Hare Krishna Yadav vs The Union of India & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Commission.

2 Submission is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the provisions of Regulation 3 ((1) (i) (ii) (iii) of the KVIC Regulations, 2003

came into existence much subsequent to the alleged occurrence, which is for the period between 1996 to 1998, he could not have been punished for

violation of the said KVIC Regulations, 2003. the provisions are being reproduced herein for the sake of reference:

“3. General.-

(1) Every employee shall at all times-

(i) maintain absolute integrity;

(ii) maintain devotion to duty; and

(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of an employee.â€​

3 The said provisions are general provisions and only mandate that the employees have to maintain integrity, devotion to duty and not do anything

which is unbecoming of an employee. The said requirements in public employment is implicit in any Rule, even if not specified. Even because of the

fact that the same has been specified in the year 2003, the petitioner cannot escape the said requirement if he is in public employment.

4 In view of the aforesaid findings, the petitioner’s reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Zile Singh â€" Versus- State of

Haryana and Others (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1 appears to be thoroughly misplaced. This Court would only refer to paragraph 14 of the said

judgment which is being reproduced herein:

“14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes… In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act,

regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is “to explain†an earlier Act, it would be without object unless

construed retrospectively. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the

previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended… An

amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment

of this nature will have retrospective effect.â€​

5 Even the Apex Court in the said judgment was of the same opinion that an amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a

provision of the principal Act which was already implicit and that such clarificatory amendment will have retrospective effect.

6 Since, this Court is not persuaded by the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed.