduct,  a chargesheet was served upon  her and after a regular departmental inquiry, the inquiry officer held the  charge   to   be   heard.   Thereafter,   the   report   submitted   by   the   inquiry  officer was considered by the Municipality and an unanimous decision  was taken to make the petitioner retire compulsorily. He submitted that  such decision of the Municipality was challenged by way of an appeal  Page 8 of 17 HC-NIC Page 8 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT under   Section   48(4)   of   the   Gujarat   Municipalities   Act   before   the  Directorate of Municipalities and the same was ordered to be dismissed  vide order dated 01.09.2001. He pointed out that on 06.09.2001, the  order of compulsory retirement was given effect to.  11 He submitted that the sole judges of facts are the departmental  authorities   and   if   there   being   some   legal   evidence   on   which   their  findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not  a matter which can be canvassed before this Court. He submitted that  the   judicial   review   in   a   writ   petition   under   Article   226   of   the  Constitution   against   the   order   of   the   disciplinary   authority   is   not   an  appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision  is made. When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by  a   public   servant,   the   Court   is   concerned   to   determine   whether   the  inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural  justice are complied with, whether the findings or conclusion are based  on some evidence and whether the authority entrusted with the powers  to   hold   an   inquiry   has   jurisdiction,   power   and   authority   to   reach   a  finding of facts or conclusion. 

12 Mr.   Shah   submitted   that   neither   the   technical   rules   nor   the  evidence, as defined therein, applies to the disciplinary proceedings.  13 In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Shah submitted that  Page 9 of 17 HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT there being no merit in this writ petition, the same be rejected.  14 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and  having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls  for my consideration is whether the respondents committed any error in  passing the order of compulsory retirement. 

15 This case had a checkered history as would appear from the facts  narrated above. Way back in the year 1997, the petitioner was served  with   a   chargesheet   alleging   that   she   being   an   employee   of   the  Municipality was found participating in the political activities which is a  conduct unbecoming of a civil servant. The inquiry officer recorded a  categorical finding that such imputation was established on the basis of  the   evidence   on   record.   The   Municipality   passed   a   resolution   No.471  imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner, then an  internal auditor in the Mehsana Municipality, challenged the resolution  passed by the Municipality by filing an appeal before the Directorate of  Municipalities and the Directorate of Municipalities vide its order dated  01.09.2001 dismissed the appeal, thereby, affirming the decision of the  Municipality to compulsorily retire the petitioner.  16 It appears from the materials on record that on 29.08.1986, the  petitioner herein had participated actively in the meeting convened by  one   of   the   leaders   of   the   Bhartiya   Janata   Party,   namely,   Ms.   Uma  Page 10 of 17 HC-NIC Page 10 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT Bharati. There is evidence on record to show that on 15.01.1994, the  petitioner had addressed a meeting of the workers of the Bhartiya Janata  Party. The media also reported regarding the same with the name of the  petitioner. 

17 The rules framed by the Municipality, more particularly, Rule 179,  referred   to   above,   makes   it   clear   that   an   officer   or   a   servant   of   the  Municipality shall not take part in, or subscribe in aid of any political  movement in India or any political movement relating to India affairs.  The Directorate of Municipalities, while dismissing the appeal filed by  the petitioner, has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the  matter and has recorded finding of facts that the inquiry was conducted  in accordance with law and in accordance with the principles of nature  justice.   There   is   a   specific   finding   recorded   by   the   Directorate   of  Municipalities that the Collector, Mehsana, through Police had also got  the matter investigated and the report filed by the police would indicate  that the petitioner was active in politics and was an active member of  the Bharatiya Janata Party. 

18 Thus, so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion  arrived at by the departmental authority and accepted by the appellate  authority, the same has to be sustained. In the case of Bank of India vs.  Degala  Suryanarayan  [2001  (1)   SLJ   113  (SC)],   the   Supreme   Court  Page 11 of 17 HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT held ­ "Strict   rules   of   evidence   are   not   applicable   to   departmental   enquiry   proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the   delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which   a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a   finding   upholding   the   gravamen   of   the   charge   against   the   delinquent   officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even   in departmental enquiry proceedings. The Court exercising the jurisdiction   of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in   the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or   perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a   finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could   have   arrived   at   that   finding.   The   Court   cannot   embark   upon   reappreciating   the   evidence   or   weighing   the   same   like   an   appellate   authority.   So   long   as   there   is   some   evidence   to   support   the   conclusion   arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. 19 In the case of  B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC  484], the Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for judicial  review in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against  the order of the disciplinary authority. "Judicial review is not an appeal  from  a  decision  but a  review of the  manner  in  which  the  decision  is  made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual  receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the  authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an  inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the  Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held  by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied  with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence,  the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,  Page 12 of 17 HC-NIC Page 12 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that  finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of  Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to  disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and  conclusion   receives   support   therefrom,   the   disciplinary   authority   is  entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The  Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate  authority   to   reappreciate   the   evidence   and   to   arrive   at   the   own  independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere  where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer  in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation  of   statutory   rules   prescribing   the   mode   of   inquiry   of   where   the  conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on  no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person  would   have   ever   reached,   the   Court/Tribunal   may   interfere   with   the  conclusion   or   the   finding,   and   mould   the   relief   so   as   to   make   it  appropriate to the facts of that case". 

20 Thus,  considering  the  inquiry   officer's   report  and  the  reasoning  and considering the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the  case   in   hand   is   one   of   "No   Evidence".   The   departmental   inquiry  proceedings are not to be equated with the proceedings before a Court  nor   is   it   a   criminal   trial.   This   Court   is   not   required   to   meticulously  Page 13 of 17 HC-NIC Page 13 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT examine   the   each   and   every   piece   of   evidence   and   to   undertake   the  exercise of re­appreciating the evidence. 

21 Let me now look into the decision of the Supreme Court in the  case of V.S. Menon vs. Union of India [AIR 1963 SC 1160] relied upon  by Mr. Desai, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.  This   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   is   relied   upon   to   fortify   the  submission that taking interest in political activities of a political party  would not amount to a misconduct entailing the penalty of compulsory  retirement   from   service.   In   this   case,   the   appellant   was   serving   as   a  Engineering Supervisor. The allegations or rather the charge against the  appellant was as under:

"Soon   after   your   arrival   in   Nagpur   important   local   communists   were   reported   to   have   contacted   you   and   during   the   discussions   you   were   reported   to   have   interested   yourself   in   the   political   activities   of   the   Communist party and other political organisations and groups in Nagpur.   You are also reported to be actively continuing your association with Shri.   B. N. Mukherjee and other prominent local Communists."

21.1 On such charge, the appellant was made to retire compulsorily.  The   Supreme   Court   considered   Rule   3   of   the   Civil   Services  (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949, which reads as under:

"3. A Government servant who, in the opinion of the Competent authority   is   engaged   in   or   is   reasonably   suspected   to   be   engaged   in   subversive   activities   or   is   associated   with   others   in   subversive   activities   in   such   a   manner as to raise doubts about his reliability may be compulsorily retired   from service;
Provided  that  a  Government  servant  shall  not  be  so  retired,  unless   the   Page 14 of 17 HC-NIC Page 14 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT competent authority is satisfied that his retention in the public service is   prejudicial to national security and unless, where the competent authority   is a head of a department, the prior approval of the Governor­General has   been obtained."

21.2 Having  regard to the  language  of  the  Rule, the  Supreme  Court  held as under:

"7. That   rule   contemplates   compulsory   retirement   from   service   of   a   government servant who (a) is engaged in subversive activities or (b) is   reasonably   suspected   to   be   engaged   in   subversive   activities,   or   (c)   is   associated  with others  in subversive  activities.  If any one  of those  three   alternative conditions is fulfilled, then the competent authority has also to   be satisfied  that the  manner  of his  activities  is such as  to raise  doubts   about   his   reliability,   as   also   that   his   retention   in   the   public   service   is   prejudicial to national security. And, finally, where such an order is passed   by a competent authority in his capacity as the head of department, the   prior   approval   of   the   Governor­General   (now   the   President)   has   to   be   obtained.  It is manifest on the  charge,  as framed  against the appellant   that he was not even alleged to have been engaged or to be reasonably   suspected to have been engaged in subversive activities in association with   others. It was only alleged against him that he associated with others who   were engaged in subversive activities. That is not a charge which could be  sustained under R. 3. As the rule is of a penal character, it has to be very   strictly   construed.   If   the   appellant   was   even   suspected   to   have   been   engaged in subversive activities, the charge could have been in those terms.   But it is not even alleged that he was suspected to be engaged in subversive   activities far less to have  been engaged  in subversive activities  either  by   himself or in association with others. As the charge against the appellant   did not strictly come within the purview of R. 3, there was no basis for the   procedure adopted in pursuance of R. 4. It is not, therefore, necessary to   pursue the enquiry as to whether the procedure actually adopted complied   with that laid down in R. 4.
8.  Apart from the initial serious defect in the charge laid against the   appellant, even in the allegation made against him it was only said that   after his arrival in Nagpur important local communists were reported to   have contacted him, and that he was interested in political activities of the   Communist party and other political organisations and groups in Nagpur,   and  finally,  that  he was  reported  to be  continuing  his association  with   Shri.   B.   N   Mukherjee   and   of   her   prominent   local   Communists.   But   nowhere it is alleged that the appellant had taken any part in subversive   activities by himself or along with others with whom he is said to have   been associated.  Taking  interest in political activities  of the Communist   party would not amount to taking part in subversive activities so long as   the Communist party continued to be a recognised political organisation,   Page 15 of 17 HC-NIC Page 15 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT which has not been banned. It cannot be asserted that simply talking with   members of the Communist party or associating with such members would   amount to engaging in subversive activities. Subversive activity, in order to   bring the person within the purview of the rule, must amount to actively   pursuing   such   activities   as   are   calculated   to   subvert   the   Government   established by law. No such allegations appear to have been made against   the appellant."

21.3 Thus, from the above, it appears that what was being considered  by the Supreme Court was the effect and the applicability of a particular  rule. Interpreting the words "subversive activities" as contained in the  Rules, the Supreme Court held that taking interest in political activities  of the communist party would not amount to taking part in subversive  activities. The Court further held that subversive activities, in order to  bring the person within the purview of the rule, must amount to actively  pursuing   such   activities   as   are   calculated   to   subvert   the   government  establishment by law. The Supreme Court observed that there were no  such allegations against the appellant. 

22 The above referred decision of the Supreme Court, in my view,  has no application to the case in hand. The language of the Rule 179  with which I am concerned is altogether different. It is not possible for  me to take a view as a general proposition of law that a public servant  can take active part in politics and such activity would never amount to  any   misconduct.   It   would   all   depend   upon   the   rules   framed   in   that  regard. The Rule, in the case in hand, is plain and simple and suggests  that   no   officer   or   servant   of   the   Municipality   shall   take   part   in   any  Page 16 of 17 HC-NIC Page 16 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015 C/SCA/8107/2001 CAV JUDGMENT political movement. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage  that there is no challenge in this petition to the constitutional validity of  Rule 179 framed by the Mehsana Municipality. 

23 For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails and is hereby rejected.  I may only say that if the petitioner is entitled to compassionate pension,  or   any   other   benefits,   then   the   same   shall   be   granted   to   her   in  accordance with law and an appropriate order, in that regard, shall be  passed within a period of four weeks from the date of a receipt of the  writ of this order. 

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 17 of 17 HC-NIC Page 17 of 17 Created On Fri Oct 09 02:10:30 IST 2015