In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition of Shamboo Singh, a government school teacher, who challenged his suspension for alleged insubordination and misconduct. Justice Dinesh Mehta, observed that the petitioner’s behavior, which included derogatory remarks, public protests, and effigy-burning targeting the Education Minister, constituted a severe breach of service discipline under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The court unequivocally ruled that such behavior is intolerable within the ambit of public service, underscoring the necessity of maintaining institutional decorum and respect for authority.

The petitioner, a Grade-III teacher and President of the Secondary Teachers Association, was suspended following allegations that he hurled slogans against the Education Minister, used unparliamentary language, burned effigies, and displayed hoardings that belittled the minister. These incidents were alleged to have occurred in public spaces, attracting significant attention. The petitioner argued that his suspension was actuated by political vendetta, as he had previously been recognized for his contributions to education, including a recommendation for a State-level award.

The suspension order was initially issued under Rule 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958, which applies when an employee is detained in custody for more than 48 hours—a condition not met in this case. However, within 24 hours, a corrected order was issued under Rule 13(1)(a), which allows for suspension during or in anticipation of disciplinary proceedings.

Justice Mehta delved into the petitioner’s primary argument that his actions fell under the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. The court firmly rejected this defense, stating, “Freedom of expression, though guaranteed by the Constitution, is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions, particularly for public servants bound by service rules.”

The judgment articulated the sanctity of service discipline, noting, “A government servant has every right to voice grievances, but the manner in which these are expressed must align with the decorum expected of public office. The petitioner’s actions, involving baseless allegations, inflammatory remarks, and public protests, clearly transgress the limits of acceptable conduct under service rules.”

The court further observed that the petitioner’s behavior not only violated the service code but also had a detrimental impact on the educational environment. Justice Mehta remarked, “A teacher is a maker of the country. By patronizing such behavior, we risk nurturing a generation that undermines the values of respect and discipline. What kind of example are we setting for students, who look up to their teachers as role models?”

The petitioner challenged the procedural validity of the suspension order, arguing that the initial invocation of Rule 13(2) rendered it void. The court dismissed this argument, clarifying that mere incorrect referencing of a provision does not vitiate the order if the powers are traceable under another valid provision. Justice Mehta stated, “The subsequent order rectifying the error ensures the legality and propriety of the suspension. Such procedural corrections cannot be construed as mala fide.”

The court further noted that suspension is not a punitive measure but a preventive one. It observed, “Suspension is intended to ensure a fair and unhindered disciplinary process. The petitioner’s continued presence in office could potentially influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, and undermine departmental discipline.”

The court also addressed the broader implications of the petitioner’s actions. Justice Mehta pointed out that the petitioner, as President of the Secondary Teachers Association, held a position of influence, which he allegedly misused to engage in political activities and propagate dissent against the government. The judgment stated, “The petitioner cannot use the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution to garner his fiefdom. To keep society in order, self-restraint is necessary while respecting the self-esteem of others.”

Additionally, the court held that the petitioner’s engagement in political activities violated the neutrality expected of public servants. It remarked, “Public servants are bound by a duty to uphold the integrity of their office. Engaging in political protests that target superiors not only undermines departmental hierarchy but also erodes public confidence in governance.”

Dismissing the writ petition, the court concluded that the suspension was justified and lawful. Justice Mehta remarked, “The disciplinary authority had sufficient material to justify immediate action to maintain discipline and decorum within the department. The inquiry officer shall proceed with the disciplinary proceedings based on evidence, uninfluenced by this court’s observations.”

Case Title: Shamboo Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16307/2024

Bench: Justice Dinesh Mehta