- (1.) this group of petitions has been presented by the mysore paper mills officers' association and two of its office bearers. Briefly stated, the management has issued a show-cause notice to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners calling upon them to indicate as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them principally on the ground that they have infringed rules 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the service regulations. The short facts are that the petitioners 2 and 3 in the capacity as office bearers of the association are alleged to have issued certain press releases and made certain statements which according to the management infringes upon the regulations in question. There is also a subsidiary head of charge namely, charge-4 whereby it is contended that the petitioners have made unauthorised disclosures of information and documents that came into their possession in the course of their duties and it is observed here that the petitioners have approached this court at a very preliminary stage. They have not so far filed their replies nor has the inquiry proceeded. They have come to the court on the plea that regulations 19 to 22 contain provisions that infringe their fundamental rights particularly the one in relation to the freedom of speech and expression that is embodied in Article 19(1) of the constitution. In sum and substance, it is their contention that the regulations in the present form fetter the fundamental rights of the petitioners, regardless of the fact that they are employees of the company insofar as they are citizens of india.
(2.) I have gone through the regulations in question. In sum and substance they prohibit employees approaching the media in relation to matters that pertain to the day-to-day functioning of the company. There is also a prohibition in respect of not only making such disclosures but in respect of documents and information that have come into the possession ob knowledge of the employees in the course of their duties. Essentially, the regulations have been framed for the purpose of maintaining a degree of discipline as also confidentiality in relation to the functioning of the company. The short question that is posed for consideration before this court is as to whether the restrictions embodied in these four regulations offend the fundamental rights of the petitioners. If the answer is in the affirmative then the petitioners are certainly entitled to challenge the vires of the regulations in question.
(3.) apart from submitting that the petitioners as citizens of India, have every right to protest against unjust, improper, unfair or dishonest acts, Mr. Subba rao contended that in situations where the petitioners are vitally concerned with the future or survival of the company and where the instances are serious enough to be of public interest, that they are fully justified in going to the media with their grievance. He sought to point out that the petitioners as office bearers of the association have been complaining to the concerned authorities and it is because of the inaction on the part of the authorities who have not taken any steps in the matter that they are left with no option except to go to the media in Order to generate strong public opinion which in turn would perhaps propel the authorities to embark upon an investigation and appropriate action. It is his contention that the entire action was justified and well motivated and that the petitioners are within their rights in whatever they have done and that consequentely, in law, no inquiry is warranted.;