DHARAMSHASTRA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR

(Academic Session 2020-21)

Constitutional Law-II

Topic- Case Comment on O.K. Ghosh and another v. E.X. Joseph

Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Mr. Ashit Kumar Srivastava
Dimple Meena
(Assistant Professor of
BAL/096/19
Law)
Section- B

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.”

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and I am extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of my
project.

I respect and thank Prof. Balraj Chauhan (Vice Chancellor of the University), Mr. Ashit
Kumar Srivastava (Assistant professor of Law) for providing me an opportunity to do the
project work and giving me support and guidance which made me complete the project duly.

I am thankful to and fortunate enough to get constant encouragement, support and guidance from
my Family which helped me in successfully completing my project work. Also, I would like to
extend my sincere esteems to all my friends for their valuable support.

DIMPLE MEENA
BAL/096/19

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................4

FACTS..............................................................................................................................................................4,5

JUDGEMENT..................................................................................................................................................6,7

ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................................7,8

CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................................8

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................................9

3
 Case Analysis: O.K. GHOSH & ANOTHER v. E.X. JOSEPH
CITATION: AIR 1963 SC 812

BENCH: Hon’ble Justice B.P. Sinha (CJ), Hon’ble Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Hon’ble Justice
K.N. Wanchoo, Hon’ble Justice K.C. Das Gupta And Hon’ble Justice J.C. Shah.

PETITIONER: O.K. GHOSH AND ANOTHER

RESPONDENT: E. X. JOSEPH

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 30/10/1962

INTRODUCION

This case talks about the importance and superiority of the fundamental Rights of a citizen. 1 In
this case, the Supreme Court invalidated 2 Rule 4 (b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1955 which provided that no government servant could join or continue to be a member
of any services association which the government did not recognize or in respect of which
recognition has been refused or withdrawn by it.3 This is one of the important cases because here
we can see how Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 and the Constitutional Law
clashed and overlapped each other.4

FACTS

The respondent E. X. Joseph was a government employee working in the Audit and Accounts
Department at Bombay. He was the Secretary of the Civil Accounts Association which was
affiliated to the All India NonGazetted Audit and Accounts Association.5 The association was

1
SAHANA ARYA, “O.K. Ghosh vs. E.X. Joseph - Indian Law Portal” (Indian Law PortalAugust 11, 2020)
<https://indianlawportal.co.in/o-k-ghosh-vs-e-x-joseph/> accessed March 30, 2021.
2
PRAKASH MARATHE, “LABOUR LAW SEMINAR (PAPER-I) TOPIC: -FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION -CONSTITUTIONAL
ASPECT NAME:-PRAKASH MARATHE CLASS: -SECOND YEAR LL.M SUBJECT: -LABOUR LAW” ()
<http://www.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.com/resources/LLMSY-Lab-1-Prakash.pdf> accessed March 30, 2021.
3
AIR 1963 SC 812
4
Supra note 1
5
Supra note 3

4
recognised by the Government of India in December 1956, but In May, 1959, the Government
withdrew the recognition. After the withdrawal of the recognition, the respondent continued to
be its Secretary General6. As a result, on or about June 3, 1960, he was charged for having
deliberately committed breach of Rule 4(B) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955.
Therefore, an enquiry was conducted by the Appellant 1, O.K. Ghosh (Accountant-General of
Maharashtra). In which he found the respondent, E.X. Joseph guilty of all the charges leveled on
him. Hence, a show-cause notice sent to him why he should not be removed. On the 25th of July
1960, the appellant intimidated the respondent by a memo that there will be an inquiry against
him for having deliberately contravened the provisions of Rule 4(A) of the Rules in so far as he
participated actively in various demonstrations organised in connection with the strike of Central
Government employees and had taken active part in the preparations made for the said strike. 7
Then, the respondent filed a certiorari writ petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 8
of the constitution to quash the allegations to have breached Rule 4 (a) and (b) of the Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. Further, he also asked for issuance of writ of prohibition
against Appellant 1 to not to proceed with the departmental proceedings. He additionally
requested for other incidental reliefs. In this case, The respondent challenged the validity of the
departmental proceedings solely because he thought that Rule 4 (a) and (b) violate the
fundamental rights guaranteed to him namely- Article 19 (1) (a), (b), (c), and (g) 9. Appellant 1
and 2 (Union of India) urged the court claiming that the following impugned rules were valid and
the writs of Certiorari and Prohibition may be disposed of. On the 18th of January, 1951 the
High Court rejected the petition as the respondent had claimed writs on the inquiry of Rule 4 (a).
They were also of the opinion that the Rules were valid and the departmental inquiry against the
respondent cannot be disposed of, whereas the court opined that Rule 4 (b) was invalid and
therefore the departmental inquiry against the respondent for the breach of the said Rule has been
quashed. Appellants 1 and 2 approached the Supreme Court, Challenging the decision of the
court concerning holding Rule 4 (b) invalid. And respondent 1 approached the court with two
different appeals, both these appeals were brought to this court by Special leave.

6
“O.K Ghosh and Another . V. E.X Joseph . | Supreme Court of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine”
(www.casemine.com) <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab20e4b014971140bbcb> accessed April
1, 2021.
7
Supra note 3
8
Constitution of India, Article 226
9
Constitution of India, Article 19

5
ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the Bombay High Court was at error to have declared Rule 4(b) of the
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 invalid?10
II. Whether the Bombay High Court was wrong to have declared the Rule 4(a) void and
it is invalid?

JUDGEMENT

In this case the Supreme Court agreed upon the judgment pronounced by the High Court in
Kameshwar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar 11 which stated that Rule 4(a) of the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 is partly and not wholly invalid. The Court held that the rule
imposed a restriction on the undoubted right of a government servant under Art.19 (1) (c). by
taking the view of this court in Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Dr Ram Manohar
Lohia12 the court said the rule in question was neither reasonable nor in the interest of “public
order” under Art 19 (4). The Court also said by making the textual point that Article 33 of the
Constitution specifically allowed the Parliament to modify the application of the fundamental
rights chapter to the Armed Forces, forces charged with maintaining public order, and persons
involved in intelligence. By omission, therefore, other branches of the government were entitled
to the full enjoyment of their Part III rights. Therefore, in order for a restriction upon Article
19(1)(a) or (c) to be valid, it would have to meet the tests of reasonableness under Articles 19(2)
and (4).13 Further, the court said that the restriction was such as to make the right guaranteed
under 19 (1) (c) illusory since the government could refuse or withdraw recognition on
considerations which might not have any direct or reasonable connection with discipline or
efficiency of government servants or public order.14 Therefore the departmental proceedings and

10
Supra note 1
11
1962 SCR Supl. (3) 369
12
AIR 1960 SC 633
13
Gautam Bhatia, “The Free Speech of Government Employees” (Indian Constitutional Law and PhilosophyJuly 26,
2016) <https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/the-free-speech-of-government-employees/> accessed
April 1, 2021.
14
Supra note 2

6
the Rule were held to be invalid. 15
And the departmental proceedings which were instituted
against respondent for the breach of Rule 4 (a) and (b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1955 were accordingly quashed and dismissed.

ANALYSIS

From this case, we understand that all the other laws are followed by the constitutional Law.
Whenever the Provisions of the Constitutional Law has been challenged or whenever the
Constitutional law and another provision has been challenged or has ever overlapped, priority
has always been shown to the Constitutional Law.16 We can see this in many landmark
judgments that have carved themselves in the history of law. This case is the best example when
spoke about Constitutional law overlapping with another law. Here we see how Rule 4 (a) and
(b) even after being valid, were held invalid due to them violating the Provision of Article 19 (1)
(a), (b), (c), and (g). on the contrary if seen, from the beginning the respondent was at fault for
not disassociating even after knowing the fact that the Association has been dissolved and that he
was found guilty to have breached Rule 4 (a) and (b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1955 and to have been a part of certain unethical activities, even then the court quashed
both, the Rule 4 (a) and the Departmental Enquiry against him on the mere contention that these
Rules- Rule 4 (a) and (b) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 violate his
Fundamental Rights- Article 19 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (g).

In Kameshwar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar where the court held that Rule 4 (a) in the present,
prohibits any form of demonstration as violative of the Government servant’s rights under Art.
19 (1) (a) and (b) and should, therefore, be struck down.

In the case of Superintendent Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia the court
read the two requirements mentioned in Article 19 (4) which states that the impugned restriction
can be said to have satisfied the test of the said clause of Article 19 only if its connection with
the public order is shown to be rationally proximate and direct.

15
Supra note 1
16
Supra note 1

7
From the above mentioned cases we can make a note on how important role precedents have to
play in pronouncing judgment. Even though these Rule 4 (a) and (b) were valid, and could have
been enforced were still quashed.

CONCLUSION

Articles, Rules, and Sections of statutes have always been interpreted in various ways because of
which we have got landmark judgments such as the Kesavananda Bharati 17, Triple Talaaq18, or
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India19. Similarly in the judgment of O.K Ghose vs. E.X Joseph
the Bench had the liberty to interpret the laws in their way. Following this case, the Supreme
Court gave more successful judgments like in the Case Smt, Damayanti Naranga V. Union Of
India & Others20 in making creating human rights jurisprudence.

17
(1973) 4 SCC 225
18
(2017) 9 SCC 1
19
(2018) 10 SCC 1
20
AIR 1971 SC 966

8
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 https://indianlawportal.co.in/o-k-ghosh-vs-e-x-joseph/
 https://www.the- laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?
CaseId=002691413000&CaseId=002691413000
 https://www.scconline.com/
 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1681994/
 https://www.legitquest.com/case/karnataka-state-road-v-ksrtc-staff-workers-
others/DAC7E
 https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/the-free-speech-of-government-
employees/
 https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab20e4b014971140bbcb
 http://www.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.com/resources/LLMSY-Lab-1-Prakash.pdf