VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -168
421
Natarajan vs. Divisional Supdt., Southern Rly.,
1976(1) SLR KER 669
The petitioner was an Assistant Station Master in the
Southern Railway. He was proceeded against on charges of conduct
unbecoming of a railway servant as he had obtained loans from private
parties on three occasions by falsely representing to them that the
amounts were required for the Southern Railway Employees
Consumers Co-operative Stores and issuing cheques as Secretarycum-Treasurer
of the said Stores as security for the loans. He
contended that since the impugned acts were committed in his private
capacity, the provision in the Conduct Rules was not attracted.
The Kerala High Court held that it may not be correct to state
that a Government servant is not answerable to Government for
misconduct committed in his private life for so long as he continues
as a Government servant. If it is accepted that he is not at all
answerable for acts of misconduct committed by him in his private
capacity, then it would mean that Government will be powerless to
dispense with his services, however reprehensible or abominable
his conduct in private life may be until and unless he commits a
criminal offence or an act which is specifically prohibited by the
Conduct Rules. The result would be to place Government in a position
worse than that of an ordinary employer. While it is true that a
Government servant substantively appointed to a post under
Government normally acquires the right to hold the post till he attains
the age of superannuation and the safeguards provided in the
Constitution are to be made available to him whenever it is proposed
to punish him, it does not follow that Government cannot have any
right to control his conduct to a certain extent even in private life.
The High Court further observed that in exercising jurisdiction
under Art. 226 of Constitution, ordinarily the severity of punishment
would not warrant interference if the punishment imposed was within