Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner was appointed as a Telegraphist by Post Master General Nagpur in 1949. In July 1960, he was serving as an officiating Teleprinter Supervisor at Jaipur. The employees of the Posts and Telegraphs Department (hereinafter referred to as the Department) went on strike from the midnight of July 11, 1960 throughout India and there was a similar strike at Jaipur. The petitioner was on duty on that day from 12 noon to 8 p.m. He says that after his duty was over, he did not go home but went to the dormitory where he fell asleep as he was tired. At about 11-30 p.m. he woke up on hearing some noise and discovered that it was very late and then he wanted to go home. But as he came out, he was arrested by the police on the ground that he was also one of the demonstrators, who were demonstrating outside in connection with the strike. The arrest was made under the Essential Services . Maintenance Ordinance No. 1 of 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). On July 13, the petitioner was suspended on the ground that a criminal charge was pending against him in a criminal court. However, the criminal charge was withdrawn on July 18, 1963. On July 11, 1960 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in the following terms: "That Shri Radhey Shiam Shama I. C/S. Telegraphist, CTO Jaipur committed gross misconduct in that on the midnight of the 11th July 1960, he took part in a demonstration in furtherance of the strike of the P and T Employees in violation of the orders dated 8-7-1960 issued by the Government of India under the "Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1960 (1 of 1960), prohibiting strikes in any postal, telegraph or telephone Service." An inquiry, was made in the matter by the Post Master General, Central Services Nagpur to whom it was transferred at the petitioner had been appointed by that officer. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge framed against him and thereupon a notice was issued to him to show cause why the penalty of reduction in the time scale by three stages for a period of two years affecting the future increments be not imposed upon him. Thereafter the Post Master General after taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice ordered that the pay of the petitioner should be reduced in the time scale by three stages for a period of two years and on restoration the period of reduction was not to operate to postpone his future increments. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal to the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs. The Director General directed further evidence to be taken on certain lines before deciding the appeal. However, no further evidence was given on behalf of the Department and the matter was re-submitted to the Director General as it was, Finally the Director General considered the whole matter on the merits and rejected the appeal.
(2.) The present petition is a sequel to the order of the Director General, and the petitioner contends that the punishment imposed upon him is violative of his fundamental rights under Arts. 19 (1) (a) and 19(i) (b) and should be quashed. Reliance is placed on his behalf on two cases of this Court in Kameshwar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, (1962) 2 Suppl. SCR 369 and O. K. Ghosh vs. E. X. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 812. Further it is contended that Ss. 3, 4 and 5 of the Ordinance are ultra vires, as they contravene sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Art. 19 (1). Lastly, it is urged that in any case there was no evidence on which it could be found that the charge against the petitioner had been proved.
(3.) The petition has been opposed on behalf of the Union of India, and it is urged that the Ordinance is perfectly constitutional and does not violate any fundamental rights. It is further urged that the two cases relied upon by the petitioner are of no assistance to him, as they were concerned with Rule 4-A and Rule 4-B of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. Lastly it is urged that there was evidence on which the authorities concerned could find the charge proved against the petitioner.;