Government servant bound by code of conduct; cannot lead immoral life citing Indian Mythology: Rajasthan High Court

When rules prescribe certain code of conduct for government employees and bars them from leading an immoral life, the same cannot be violated on the ground that Indian mythology permits the same, the Rajasthan High Court recently observed [Hari Singh vs State of Rajasthan]..Single-judge Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur upheld the removal from service of the petitioner, a married constable with Rajasthan Armed Constabulary who was found to be in a live-in relationship with a married woman, also a constable with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The bench dismissed the contention of the petitioner who cited Indian mythology to justify his conduct. "This Court finds that in wake of statutory provisions governing the prescribed conduct Rules prohibiting a government servant to lead an immoral life cannot be permitted to be violated by referring to Indian Mythology. The law is codified and rule making authority if has prescribed certain conduct rules to be followed by a government servant, the same cannot be tested on the anvil of customs prevailing in other countries or some out of context reference to the Indian Mythology," Justice Gaur held.The petition had also relied upon the judgment in Mahesh Chand Sharma vs State of Rajasthan in which a coordinate bench of the High Court while dealing with a case of adultery had cited Indian mythology as well as customs prevalent in tribal areas. The Court in this case turned down the same stating,"This Court finds that the said observations of the learned single-judge are absolutely out of context and bereft of any reasoning and further not supported by any legal jurisprudence.".By way of background, the petitioner one Hari Singh, was serving as a constable with the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. He was served with a charge-sheet in September 2007 while he was posted at ‘C’ Company, 12th Battalion RAC (IR) Chankyapuri, New Delhi. The charge-sheet came to be served after he was found to be living with a married woman who too was working as a constable with the CRPF.The authorities dismissed him from service for violating the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he was entitled to lead his personal life as he pleases and his employer cannot dictate him to lead his personal life in a particular life. The Court noted that as per the rules, a government servant not only has to maintain devotion to duty and dignity of office but also follow the code of conduct prescribed by the employer even outside of his working hours. Government servants being public servants have to maintain high standards in private and public life, the Court underscored."The government servant cannot be permitted to assert his right in his private life by not following the norms or conduct Rules which are prescribed by the employer for maintaining high standards. The government servant is supposed to discharge his duties while working in office or even beyond office hours. He is a public servant in the eyes of general public. The divesting status of a government servant from his office duty hours to lead his personal life the way he likes by leading an immoral life, cannot be countenanced by bestowing unfettered right in favour of such government servant," the judge held..In the instant case, the bench noted that the petitioner while working in a disciplined police force, was staying in a government accommodation with a lady who was already married.The petitioner was living with his paramour in an illicit relationship and he did not meet his own legally wedded wife and children, the Court said."As such, the Disciplinary Authority had rightly come to conclusion that a grave misconduct was committed by the petitioner of leading immoral life and also committed indiscipline," the bench underlined.With these observations, the bench upheld the action against the petitioner..Advocates Ram Kumar Swami and Rakesh Kumar Swami appeared for the Petitioner.Advocates PS Naruka and Rupin Kala represented the State..[Read Judgment]