- (1.) There are three petitioners, who are Bhagelu, Rattu Mali and Ram Khelawan Mali the first named was a chaukidar and the last a gardener in women's hospital Jaunpur. The second was also a gardener but in the District hospital Jaunpur. Both the hospitals are Government institutions under the charge of the Civil Surgeon, Jaunpur.
(2.) All the three applicants were permanent employees under the subordinate services of the Government of this State. Besides the petitioners there were a number of other class IV servants attached to these institutions. These employees formed an association consisting of them with Ram Khelawan as President, Rattu as Secretary and Bhagelu as Treasurer and also applied for its registration under the Trade Unions Act. No. XVI ot 1926. The registration was granted on 25-5-1955. The petitioners' allegation is that the above action on the part of, the class IV employees of the two hospitals was disapproved by the medical officers Incharge of those institutions; consequently they started presenting all sorts of obstacles, including threats to the members to discontinue the union. The insinuation is that the aforesaid adverse attitude of the authorities was due to the resentment which these class IV employees showed by their refusing to give begar to the medical officers. Hence they served 24 out of the 25 members of the union with a charge-sheet under the signatures of the Civil Surgeon as follows; "It has come to my notice that you have organised a hospital Sangh in association with members of Political Parties and have tried to produce obstacles in the hospital administration. Not only this but you have also been leaking out information of hospital work and administration to the members of the political parties. All this you have been doing even on my explaining to you that your action is against Government Servants Conduct Rules and that you cannot organise an Union without prior sanction of the Government. Yon are, therefore, charged as follows : 1. Disobedience of orders, 2. Misconduct. Evidence which it is proposed to consider in support of the charge. 1. Non-compliance of instructions explained to you by me. 2. Your written statement etc. before me. You are hereby required within ten days of the receipt of this charge-sheet to put in a written statement of your defence in reply to each of the charges. You are warned that if no such statement is received from you by me within the time allowed, it will be presumed that you have none to furnish and orders will be passed in your case accordingly. You are further required simultaneously to inform me in writing whether you desire to be heard in person and in case you wish to examine or cross-examine any witness, you are together to submit along with your written statement their names and addresses together with a brief indication of the evidence which each such witness shall be expected to give." It was clear from the above charge-sheet issued that one of the grievances against the petitioners was that they had organised a union, without prior sanction of the Government, in association with members of political parties. The reply filed by the petitioners on the above charge-sheet disputed that they had organized the union with any intention to obstruct the smooth working of the hospitals or that it has connection with any political party; on the contrary it was claimed that they had a right under the law to form the union, the object of which was to improve their social and economid condition and to advance the interests of the hospital administration. They also denied that they had disobeyed any order or command from the superior officers. A few days later on 26-5-1955 the Civil Surgeon made an order suspending the three petitioners along with one other employee Seesh Ram as he considered that the reply furnished by them was not satisfactory. Rattu petitioner was on leave at that time, but in view of the suspension order his leave was cancelled. Thereafter the Civil Surgeon heard and examined the petitioners on the charge-sheets handed over to the petitioners. Ram Khelawan was, examined on the 4th June, Bhagelu on 6th June and Rattu on 13th June and in the end came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct and disobedience had been proved against them. They were then asked to show cause why they should not be dismissed from service and in the end ho made an order dismissing them from service. The petitioners then filed this petition impugning the said order of dismissal. Admittedly they filed no appeal against their dismissal to the Director of Medical and Health Services, which, under the rules governing their employment was open to them. One of the questions which therefore will arise in this case is whether the petition should be rejected on this ground alone. It will be dealt with later.
(3.) The main grievance against the petitioners had been that they had organised a new union which was contrary to the rules framed by the Government in that behalf; as such they were guilty of misconduct. In the charge-sheet that was handed over to them they were also accused of disobedience of orders, but curiously enough no instance was cited in it, except making a vague allegation to the effect "disobedience of orders". Even at the place where the charge mentioned the evidence, which it was proposed to consider in support, no mention was made of any particular incident relating to disobedience of an order. The evidence referred to in the charge was (1) "non-compliance of instructions explained to you by me", and (2) "your written statement etc. before me."" The reference under item (1) to instructions was clear from the averments in paras 4(e), 4(f) and 4(g) to the instructions regarding formation of association by Government servants contained in para 97 of the Manual of Government Orders 1954 Edition. What appeared from the Civil Surgeon's affidavit was that after these employees had formed tho union it was felt that this was not a very proper act on their Dart. It also happened that one Sri Basit Ali, claiming to be the President of the Union approached the Civil Surgeon on 22-3-1955 with certain demands or suggestions on behalf of the members of the union. The Civil Surgeon, who did not like this sort of interference with the hospital administration, assembled the staff of the hospital including the petitioners and explained to them their rights and duties as Government servants vis-a-vis this question. At this meeting the implication of Government Servants' Conduct Rules 17 to 23 was explained. The relevant point in these rules was, firstly, that a Government servant shall not unless so authorised by the Government communicate any information contained in any document etc. to the press and others, and, secondly, that he shall not take Part in any political movement or other activity, which directly or indirectly, may embarrass the Government. Another point that was explained by the Civil Surgeon in this meeting was with regard to the right of a Government servant to form an association.;