TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Rule 7(i) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which prohibits adverse criticism of current or recent Government policy or action by a member of the Service in public utterance, is ultra vires Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the respondents had jurisdiction under Rule 3(1) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, to initiate disciplinary action on the basis of the petitioner's alleged private misconduct unconnected with his official duties. (iii) Whether the impugned suspension order founded on the alleged speech-related misconduct was vitiated by legal mala fides.
Issue (i): Whether Rule 7(i) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, which prohibits adverse criticism of current or recent Government policy or action by a member of the Service in public utterance, is ultra vires Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The restriction was examined in the setting of the special constitutional position of All India Services, the duty of absolute integrity and devotion to duty, and the limited nature of the prohibition, which was directed not against legitimate expression in the performance of official duties but against open criticism of current or recent policy or action in public. The Court held that a public servant does not lose freedom of speech, but that freedom may be regulated by a condition of service where the restriction has a direct and proximate nexus with public order, discipline, reticence, efficiency, and public confidence in administration. Applying the test of reasonableness, the Court held that the rule was not vague and that the State had justified the restriction as a permissible one.
Conclusion: Rule 7(i) is intra vires and valid; the challenge under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), and 13(2) fails.
Issue (ii): Whether the respondents had jurisdiction under Rule 3(1) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, to initiate disciplinary action on the basis of the petitioner's alleged private misconduct unconnected with his official duties.
Analysis: The Court held that disciplinary power under Rule 3(1) extends to conduct bearing a reasonable relationship to the officer's duties and to conduct unbecoming of a member of the Service in that connected sphere, but not to purely private conduct having no nexus with official duty. On the facts, the alleged malpractice in the university examination was held to be unrelated to the petitioner's service functions, and therefore beyond the disciplinary jurisdiction invoked by the State.
Conclusion: The disciplinary action on that ground was without authority and the impugned order was quashed.
Issue (iii): Whether the impugned suspension order founded on the alleged speech-related misconduct was vitiated by legal mala fides.
Analysis: The allegation of mala fides was not substantiated by reliable material. The Court found that the reliance placed on newspaper reports and uncorroborated assertions was insufficient to establish legal mala fides.
Conclusion: Legal mala fides was not proved.
Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of in different ways on their respective merits: the challenge to the validity of the conduct rule failed, but the disciplinary action based on the unrelated private allegation was struck down for want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A service rule restricting public criticism by members of a disciplined higher civil service is valid if it bears a direct and proximate nexus with public order, discipline, and efficiency of administration, but disciplinary control cannot extend to wholly private conduct unconnected with official duty.
TaxTMI 
