it2025_01034 — Holding a union meeting in the office campus during lunch hour ipso facto does not amount to be an act prejudicial to the decency or morality unless and until it creates obstacle in the office working or incites others to indulge in any act unbecoming of a public officer

Holding a union meeting in the office campus during lunch hour ipso facto does not amount to be an act prejudicial to the decency or morality unless and until it creates obstacle in the office working or incites others to indulge in any act unbecoming of a public officer — The chunk is discussing the counsel's arguments in an appeal case against a penalty awarded to a government employee for holding a union meeting on office premises without obtaining permission, where... — Facts: The Applicant, posted as Postal Assistant, Ahmedabad GPO and who was also Secretary of All India Postal Employees, Union along with other office bearers organized union meeting on 6-10-1999 between 14 to 14.30 hours in GPO premises without obtaining any permission from the CPM and in that meeting, demonstration and slogans were made against the then Chief Postmaster. Treating the conduct of the Applicant as misconduct and an act unbecoming a Government Servant, he was charged under Rule 7(i), Rule 3(1)

(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Inquiry Officer (IO), held that the charges were found partly proved to the extent that meeting was held on 6-10-1999 in the GPO premises without obtaining permission of the competent authority. IO was directed to give specific findings, pursuant to which, the second report was submitted with some reasoning to DA vide Letter, dated 31-7-2002 reiterating the same conclusion. The Applicant made representation against the same before the DA and the same was decided vide Order, dated 31-3-2003 by DA whereby the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages was passed. Appeal filed against the order of the DA was also dismissed vide Order, dated 27-8-2014 after considering the advice communicated by the Union Public Service Commission. As per the advice of the Commission, the CO being a Government servant was required to obtain prior permission from the CPM, or competent authority and according to Government of India, Decision, dated 9-3-1973 on Rule 7 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, holding of meetings demonstration by Government servant is violative of Rule 7(i). The act of holding the meeting within the premises of CPM, Ahmedabad GPO was in contravention of Rule 7

(i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, according to the Respondents, the Commission did not commit any procedural irregularity or technical infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings. The penalty awarded to the Applicant was also found commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. Counsel for the Applicant emphasized on the following: Letter, dated 16-10-1995 issued by Ministry of Communication, which states that legitimate union activity is permissible and does not invite disciplinary action. In the absence of charges of making demonstration and raising slogans against the then Chief Postmaster being proved, the act of the Applicant to convene meeting in the compound cannot be treated as misconduct and unbecoming of the Government Officer. The Rule 7 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 is not applicable in the present case; it applies only where act of the employee is prejudicial to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order decency or moralities or which involves contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The charges against the Applicant had been found partly true only on the basis of the statement of the Chief Postmaster without any supportive evidence. The defence evidence has been wrongly discarded. The case put up by the Applicant has not been dealt with by the IO and DA in a just and fair manner. Before convening the meeting, the notice was issued on 3-10-1999 which was received by the CPM who did not object to the meeting. The Inquiry Officer wrongly cast the burden on the Applicant to rebut the charge levelled against him. At the relevant time, the Applicant was not on duty. The meeting was convened in the lunch hour. The Applicant expired on 20-4-2021 during COVID wave. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that no procedural irregularity or technical infirmity has been committed during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. This Tribunal does not sit as appellate authority. During service tenure of an employee, the departmental appeal does not lie before the President. Holding of meeting /demonstration by Government in office premises is violative of Rule 7

(i) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.