Defence Employees Must Get Prior Government Sanction to Contest Co-op Bank Elections, Bombay HC Upholds Two-Term/Five-Year Cap

The petitioners challenged the application of Rule 15(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (“CCS Conduct Rules”) to government employees seeking election as office-bearers of employees’ co-operative societies or banks.

Petitioner No. 2, a civilian employee at the Naval Dockyard, Mumbai, had served as Honorary Secretary of the Naval Dockyard Co-operative Bank (“NDCB”), a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

The Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated 27 February 2020 limited the period for which a government servant could hold elective office to two terms or five years, whichever was earlier, subject to prior sanction.

A Navy communication dated 18 August 2022 directed compliance.

Petitioner No. 2 faced disciplinary action for contesting and holding office without sanction and beyond the prescribed period; he later resigned, and the disciplinary proceedings were closed.

The petition sought, among other reliefs, to set aside the Office Memorandum and Navy communication and to declare that the rule and tenure restriction did not apply to employees’ co-operative societies or banks.

Article 309 of the Constitution empowers the competent rule-making authority to regulate the conditions of service of government employees; the CCS Conduct Rules were made in exercise of that authority.

Rule 15(1)(c) prohibits a government servant from holding an elective office in any body, incorporated or otherwise, without prior government sanction, while Rule 15(2)(e) permits specified participation in the management of qualifying co-operative societies without prior sanction, but not the holding of elective office.

The Office Memoranda of 5 August 2019 and 27 February 2020 set limits on the period a government servant may hold elective office and require prior sanction.

The Court applied *Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal*, (1982) 1 SCC 691, and *Javed v. State of Haryana*, (2003) 8 SCC 369, for the principle that the right to contest an election is a statutory, not fundamental or common-law, right and is subject to statutory limitations.

Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations and co-operative societies, but the Court distinguished that right from a claimed right to hold elective office within a society.

Article 43B concerns promotion of voluntary formation, autonomous functioning and democratic control of co-operative societies.

The Court distinguished the Division Bench ruling in *National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees* because it concerned internal elections of registered trade unions, not elections to a co-operative society.

The Court held that the petitioners’ ability to form or join a co-operative society was not curtailed; the challenged measures regulated government employees’ participation in its elected management.

Since the right to contest an election is statutory, the Court considered it subject to service-related restrictions, including prior sanction and a limit on tenure.

It accepted that the restrictions served the government’s interest in ensuring that outside activities did not impair employees’ official duties or create vested interests, and found no complete bar on participation.

The Court treated NDCB as materially different from a trade union: the earlier *National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees* decision concerned the internal affairs of unions governed by their constitutions, whereas NDCB was a co-operative bank governed by co-operative legislation and bye-laws.

It also declined to find an Article 14 violation based on alleged unequal treatment, absent established mala fides.

Although Petitioner No. 2 had resigned and the disciplinary proceedings had been closed, the Court nevertheless rejected the broader challenge to the restrictions.

It declined the requested declaration that the rule was inapplicable to such societies, found no violation of Article 19(1)(c), and discharged the Rule; any pending interim applications were also disposed of.