H.L. Sethi vs Municipal Corporation

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—The Petitioner is a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Corporation of Simla. On September 3, 1970, he received a notice from the Corporation that it was proposed to proceed against him under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 in respect of a number of charges.

One charge was:

That you approached one of the members of the Himachal Legislative Assembly, namely, Subedar Bansi Ram, M.L.A. and gave him a written chit in your own hand to arrange an Assembly question. That your action in approaching the Legislator is in violation of Clause (15) of the Municipal Bye-law No. XXXIV. You are thus responsible for the violation of Clause (15) of the said Bye-law.

The Petitioner challenges the validity of the proposed proceeding, and prays for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

It is admitted between the parties that the proceedings intended against the Petitioner relate to a contravention of Bye-law No. 15 of the Minicipal Committee Service Conduct Bye-laws, 1951. Bye-law No. 15 provides:

Direct approach to members of Government etc.-No servant shall approach members of Government, Parliamentary Secretaries, Member of the Legislature or Secretariat officers, on any question, personal or general relating to service matters except through the President of the Committee concerned or seek interview with members of Government, or Parliamentary Secretaries or Secretariat officers except by previous appointment and through proper channel.

Shri Inder Singh, for the Petitioner, contends that Bye-law No. 15 contravenes the fundamental right of the Petitioner to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is, therefore, ultra vires. He urges that the impugned Bye-law is not protected by Article 19(2).

As the title of the Bye-laws indicates, they are intended to lay down rules of conduct binding servants of the Municipal Committee, Simla. They are rules of conduct which the Municipal Committee has formulated for the purpose of ensuring a disciplined and efficient staff and for preventing its employees from abusing their position or from corrupting their office. A brief resume of the Bye-laws will demostrate that Bye-law No. 3 prohibits a Municipal servant from accepting a gift except with the previous sanction of the President of the Municipal Committee. Bye-law No. 4 prohibits him from asking for or accepting any subscription or other pecuniary assistance without the previous sanction of the President. According to Bye-law No. 6, a Municipal servant is not permitted to lend or borrow money to or from any member or servant of the Municipal Committee or a person residing within the Municipal limits so as "to deflect him from the proper discharge of his duties". Bye-law No. 7 imposes restriction on his right to acquire immovable property within the limits of the Municipal Committee. Bye-law No. 8 places restrictions on an employee in the matter of making investments which tend to embarras or influence him in the discharge of his duties. Bye-law No. 9 prohibit him from engaging in any trade or undertaking employment out side his public duties. Bye-law No. 10 is concerned with cases of insolvency and habitual indebtedness of a Municipal servant. Bye-law No. 11 enjoins upon a Municipal servant to keep official information confidential. Under Bye-law No. 12 he is prohibited from owning or conducting or participating, without the previous sanction of the Committee, in the editing or management of a newspaper or other periodical publication. Bye-law No. 13 restrains him from participating in or assisting any political movement. Bye-law No. 14 prohibits him from canvassing or otherwise using his influence in connection with a candidate in an election to a local body or a legislative body and from himself standing as a candidate for such election. Bye-law No. 15 has already been set out. Bye-law No. 16 prohibits a Municipal servant from ventilating through the press any personal or general grievances relating to service or to Municipal Committee matters. The Bye-laws were made in 1951, and this brief outline indicates the general purpose for which they have been framed. The validity of Bye-law No. 15 alone has been assailed, and that question may now be specifically considered.

The Municipal Corporation of Simla is an autonomous body empowered to regulate its internal affairs and to that end make all necessary rules and regulations. As a body concerned with the discharge of public functions, some of which are associated with high responsibility, it is desirable that its internal affairs are conducted with efficiency and despatch. For that purpose, a disciplined body of servants is a necessary requisite. Every employer is entitled to expect his servants to observe certain norms of discipline in the discharge of their duties. A public corporation more so. Indeed, if anything, without that discipline it can well-nigh become impossible for it to discharge the public duties and responsibilities for which it exists. While some of the Bye-laws mentioned above are intended to ensure in the case of Municipal servants a proper and honest exercise of functions by avoiding a conflict between self-interest and duty, certain other Bye-laws are intended to ensure that any grievances felt by a Municipal servant should, in the first instance, be resolved within the Municipal Corporation itself before being taken outside it. It is urged by learned Counsel for the Corporation that Bye-law No. 15 attempts the latter. According to learned Counsel, the impugned Bye-law does not restrain a municipal servant from approaching a member of the Government, or a Parliamentary Secretary or a Member of the Legislature or a Secretariat officer for any purpose. What it does, he says, is merely to require that in matters relating to service in the Corporation, the Municipal servant must proceed through the President of the Municipal Corporation. The President has no power to prevent the Minicipal servant from meeting the officers or diginataries mentioned in the impugned Bye-law. It seems to me that learned Counsel is right. Upon a fair reading of the impugned Bye-law, it is not possible to construe it as empowering the President to deny a Municipal servant the right to approach the persons mentioned therein. The entire object of the impugned Bye-law, in my opinion, appears to be to apprise the President of the circumstance that a Municipal servant has a grievance in respect of his service conditions and proposes to seek relief outside the Municipal Corporation. The President, and the Municipal Corporation, can then examine the grievance of the Municipal servant and grant redress where redress is called for. In this manner, resort to agencies outside the Municipal Corporation can be avoided. The object is laudable, and there can be little doubt that it safeguards the autonomous character of the Corporation. There is also the consideration that attempting a resolution of the grievance within the Corporation itself helps to preserve discipline in the conduct of its affairs.

To my mind, Bye-law No. 15 is concerned with the internal regulation of the affairs of the Corporation. It is not a matter which affects the Municipal servant''s right to freedom of speech and expression. The Municipal servant has an unfettered right to approach any of the persons mentioned in the impugned Bye-law. The procedure alone in which he must do so is prescribed, and that is that he must move through the President. By adopting that procedure, he thereby also informs the President that there is a matter affecting Municipal service which is intended to be taken outside the Corporation, and the President can then decide whether relief cannot be granted within the machinery provided by the Corporation. In my judgment, Bye-law No. 15 does not infringe Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The learned Advocate-General, appearing for the Municipal Corporation, contends that the impugned Bye-law is protected by Article 19(2) as a reasonable restriction in the interest of public order. On the view which has found favour with me, no question arises of invoking Article 19(2).

Accordingly, the challenge to the validity of Bye-law No. 15 on the ground that it contravenes Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot succeed. As that is the only point raised before me this writ petition must fail.

The petition is dismissed. But, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.