A government servant’s direct representation to the Prime Minister on departmental matters can amount to unbecoming conduct.

The applicant, a Sub-Postmaster and Zila Mantri of the Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, sent a representation directly to the Prime Minister alleging that a Senior Postmaster’s conduct had contributed to damage to a post-office building and financial loss to the Department.

A copy was also submitted to the departmental authority.

The Department issued a charge memorandum under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging conduct unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of withholding one increment for two years without cumulative effect; the appellate authority upheld it.

The applicant challenged both orders, arguing that he had acted in a union capacity and in the public interest, that the proceedings were biased, and that the charge memorandum had not been supplied in Hindi.

1. Whether the applicant’s direct representation to the Prime Minister concerning departmental affairs could constitute conduct unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3(1)(iii), notwithstanding his claim that he acted in a union capacity and in the public interest.

2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias because the officer concerned in the representation issued the charge memorandum and punishment order.

3. Whether the failure to supply the charge memorandum in Hindi caused prejudice sufficient to invalidate the proceedings.

4. Whether the penalty or the disciplinary and appellate orders warranted interference on judicial review.

Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 requires every Government servant to do nothing unbecoming of a Government servant; Rule 20 prohibits bringing or attempting to bring outside influence to bear on a superior authority to further service interests.

The charge in this case was framed under Rule 3(1)(iii), and the Tribunal considered whether the applicant’s conduct fell within that provision, rather than treating Rule 20 as the substantive charge.

Under B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, judicial review examines the manner in which a disciplinary decision was made; a Tribunal does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or substitute its conclusion, and interference is warranted in circumstances such as breach of natural justice or statutory rules, or a finding based on no evidence.

The Tribunal held that describing the representation as a public-interest complaint or stating that it was made in a union capacity did not remove the applicant from the conduct standards applicable to Government servants.

The representation was addressed directly to the Prime Minister on a matter concerning the Department, and the copy sent to the departmental authority did not alter its nature; the Tribunal found no legal infirmity in the conclusion that the conduct was unbecoming under Rule 3(1)(iii).

The bias allegation was not established merely by the fact that the representation concerned the officer who took disciplinary action, and no evidence of extraneous consideration was shown.

Although the applicant had repeatedly sought the charge memorandum in Hindi, he did not demonstrate specific prejudice in understanding the charge or defending himself.

Applying the limited-review standard, the Tribunal found the decision supported by the applicant’s own representation and the penalty not so disproportionate as to justify interference.

It made no order as to costs and treated any pending miscellaneous applications as disposed of.