'Beasts in disguise' should not be in government service: Delhi High Court

New Delhi: Delhi High Court has passed stringent strictures against a government employee while junking his plea challenging downgrading of his rank for sexually harassing two women family members of a female peon, saying "beasts in disguise" should not be in public service.

"People with upright moral values and integrity should only make way into public service and not those who are beasts in disguise," a bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and I S Mehta said while also imposing a penalty of Rs 50,000 on the government servant, SK Jasra.

Jasra's rank was downgraded in 2012 from Joint Director in the Directorate of Pay, Pension and Regulations in Defence Ministry to that of Deputy Director on grounds of harrassing the daughter and daughter-in-law of a lady peon who was also a widow.

Print Page

Whether there is violation of fundamental right of public servant when permission given to do him to undertake newspaper journalism is revoked?

 As regards the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Indian Express
Newspaper Bombay Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Life Insurance Corporation
of India (supra), the fundamental right as conferred by Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India is not to be lightly interfered with and the
same is subject only to reasonable restrictions placed under Article 19(2)
thereof. In the present case, however, the privilege that was granted to
the petitioner was withdrawn as the same affected his teaching duties in
the opinion of the Municipal Council. This opinion was on the basis of
the report of the Headmaster. The Municipal Council acted within its
powers when it withdrew the privilege conferred on the petitioner to
undertake newspaper reporting as the same affected his teaching duties.
The petitioner who was a servant of the Municipal Council was duty

bound to satisfactorily discharge his duties. If the Municipal Council
formed an opinion on the basis of material available with it that
newspaper reporting was affecting the teaching duties of the petitioner,
it was within its jurisdiction to withdraw the privilege conferred by it. In
the present case, it can only be said that during the course of
employment, the Municipal Council did not permit the petitioner to
undertake newspaper journalism as the same affected his teaching
duties. By doing so, it cannot be said that the Municipal Council has in
any manner violated the petitioner’s fundamental right conferred by
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
19. Thus viewed, it cannot be said that the impugned action
withdrawing permission is either illegal or arbitrary. The petitioner
being in employment of the Municipal Council was bound to discharge
his duties to the satisfaction of his master. Moreover, as a consequence
of withdrawing said permission, the petitioner’s entitlement to continue
in employment was not under any threat. It is, therefore, merely a case
of withdrawal of privilege that was conferred on the petitioner by the
Municipal Council. Hence, the challenges as raised cannot be accepted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6590 OF 2013
Anil Harishchandra Kadu, V  Additional Commissioner,

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

DATED: 19-12-2014
Citation;2015(2) MHLJ 127

Print Page