Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivraj Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2019
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1
WA-488-2019
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WA-488-2019
[Shivraj Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.]
Gwalior, Dated 28/08/2019
Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant.
Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
[1] Challenge is to an order dated 08/03/2019 passed in Writ Petition No.4755/2019; whereby, Appellant's challenge to his transfer from Patwari Halka Chhonda, Tahsil Morena to Patwari Halka No.52 Majra, Tahsil Joura, District Morena, has been negatived.
[2] The challenge was on the ground that the transfer has been on political consideration. Learned Single Judge did not perceive any merit in said contention and found that the transfer was in administrative exigency. We further find that it was not his own transfer which the petitioner was concerned with, the more concern was in respect of posting of respondent No.6, who as per the petitioner, has been transferred and posted at his respective place of choice. It is, however, perceived that besides respondent No.6 even the petitioner and some other Patwaris have approached politicians seeking recommendation for their retention or the transfer. Sailing in the same boat, the petitioner cannot be permitted to complain of 2 WA-488-2019 the act of others when he himself takes the same course as others. We are, therefore, not inclined to cause any indulgence. [3] However, the matter does not end here; the practice of seeking recommendation from the politicians is an act unbecoming of a Government servant. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (henceforth referred to as "the Rules of 1965") mandates: "(1) Every Government servant shall at all times: (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant".
[4] Dwelling on the scope of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955; which paramateria is similar as Rule 3 of the Rules of 1965, it is observed in Sripati Ranjan Biswas vs. Collector of Customs & Ors.:[AIR 1964 Calcutta 415]:-
"12......Integrity is uprightness, honesty or purity. Devotion, to duty is faithful service. Modern approaches to life have changed many ideals, which used to be held sacred. Such approaches have also worked a change in our sense of the sublime. But even then the idea of right and wrong has not been forgotten and the difference between honesty and dishonesty, fidelity and faithfulness wholly lost. It is sometimes argued with sophistry that it is difficult to prescribe the outside limits of integrity in a complex system of modern administration, in which considerations of expediency occasionally outweigh other considerations. Considerations of expediency may be irresistible at times but their evils are merely to 3 WA-488-2019 be put up with and not, to be extolled or prescribed as standards of life and work. If a public officer is required to maintain integrity and to be devoted to duty, he is merely asked to keep within the bounds of that administrative decency, which goes by the name of civilized administration. In my opinion, no vagueness or indefiniteness attaches to the language used in R. 3 above quoted. A public officer is not at liberty to amass fortune by taking illegal gratifications, even though willingly given. In the view taken by me, R. 3 does not offend against Art. 14 or 19 of the Constitution."
[5] In Hari Prasad Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.:[AIR 1972 Calcutta 27], it is held:
"4......Rules of conduct may and do vary from time to time. They, however, at a particular point of time reflect the enlightened conscience of a society. Simply because, however, such rules are variable from age to age it cannot be said that at a particular point of time they become either non- existent or vague. They must at all times be judged from a robust commonsense point of view on a reasonable standard. ..... "
[6] In view whereof, it is the duty of the Government servant to not to act in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant. It can be said that there is no bar to seek recommendation from a politician. However, if Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 prohibits a government to be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of,or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity. There is tacit 4 WA-488-2019 prohibition of his taking recourse to recommendation from the politicians in matter relating to service. Being a bounden duty of a Government servant to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant, it is corresponding obligation of the controlling Authority to scrupulously control the indiscipline of the Government servant under him.
[7] Therefore, it will be open for the official respondents to take disciplinary action against all such Government servants under them who cause influence in the administrative through politicians. [8] The Appeal is finally disposed of in above terms. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Vivek Agarwal)
Judge Judge
pwn*
Digitally signed by PAWAN
KUMAR
Date: 2019.09.07 12:33:32 +05'30'