Service rules and constitutional freedoms: ban on demonstrations and association limits struck down, while strike prohibition was upheld.

A total prohibition on demonstrations by government servants was held to infringe Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), while the ban on strikes was upheld because there is no fundamental right to strike. Rule 4(B), requiring cessation of membership of an unrecognized or derecognized service association, was found invalid under Article 19(1)(c) since the restriction lacked a real, proximate and direct relation to public order and was excessive. Departmental proceedings based solely on participation in demonstrations and preparation for a strike under the invalid part of Rule 4(A) could not survive and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 4(A) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 was valid in so far as it prohibited demonstrations and strikes by Government servants; (ii) Whether Rule 4(B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 was valid in so far as it required Government servants to cease membership of an unrecognized or de-recognized service association; (iii) Whether departmental proceedings founded on charges based on the invalid part of Rule 4(A) could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 4(A) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 was valid in so far as it prohibited demonstrations and strikes by Government servants.

Analysis: The provision was examined in the light of the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. A total prohibition on demonstrations was held to infringe those freedoms, while a prohibition on strikes was distinguished because there is no fundamental right to resort to a strike. The validity of the rule therefore depended on separating the two parts of the restriction.

Conclusion: Rule 4(A) was invalid to the extent that it prohibited demonstrations, but it remained valid insofar as it prohibited strikes.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 4(B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 was valid in so far as it required Government servants to cease membership of an unrecognized or de-recognized service association.

Analysis: The rule was tested against Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India and the saving provision in Article 19(4). The restriction was held not to be saved because the connection between recognition or withdrawal of recognition of an association and public order was neither proximate nor direct. The conditions governing recognition could operate on grounds unrelated to public order, making the restriction excessive and destructive of the right to form associations.

Conclusion: Rule 4(B) was invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether departmental proceedings founded on charges based on the invalid part of Rule 4(A) could be sustained.

Analysis: The charges against the respondent were based on participation in demonstrations and preparation for a strike, and not on participation in a strike as such. Since the charge rested on the part of Rule 4(A) that was held invalid, the proceedings could not survive. The invalidity of that part of the rule necessarily undermined the departmental action founded upon it.

Conclusion: The departmental proceedings based on that charge were unsustainable and had to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to Rule 4(B) succeeded, the challenge to Rule 4(A) succeeded only in part, and the disciplinary proceedings based on the invalid portion of Rule 4(A) could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on the constitutional right to form associations must have a real, proximate and direct relation to public order to be saved by Article 19(4), and a departmental charge founded exclusively on an invalid portion of a service rule cannot sustain disciplinary proceedings.

---