Govt Teacher Burning Education Minister's Effigy Is Guilty Of Official Misconduct, Cannot Be Tolerated Under Freedom Of Expression: Rajasthan HC
While terming it one of the most glaring cases of insubordination, the Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition filed against the suspension of a Government teacher for hurling slogans and using unparliamentary language against the Education Minister, burning his effigies and also raising hoarding belittling him, ruling that such unruly behaviour could not be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that such behaviour amounted to misconduct, calling for a disciplinary inquiry against him. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the Government Teacher (“petitioner”) against the order of the District Education Officer vide which he was suspended.
“Petitioner's engagement in political activities as has been highlighted in the reply and his behaviour definitely falls within the scope of misconduct and calls for disciplinary inquiry against him. The petitioner cannot use freedom guaranteed by the Constitution to garner his fiefdom. To keep the society in order, self-restraint is necessary while respecting self-esteem of others.”
It was the case of the petitioner that he was the President of the Secondary Teachers Association whose services were appreciated by the State and his name was also recommended for the State Level award. However, the respondents had vindictively initiated proceedings against him by issuing him a charge sheet and placing him under suspension.
It was argued that the order for suspension mentioned that the powers were exercised under Rule 13(2) which could be exercised only when the government servant had remained behind bars for more than 48 hours which was not the case with the petitioner. Even though, a fresh order was issued mentioning that Rule 13(2) shall be read to mean Rule 13(1)(a), the facts mentioned in the charge sheet could not be said to have been done by the petitioner during discharge of his official duties, and hence could not be taken as a misconduct.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State argued that the petitioner was suspended under contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry on account of his unruly behaviour. It was argued that a government employee had a right to raise voice but not in the manner of hurling baseless allegations and using inappropriate language about the Education Minister of the State. It was submitted that such a conduct fell under the scope of misconduct under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1971.
After hearing the contentions, the Court ruled that the apprehension of influencing the witness was one of but not the only criteria for placing an employee under suspension. It was observed that the petitioner had exhibited the audacity to affix placards and hoardings at many places and also to hurl inappropriate expressions against the Education Minister. Since he was the President of the Secondary Teachers Association himself, there was likelihood of him meeting the higher authorities.
Furthermore, it was observed that if the petitioner remained in office, it was likely to pollute the environment of the department and dent the discipline, and thus there existed valid reasons with the disciplinary authority to take immediate actions against the petitioner.
“Petitioner's unruly behaviour cannot be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression. His remaining on duties will not only create undue pressure upon the Inquiry Officer but also disseminate indiscipline and wrong signals amongst other employees. That apart, this Court is unable to fathom the impact which his behaviour would make on the students, who would be learning from him…A teacher is a maker of the country - what type of country and generation we would be nurturing, by protecting rather patronising such teachers?”
Finally, the Court also stated that mere incorrect mentioning of the provision, when the powers were otherwise clearly drawn from Rule 13(1) could not make the suspension order void, illegal or without jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Shamboo Singh v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 405