M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these two v/rit petitions the petitioners, who are ex-civilian clerks in the Defence service of the Union of India and who have been dismissed from service on the charge, of having caused the, filing of a few writ petitions by their colleagues in the Office, before this Court, questioning the legality of the promotion of a junior clerk, have prayed for quashing the orders made by the officer Incharge records, Record Office, Madras Engineer Group, Bangalore, by which the petitioners were dismissed from service and the orders confirming the raid orders in appeal made by the engineer-in-chief Army Head Quarters. New Delhi. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are as follows: The two petitioners, V. K. Parameshwaran and a. Narayanan Nayar, were permanent Lower Division Clerks in the record Office of the Madras Engineer group, Bangalore. In the year 1975 one Miss Kanta Ruby, who was a lower Division Clerk, and who was far junior to the two petitioners, was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk. Aggrieved by the promotion of their junior, the petitioners and several others filed W. Ps. 4051 and 4052 of 1975, 4663 to 4674 of 1975. During the pendency of those writ petitions, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the two petitioners. The contents of the Article of charge and the statement of allegation issued to both these petitioners are almost, similar. Therefore it is sufficient to set out the statement of article of charge and the allegation issued to V. K Parameshwaran. It reads: confidential"statement of articles of charge framed against Shri V. K. Parameswaran, permanent Lower Division clerk No. 1341408. Article of Charge I that the said Shri V. K. Parameswaran, no. 1341408 while functioning as a permanent Lower division Clerk in Records Madras engineer Group, Bangalore, while subject to Army Act, 1950, has instigated his colleagues disregarding the provisions of Sec. 26 and corresponding Rule 23 of CCS (CC and A) rules, 1965, thereby seducing them from their allegiance to the administration and exacted money from his colleagues for this purpose. Annexure-II statement of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge framed against Shri VK parameswaran, permanent Lower division Clerk No. 1341408. Annexure-II statement of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the articles of charge framed against Shri VK parameswaran, permanent Lower division Clerk No. 1341408. Article of Charge I shri V. K. Parameswaran, permanent lower Division Clerk No 1341408 while functioning as a permarent Lower Division Clerk in records Madras Engineer Group, bangalore when he was subject to army Act 1950 during the period of aug 75 to Sept. 75 has instiled his colleagues to join together against the administration disregarding the provisions of AA Sec. 26 and corresponding Rule 23 of CCS (CC and A) Rules, 1965, thereby seducing them from their allegiance to the administration and exacted money from his colleague? for the said purpose and thus violated Rule 3 (I) to (TII) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Annexure-III list of documents by which the articles of charge framed against shri VK Parameshwaran, Lower Division clerk No. 1341408 is proposed to be sustained statements of Shri M. Balachandran (LDC No. 1338596), Shri A. Abdul khaliq (LDC No. 1338600), Shri N. Narasimha Raju (LDC No. 1338608 and Shri G. Gopal (UDC No. 1338599 ). (b) SRO 5-E dated 11 Jan 72 (c) Proceedings of a Board of officers dated 9 Oct 75 and subssequent days. Annexure-lv list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge framed against shri V. K. Parameswaran, Permanent Lower Division Clerk No 1341408 is proposed to be sustained (a) Smt. M. Kamala (LDC No. 1338610. (b) Shri M. Balachandran (LDC No. 1338596) (c) Shri A. Abdul Khaliq (LDC No. 1338600) id) Shri N. Narasimha Raju (LDC No. 1338608) (e) Shri G. Gopal (UDC No. 1338599 ). Bangalore, Sd/- (V. P. Yadav)Colonel officer incharge Records". The petitioners were called upon to defend themselves against the charge framed against them. An elaborate enquiry was held during which the five witnesses referred to in the article of charge were examined. The Enquiry officer, who held the departmental enquiry found the petitioners guilty of the charge. Thereafter the disciplinary authority recorded its findings, agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service. The Enquiry officer, who held the departmental enquiry found the petitioners guilty of the charge. Thereafter the disciplinary authority recorded its findings, agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service. In the reply, the petitioners, inter alia pointed out that presentation of the writ petitions before the court in exercise of the right guaranteed under the Constitution by the officials, individually or jointly, did not amount to any misconduct and, therefore, the finding recorded was unjustified and there was no justification for imposing the penalty proposed. The disciplinary authority proceeded to pass final orders on 15-10-1977 (Exhibits E and E-1) produced along with the writ petitions and dismissed the petitioners from service. Their appeals to the appellate authority were also dismissed on 6. 2. 78 (Ex G and G1) aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions. ( 3 ) SRI K. R. D. Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the act of the petitioners in presenting the writ petitions before this Court for the enforcement of their right guaranteed under Art. 16 (1) oi the Constitution, jointly along with other persons, constituted no misconduct and it was highly improper on the part of the respondents to have intituted a disciplinary proceedings on the charge and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. He submitted that the evidence adduced in the enquiry at the highest indicate that the petitioners took active part in filing the writ petitions and persuaded other officials to join them. This he submitted, by no stretch of imagination could be considered as misconduct justifying the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contention urged for the petitioners, it is necessary to ascertain the facts said to have been proved in the enquiry. After the Enquiry Officer made his report, the disciplinary authority while recording its findings, has summarised the main points which were brought forth by the departmental witnesses in their evidence in the course of the enquiry. After the Enquiry Officer made his report, the disciplinary authority while recording its findings, has summarised the main points which were brought forth by the departmental witnesses in their evidence in the course of the enquiry. They read as follows:" (a) they were satisfied by the, cro's explanation but they joined, the writ on being instigated Dy LDC vk Parameswaran and LDC A Narayanan nair: (b) they were called upon to attend meetings in connection with this so called supersession and filing of the writ petition, which some of them attended, while others did not: (c) LDCs VK Parameswaran and a. Narayanan Nair were the chief spokesmen at the said meetings. LDC VK Parameswaran stated in the meetings that since order of promotion o LDC Kantha, rubi is not being cancelled, they must go to the Couit. When someone suggested to seek an interview with the OIC Records, he replied that it would not serve any purpose in view of the Show cause notice given to LDC MS. Subramani when it made a representation to the OIC records: (d) LDCs VK Parameswaran and a. Narayanan Nair had seen their colleagues within the office, outside it and also at their residence to join in the writ petition. To those who still did not agree to join, they said it is a matter of prestige you must join: (e) to those who expressed difficulty in paying a monthly instalment of Rs. 50 they made a relaxation of asking them to pay at the rate of Rs. 20 or Rs. 30 pm; (f) to those who totally refused to join the writ petition, they asked to at least help them financially: (g) they led others deceitfully to the lawyer's office for signing the writ papers and they had been asking for and collecting money from others for this purpose. "the substance of the above findings is that (he petitioner convened a meeting of their co-employees, instigated them to join as petitioners, insisted on them to contribute money towards the expenses ot the writ petitions, and appealed to the persons who declined to join the writ petitions. at least to help the persons who were willing to file writ petitions financially. It is also stated that it was found that some of thei officials were taken to the lawyer's office by these petitioners deceitfully. at least to help the persons who were willing to file writ petitions financially. It is also stated that it was found that some of thei officials were taken to the lawyer's office by these petitioners deceitfully. ( 5 ) AITER going through the entire records including the lengthy depositions recorded during the enquiry. I am convinced thai the petitioners have been dismissed from service just because they had caused the filing of the writ petitions against the order made by the disciplinary authority (appointing authority) promoting their junior. In the finding recorded, it is stated that the petitioners had instigated others to file writ peti ions and they had taken them to the lawyers office deceitfully. I find the said finding is based on no evidence and on the other hand it is contrary to the evidence on record. Though the deposition of each of the witnesses, which is in the form of questions and answers runs to large number of pages, it is sufficient to set out a few questions and answers, which at once indicate the perversity of the finding. (i) The first witness examined for the prosecution was M. Balachandran, who was also one of the petitioners the relevant portions of the questions and answers found in his deposition are as follows: - -- -- his deposition does not support the finding that the petitioners had instgated him to file the petition. (ii) The second witness examined was A Abdul Khalique, who was also one of the petitioners. The relevant questions and answers found in his deposition are as follows: -- -- -- the deposition of this witness also show s that the petitioners had verbally insisted him to join as a petitioner. He however declined to file the petition. (iv) The fourth witness examined was one Gopal, who was also one of the petitioners. There is nothing in his evidence which supports the charge. (v) The fifth witness examined was m. Kamala, who was also one of the petitioners. The relevant portions of questions and answers in her evidence are as follows: -- -- -- the answers given by Kamala to the questions as indicated above, gives an impression that she was deceitfully made to become a party to the petition. Her evidence is too artificial and fanciful. The relevant portions of questions and answers in her evidence are as follows: -- -- -- the answers given by Kamala to the questions as indicated above, gives an impression that she was deceitfully made to become a party to the petition. Her evidence is too artificial and fanciful. It is difficult to believe that she mistook a vakalat form to a seniority roll and went to the lawyer's office to sign the same. However, it is seen from her deposition that in order to dispel the doubts created by the above answers, a specific question was asked and a suggestion was made on behalf of the petitioners. It is significant and interesting to note that the Enquiry Officer directed Kamala to refrain from giving answer to the question and the suggestion. The relevant portion of the deposition reads as follows: -- -- -- the above extract of the deposition indicates that the Enquiry Officer prevented the witness from answering the question put and the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it was opposed to principles of natural justice and fair play to rely on her earlier statement, - which was prevented from being tested in the cross-examination. It was also elicited from her that she had not withdrawn the petition. In fact the records of this court in those batch of petitions indicate that it was not withdrawn. ( 6 ) ON going through the entire evidence, the only inference that is possible is that the two petitioners itook active part in filing the writ petitions before this Court and they also persuaded their colleagues in the office who were also seniors to the promoted person to join as petitioners along with them and if any one was not willing to become a petitioner, that he should at least render financial assistance to fight for the common cause. Whether any one among these two petitioners or other petitioners, who approached this court had a right to be promoted in preference to the junior who had been promoted and whether their grievance was legally sustainable or not is entirely a different question. But there can be, no doubt that if they felt aggrieved by the promotion of their junior, they had a constitutional right to approach this Court by presenting a writ petition under Art. 226 complaining that the fundamental right guaranteed to them under Arts. But there can be, no doubt that if they felt aggrieved by the promotion of their junior, they had a constitutional right to approach this Court by presenting a writ petition under Art. 226 complaining that the fundamental right guaranteed to them under Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution had been violated. It is for this court to find out, as to whether the relief prayed for :n the writ petition has to be granted or not. Even if the petitions are dismissed, the petitioners and others, who had presented the writ petitions, if aggrieved by that order, have a right to approach the appellate forum against the judgment rendered in the writ petitions. In fact it seen from the records of these cases that by an order made on 4th July 1980 in WP no. 4051 of 1975 and connected cases, the writ petitions were dismissed. The court found that the petitioners could make no legal grievance of the promotion of their junior official for the reasons set out in that order and accordingly the petitions have been dismissed. Against the said order, three of the petitioners including the present petitioners have filed writ appeals bearing W. A. Nos. 1558 to 1560 of 1980 and notices have been issued to the respondents on the writ appeals. Whatever be the final order in those cases, the act of the petitioners in presenting the writ petitions before this Court to vindicate their right and the act of the petitioners in persuading the other colleagues to join as writ petitioners, constitutes no misconduct and the action of the respondents in instituting the disciplinary enquiry and finally imposing the penalty of dismissal against the two petitioners cannot but be characterised as arbitrary and capricious. Every one of the officials had filed individual petitions before this Court though on a common memorandum by paying separate court-fee. Each one of them have signed the vakalat and authorised the counsel to file the writ petitions. They are senior officials working in the department. Just because the petitioners took initiative, and persuaded others also to join along with them, which was obviously done for the purpose of sharing the expenses of the writ petition, no disciplinary proceedings could have been instituted. There is nothing illegal or unusual about it. This is of every day occurrence. They are senior officials working in the department. Just because the petitioners took initiative, and persuaded others also to join along with them, which was obviously done for the purpose of sharing the expenses of the writ petition, no disciplinary proceedings could have been instituted. There is nothing illegal or unusual about it. This is of every day occurrence. To hold that the activity of a Government servant in persuading others' to file writ petitions i. e. , to rer sort to a constitutional method of seeking redress of their grievance as misconduct is beyond my comprehension. In fact, parties' resorting to constitutional remedies for the redressal of the grievance, instead of unconstitutional and undesirable methods must be appreciated instead of being condemned. In a recent judgment of the Supreme court in A. P. S. K. Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1), the Supreme Court has held that Government servants are entitled to form an association and even if the said association is not recognised by the Government, such an association also has the right to file writ petitions in respect of any common grievance of the members of the association. This can happen only by the persuasion of many, by a few officials who take a leading part. Can such persuasion be characterised as instigation or deceit? Certainly not. But that is what exactly has been done by the disciplinary authority in this case. Having considered the facts ami circumstances of this case, I am convinced and I am constiained to hold that the institution of the disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of penalty of dismissal against the petitioners was a vindictive action by the disciplinary authority against the petitioners as according to it these two petitioners were instrumental in filing the writ petitions. ( 7 ) IT is amazing that the disciplinary authority failed to realise the impropriety of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners on a charge of the nature set out earlier and spending considerable public time and money over it and imposing the penalty of dismissal and that the appellate authority confirmed the orders. ( 7 ) IT is amazing that the disciplinary authority failed to realise the impropriety of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners on a charge of the nature set out earlier and spending considerable public time and money over it and imposing the penalty of dismissal and that the appellate authority confirmed the orders. ( 8 ) APART from my conclusion that the act of the petitioners in persuading the other colleagues to file the writ petitions before this Court was no misconduct, I am of the view that it is the act of the respondents in instituting the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners which was reprehensible. The Constitution confers various rights on the citizens and also provides remedies under Art. 32 and 226 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court and the High courts, respectively, for enforcement of those rights Every citizen including a civil servant has a right to resort to constitutional remedies. Any act of any governmental authority in taking disciplinary action against government servants for resorting to constitutional remedies, by themselves or in persuading persons similarly situated to resort to constitutional remedies for vindicating their common grievance, amounts to interference in the due course of justice and the authority taking such action is liable to be proceeded against for contempt of court. A. Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with the propriety oi a charge framed against a civil servant ot this State, who had told the head of the Department that he would be filing a writ petition against it, if his grievance was not redressed within a specified time' in the case of m. Subba Rao v. State of Mysore (2 ). The relevant portion of the judgment reads:"i have never corne across a more misconceived allegation than that which is incorporated in the eighth charge by the Enquiry Officer. Reference to rule 18 in this charge is again attributable to a thoroughly imperfect understanding of the pror visions oi that rule which prohibits a Government servant from having recourse to a suit or other legal proceeding for the vindication of his character or any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism, except with the previous sanction of the Government. No one can suggest and that is not even what was suggested by Mr. No one can suggest and that is not even what was suggested by Mr. Government Pleader than when the petitioner told his official superior that he intended to present a writ petition to this Court, he expressed his intention to have recourse to a legal proceeding for the vindication of his character or of any official act which has been the subject matter of adverse criticism. What he intimated to his official superior was that in respect of what he considered to be injustice done to him in his official career by his official superiors, he proposed to seek redress from this Court. "it is, I think, indisputable, and the position was not contested by Mr. Government Pleader, that a person who proposes to seek redress from this Court in respect of some alleged violation of the conditions of service or some injustice which he has been made to suffer in relatio'n to his official career, can approach this Court under Article 226 of the constitution without obtaining the previous permission of any one. 'it is clear that if a civil servant wishes to present a writ petition to this court under Art. 226 of the constitution, the presentation of that petition need not be preceded by the approval of any official superior of the Government servant. Nor can a rule prohibiting the presentation of a writ petition in that way except with the previous approval of the official superior, be made by any one under any of the statutory provisions. The jurisdiction of this Court is what may be invoked by a Civil servant unimpeded by any restriction, in the same way in which any other litigant can invoke it. In that view of the matter, the eighth charge framed against the petitioner being not only one which fell clearly outside the orbit of the 18th rule of the Mysore Government servants' Conduct Rules, 1957, is also one which cannot in any sense properly form the subject matter of any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It is thus clear that the prohibition sought by the petitioner in so far as it relates to the eighth charge must issue. It is thus clear that the prohibition sought by the petitioner in so far as it relates to the eighth charge must issue. What in my opinion, we should therefore do would be to quash the eighth charge and to restrain by prohibition the Enouirv Officer from continuing the disiplinery proceedings against the petitioner in respect of that charge It is ordered accordingly.-- -- normally, before concluding this order we should have issued a notice to the Enquiry Officer to show cause why proceedings should not be instituted against him under the contempt of Courts Act in respect of the act of contempt which prima facie has been committed by the formulation of the eighth charge against the petitioner in this case. The Inquiry Officer seems to have thought that if a Civil servant told a superior officer that he proposed to make an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to this court, it would amount to an act of intimidation. It has been pointed out in the course of the discussion relating to the eighth charge that that charge was not one which fell either within the ambit of rule 18 of the Mysore Government servants' Conduct Rules 1957 or could amount to misconduct such as may properly form the subject matter of a disciplinary proceeding. But it is equally clear that of a Civil servant is subjected to a disciplinary proceeding when he gives expression to his desire to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherever is responsible for the commencement of such disciplinary proceeding would of course be committing a contumacious act punishable under the Contempt of Courts act since what that person would be doing is undoubtedly something by which he intends te deter the civil servant from pursuing his legal remedy which he is perfectly entitled to do. In that view of the matter we should have issued a notice to the superintending Engineer, Shimoga circle, asking him to show cause why he should not be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of courts Act. Bat Mr Government pleader has assured us that nothing was further from the mind of the superintending Engineer than to make it appear to the petitioner that if he invoked the iurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution, the Superintending engineer or the State Government would frown upon him. Bat Mr Government pleader has assured us that nothing was further from the mind of the superintending Engineer than to make it appear to the petitioner that if he invoked the iurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution, the Superintending engineer or the State Government would frown upon him. Mr. Government pleader tenders before us the unqualified regret of the Superintending Engineer for the unwise thing which he did in formulating a charge as unsustainable and objectionable as charge 8 in this case We should, in my opinion, accept the expression of regret tendered by Mr. Government Pleader on behalf of the superintending Engineer and desist from doing anything further in this case. (Underlining (italics) by me ). The above observations on all fours apply to this case and with greater force. In the present case also, at one stage, I considered that I should issue notice to the disciplinary and appellate authorities to show cause why action for committing contempt of this court should not be taken against them. Sri n. Basavaraju, learned Additional central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the authorities submitted that the authorities, who were Army officers, bona fide believed that though the petitioners were civilians in defence service and were governed by the rules applicable to the civil servants of the Union, they were governed by the provisions of the Army Act and that the personnel governed by the Army act and the Army discipline were not entitled to file writ petitions before this court and that by inducing others to file writ petitions, they had violated the army discipline bv seducing other employees from the allegiance to the administration and it was for that reason the disciplinary proceedings were instituted and penalty was imposed. He submitted that the authorities had absolutely no intention to interfere with the due course of justice before this court and pleaded that action for contempt night not be initiated against them. I am satisfied with the submission made by the learned counsel that the disciplinary and appellate authorities were under a bona fide mistaken impression about the provisions of the army Act, its applicability to the petitioners and the Army discipline. Hence though I strongly deprecate the action taken against the petitioners, I consider it proper to refrain from invoking the plenary powers of this Court under art. Hence though I strongly deprecate the action taken against the petitioners, I consider it proper to refrain from invoking the plenary powers of this Court under art. 210 of the Constitution to punish for contempt of itself and taking action in that regard against the disciplinary and appellate authorities. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, I make the following order: (i) Rule made absolute. (ii) The impugned orders of dismissal dated 15th October 1977 (Exhibits E and E1) and the appellate orders (Exhibits G and G1) are quashed. (iii) The petitioners shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from the quashing of the orders. (iv) The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitions io the peitioners. Advocate's fees Rs. 500 in each of the petitions. --- *** --- .