Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(d) personal immorality.
(2) The Governor may, in respect of a gazetted government servant on his own request refer his case to the Tribunal in respect of matters referred to in Sub-rule (1)."

Rule 2(e) defines 'personal immorality' for the purpose of Rule 4 as follows:

"2(e). 'Personal immorality' means vicious habits relating to drink, sex and gambling which reduce the utility of a public servant so as to damage government or the official generally in public esteem."

Clause (d) of Rule 2 defines "failure to discharge duties properly" to include such acts and omissions on the part of a government servant as are likely to weaken the position and prestige of the government of the Indian Union or the Government of Uttar Pradesh or which indicate an absence of loyalty and devotion to the Union of India or any feeling of loyalty towards any State outside the Indian Union."

25. But the question that arises here is as to whether the conduct of the respondent comes within the mischief of Rule 4 of the U.P. Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947. 'Personal immorality' has been defined in the rule so that it is not possible to interpret that phrase according to its popular meaning. 'Personal immorality' according to its definition as given in rule 2(e) means 'vicious habits relating to drink, sex and gambling which reduce the utility of a public servant so as to damage government or the official generally in public esteem'. Before a public servant can be charged of personal immorality under Rule 4, two things have to be established: (1) that he has a vicious habit relating to drink, sex and gambling and (2) that such habit has reduced the utility of the public servant so as to damage the government or the official generally in public esteem.

28. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case, there is no charge against the respondent of having acquired the vicious habit of drinking and gambling. The charge only relates to sex. The question arises, as to whether the respondent had acquired a vicious habit of sex and as a result of that habit his utility as a public servant had been reduced so as to damage government or the respondent generally in public esteem. I, again find it difficult to agree with the learned single Judge that there must be more than one woman involved before a habit of sex can be established. It is possible that a man may have a habit of indulging in sex with one woman in the sense that he constantly visits her for immoral purposes.

30. Assuming that some sort of habit of sex could be attributed to the respondent on the facts of the case, the more important question is as to whether this habit of the respondent had reduced his utility as a public servant, so as to damage government or official generally in public esteem. Normally, the habit of sex, gambling or drinking, does adversely affect the man's health and capacity to work. Such a person as a result of his addiction loses interest in work and his efficiency goes down. There is no finding that the utility of the respondent had been reduced in that sense nor indeed is there any finding that the respondent's affair with Mrs. Joshi became a public scandal so as to damage the prestige of the government or of the respondent generally in public esteem.