DODDAKALEGOWDA, J. ( 1 ) TWO main charges amongst others framed against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry were :- "1. Mr. M. H. Devendrappa, has written a letter dated 3-6-77 directly to the Governor of Karnataka pointing out the mis-management in ksidc. Being an employee of the corporation, he cannot address letter to the Government or Governor directly without permission of the Management, which amounts 10 violation of Rule 22 of the Service Rules of the Corporation, viz. , 'mis-conduct, knowingly done things detrimental to the interest and prestige of the Corporation'. ( 2 ) SRI M. H. Devendrappa, has issued a press statement in SAMYUKTHA karnataka, Kannada Daily dated 31 12-77 attributing motives to the then Chairman Mr. S. C. Venkatesh and welcoming his dismissal from the presidentship of Bangalore District congress Committee. Being an employee of the Corporation, he cannot issue a press statement of political nature or indulge in political activities, which amounts to gross mis-conduct, mis-behaviour and knowingly committed things detrimental to the interest or prestige of the Corporation. " 2. in written statement petitioner contended that whatever he has done/ uttered, has been done as a President of karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Welfare Association ; justified contents of Memorandum citing sri Umashankar Dixit, Ex-Governor of karnataka, Sri Govindanarayan, Governor of Karnataka and Sri K. S. N. Murthy, Sri n. A. Muttanna, Sri William Nazareth, Sri s. C. Venkatesh, Sri R S. Halepet, sri T M. Mariyappa, Sri M. P. Hanumanthe gowda, Ex-Chairman, Ex-Managing directors, Ex-Accounts Officers and senior Assistants, so on, as his witnesses. ( 3 ) RELEVANT portion of memorandum submitted to Governor reads thus:-"the Association brought to the notice of the management of the corporation its laches and administration and other such things at an early state, but however, it is all in vain. Therefore, it is honestly felt to bring to your kind notice : a) Several persons are being appointed in the Corporation who are inefficient and unqualified at the instance of the political leaders and ministeres : i) For instance Sri Kariguddaiah, lecturer in technical education Board on deputation to this Corporaiion as junior Engineer, but de facto working as Assistant Engineer in Corporation. He has been sought to be absorbed as permanent Assistant Engineer of Corporation at the instance of Sri S. M. Krishna, the Hon'ble Minister for industries and Parliamentary affairs. He has been sought to be absorbed as permanent Assistant Engineer of Corporation at the instance of Sri S. M. Krishna, the Hon'ble Minister for industries and Parliamentary affairs. ii) Though the Corporation has appointed a design Engineer in 1973 his services have not been utilised and no design section has been opened. It is not known how his services are being utilised by this Corporation. iii) Unqualified persons like tracers and draughtsmen for execution of the works and services of qualified persons are not being utilised. B) Before undertaking any works, which involves the expenditure of Crores of Rupees, it is necessary to have complete plans in hand having regard to the nature of the work, the proposed production and money to be invested. To illustrate the above point, it is necessary to state that the Corporation in order to place a particular contract or has started execution of additional wofk of industrial estate Peenya II stage, the same contractor was the contractor for Major works in Peenya first Stage. On 23-3-1977 itself the corporation called for the tenders, for road works without even taking the possession of the land from M/s. Karna- taka Industrial Areas Development board. The possession of the land was taken on 9-5-1977. On 30-3-1977 the Corporation called for lenders for the construction of 40-A' type sheds, curiously enough the plan was approved on 24-5-1977 by the chief Manager, C and M (Superintending engineer ). The P. W. D. Code (Vol. I) provides the procedure for taking up new projects. The question of inviting tenders will arise only after the project as approved by the administration and technical branches. The Corporation has ignored all the procedures and with a sole intention to benefit the contractor, has issued the work orders. It is learnt that the contractor is not a registered contractor. A project report submitted by Technical consultant has been neglected. However, the same has been utilised to raise loans from the Nationalised banks. The plan submitted by the technical consultant is one and Plan to be executed is another. The work is being carried on in piece meal rates. C) Though there is an equipped complete Civil Engineering Section, in the Corporation Technical Consultants has been appointed. D) In Peenya Industrial Estate, First stage, several sheds which has started in 1974 are still incomplete and the public money has been wasted. The work is being carried on in piece meal rates. C) Though there is an equipped complete Civil Engineering Section, in the Corporation Technical Consultants has been appointed. D) In Peenya Industrial Estate, First stage, several sheds which has started in 1974 are still incomplete and the public money has been wasted. Due to corruption and understanding between the Management and the contractors several sheds newly constructed have been collapsed and the Corporation has not taken any action against such contractor and on the other hand the management has entrusted the new works to same contractors. E) Wagon loads of cement purchased by the Corporation has been diverted even at the goods shed level and laks of rupees have been mis-appropriated. F) There is a sales section and foreign trade section in the Corporation. Both the sections are sleeping and nothing has been brought out. There is an audit section which is blink against all the mal-practices. By virtue of the above facts, and omissions the Corporation is incurring heavy loss and it is in the verge of liquidation. It does not come with the purview of the public accounts committee and there is nobody to think of the welfare of the Corporation audits employees. Under the circumstances, the above welfare association in the interest of public and on behalf of the employees of K. S. I. D. C. I appeal to your goodself to be good enough to arrange to investigate the working condition of the above Corporation and bring the evils to light. For this act of kindness we ever remain grateful to you Sir. "the same memorandum was released to the press and published in SAMYUKTA karnataka dated 31-12-1977, a Kantaka Daily news paper. ( 4 ) EARLIER to initiation of this proceeding, Managing Director had called for explanation from petitioner drawing his attention to Rule 22 of the Service rules of the Corporation, which read thus :-"penalties: An employee who commits a breach of these Rules, or displays negligence, inefficiency or insubordination or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests or prestige of the Corporation or in conflict with official instructions or is guilty of any activity of misconduct or mis-behaviour shall be liable to one or more of the following penalties. . . . . . . "explanation of the petitioner read thus : -"in the letter referred to above, you have called for my explanation in connection with certain activities of mine as President of the K. S. I. C. Employees welfare Association. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the first two paragraphs relate to my activity as president of the Welfare Association and not as an employee of the Corporation. The 2 Offices are different and the duties and functions of the 2 offices are also different. Therefore, it cannot be held that for the activities of mine as President of the Welfare Association Disciplinary action can be taken against me as an employee of the Corporation. In view of this, the Press statement referred to in para 1 of your letter and the letter addressed to His excellency the Governor do not amount to any mis-conduct or breach or violation of Service Rules. There was every justification for me to have issued the press Statement and the letter addressed to His Excellency the Governor, as the President of the Welfare Aesociation. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 5 ) SRI P. N. Ananthashayanam Naidu, deputy Chief Manager (C and M) of the corporation, was appointed as an Enquiry officer. On 31-5-1978 when the enquiry started petitioner urged before the Enquiry officer that in view of the pendency of o. S. 7/78 on the file of the First Munsiff, bangalore, (later on renumbered as O. S. 1315/78) no enquiry could be held. That was a suit filed by the petitioner against the Managing Director, the Enquiry Officer and the Corporation, to forbear from holding an enquiry, attributing bias to the managing Director as well as to the enquiry Officer. As there was no interim order staying the proceedings Enquiry officer declined to postpone the enquiry. Aa recorded in the report of the Enquiry officer, delinquent official (petitioner) declined to participate in the proceedings. ( 6 ) ENQUIRY Officer after holding an enquiry, held that charges 1 and 2 were proved and third charge was proved partially. Managing Director, i. e. disciplinary authority accepting findings of the enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice as per Annexure-Q. Petitioner offered his explanation as per Annexure-R. Tnereafter, Managing Director considering the report, explanation offered and the material available on record, has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and ordered dismissal. Managing Director, i. e. disciplinary authority accepting findings of the enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice as per Annexure-Q. Petitioner offered his explanation as per Annexure-R. Tnereafter, Managing Director considering the report, explanation offered and the material available on record, has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and ordered dismissal. Validity of this order as well as appellate order dismissing appeal are challenged in this writ petition. ( 7 ) FIRST ground of attack was that it was an ex-parte proceeding, hence finding as well as punishment were vitiated. it was submitted that petitioner was not provided with sufficient opportunity to establish his case and/or to disprove allegations of the department/respondent. As has already been indicated, petitioner had declined to participate in the enquiry ; he was unsuccessful to get an interim injunction in 0. S. 7/78 to restrain respondents from proceeding with the enquiry. That suit later renumbered as o. S. No. 1315 of 1978, was dismissed as withdrawn. Moreover, at no time, the petitioner disowned presentation of memorandum to the Governor. In view of this specific stand, dental of opportuni y to examine persons like Governors etc. , has not resulted in prejudice. More over, when he has declined to participate in the enquiry, it was impossible to conceive in what form opportunity should have been given. The object of examining those persons and to cause production of documents referred to therein, as submitted by S i Leela Krishnan, was to justify the coments of Memorandum in other words, petitioner intended to establish whatever he has stated was true and correct. Assuming for the sake of argument, what all petitioner has stated in the memorandum and to the Press was correct, whether Rule 22 of the Conduct rules did permit such an action by an employee of the Department/respondent? ( 8 ) SO, question that requires consideration is -whether presentation of such a Memorandum and release of an article like the one referred to above, to press by an official of the Corporation is protected/get immunity, if done as an office bearer of the Union ? ( 9 ) AS facts are not in controversy, this Court can straightaway proceed to ascertain the ratio of precedents on this aspect and its applicability to facts of the present case. ( 9 ) AS facts are not in controversy, this Court can straightaway proceed to ascertain the ratio of precedents on this aspect and its applicability to facts of the present case. This Court while examining the validity of a rule which prohibited a government servant from broadcasting on radio or publishing a document anonymously or in his own name or in the name of any other person or communicating to the press or utterences of any statement of facts or opinion capable of embarassing the relationship, (which had the same impact as the present rule) has explained the scope of right of an employee and restraint that could be imposed in b. Manmohan v. State of Mysore and others (1966 (1) Kar. L. J. 221 ). A contention :-"on this branch of the case, his arguments proceeded thus ; a Government servant, as a citizen of this-country, is entitled to freedom of speech and expression ; but being a Government servant he has special duties and responsibilities, his occupation requires him to be disciplined and efficient, without which there will be chaos in the administration; a public servant who indulges in public criticism of recent policy or action of Government cannot remain disciplined ; and consequently his efficiency is bound to suffer. According to him, it would be a sad day for the Country if Government servants are permitted to publicly criticise the Government's policy or action ; as Government servants they are expected to loyally implement the policy decisions taken by the Government ; it is through them the government implements its policy, if the very persons through whom the Government acts are avowedly critical of the policy to be implemented then administration would become well nigh impossible. "has been answered as follows :-"there is a great deal of overlapping of the rights guaranteed under that article. Therefore, the impact of every right guaranteed along with restrictions that could be validly imposed on that right on the other guaranteed rights should not be overlooked. A citizen of this country is not merely a citizen; in addition to being a citizen, he may have other capacities. In determining the validity of any restriction placed on him, his duties and responsibilities arising from his occupation will have to be considered. A citizen of this country is not merely a citizen; in addition to being a citizen, he may have other capacities. In determining the validity of any restriction placed on him, his duties and responsibilities arising from his occupation will have to be considered. " (Emphasis supplied) so, restriction imposed on an Officer is not lifted by virtue of his being an officebearer of a Union. As Supreme Court graphically stated that stream can rise no higher than the source an office bearer of the Union gets no better or higher right than its constituent. ( 10 ) SUPREME Court in A. I. B E. Association v. N I. Tribunal ( AIR 1962 SC 171 ) after formulating the point:"when sub-cl. (c) of Ci. (1) of Art. 19 guarantees the right to form associations, is a guarantee also Implied that the fulfilment of every object of an association so formed is also a protected right, with the result that there is a constitutional guarantee that every association shall effectively achieve the purpose for which it was formed without interference by law except on grounds relevant to the preservation of public order or morality set out in cl. (4) of Art. 19?" (Emphasis supplied) answered thus : -"the acceptance of any such argument would mean that while in the case of an individual citizen to whom a right to carry on a trade or business or pursue an occupation is guaranteed by sub-cl. (g) of Cl. (1) of Art. 19, the validity of a law which imposes any restriction on this guaranteed right would have to be tested by the criteria laid down by Cl. (6) of Art. 19, if however he associated with another and carried on the same activity-say as a partnership, or as a company etc. , he obtains larger rights of a different content and with different characteristics which include the right to have the validity of legislation restricting his activities tested by difierent standards, viz. , those laid down in Cl. (4) of Art. 19. This would itself be sufficient to demonstrate that the construction which the learned Counsel for the appellant contends is incorrect, but this position is rendered clearer by the fact that Art. 19 -as contrasted with certain other Articles like Arts. , those laid down in Cl. (4) of Art. 19. This would itself be sufficient to demonstrate that the construction which the learned Counsel for the appellant contends is incorrect, but this position is rendered clearer by the fact that Art. 19 -as contrasted with certain other Articles like Arts. 26, 29 and 30-grants rights to the citizen as such, and associations can lay claim to the fundamental rights guaranteed by that Article solely on the basis of their being an aggregation of citizens, i e. , in right of the citizens composing the body. As the stream can rise no higher than the source, associations of citizens cannot lay claim to rights not open to citizens, or claim freedom from restrictions to which the citizens composing it are subject. Dealing with the right of a labour union it has stated thus at para's 20 arid 21. "20 ). We consider it unnecessary to multiply examples to further illustrate the point Applying what we have stated earlier to the case of a labour union the position would be this: while the right to form a union is guaranteed by sub-cl. (c), the right of the members of the association, to meet would be guaranteed by sub-cl. (b), their right to move from place to place within India by sub-cl. (d), their right to discuss their problems and to propagate their views by sub-clause (a), their right to hold property would be that guaranteed by sub-cl. (f) and so on-each of these freedoms being subject to such restrictions as might properly be imposed by Cls. (2) to (6) of art. 19 as might be appropriate in the context, It is one thing to interpret each of the freedoms guaranteed by the several Articles in Part III in a fair and liberal sense, it is quite another to read each guaranteed right as involving or including concomitant rights necessary to achieve the object which might be supposed to underlie the grant of each of those rights, for that construction would, by a series of ever expanding concentric circles in the shape of rights concomitant to concomitant rights and so on, lead to an almost grotesoue result. 21 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . If the fulfilment of every object for which a union of workmen was formed were held to be a guaranteed right, it would logically follow that a similar content ought to be given to the same freedom when applied to a union of employers which would result in an absurdity. " (emphasis supplied) in view of this declaration it was not possible to dissociate his status for the purpose of gaining immunity, to which he was not otherwise entitled to. Otherwise, Conduct Rules would get denuded. ( 11 ) SRI Leela Krishnan, relying on an unreported decision of the Madras high Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 6752 and 7391 of 1986 contended that petitioner, as an office bearer of the Union had the immunity The decision of the Madras high Court has proceeded on the premise that the Memorandum submitted by the petitioner therein to th3 Chief Secretary of the State was nothing but a representation ventilating grievances of workers concerned. Decision of this Court referred to above itself has found out an exception to 'absolute restraint' and it reads thus :-"but, if he is restrained from criticising the Government's policy or action regarding his conditions of service in his own association meetings or if he is prohibited from circulating any document among the members of his own association criticising the Government s policy or action relating to his conditions of service or about matters connected with them, the same cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. "if grievance ventilated in the Memorandum fell within the scope of this explanation, probably, there would have been some substance in this contention. The object of extracting the contents of the Memorandum was to establish that there existed no similarity. Looked at any angle it is difficult to accept that such acts/deeds get immunity or take them out of the admit of Rule 22. ( 12 ) THE next submission was that non-furnishing of enquiry report and other proceedings vitiated impugned orders. First of all, there was no necessity to issue a second show cause notice after the 44th Amendment of the Constitution. Secondly, learned Counsel fairly submitted that there was no rule which enjoined respondent to furnish a copy of the report. ( 12 ) THE next submission was that non-furnishing of enquiry report and other proceedings vitiated impugned orders. First of all, there was no necessity to issue a second show cause notice after the 44th Amendment of the Constitution. Secondly, learned Counsel fairly submitted that there was no rule which enjoined respondent to furnish a copy of the report. However he contended that Disciplinary authority having opted to give him a show cause notice should have furnished a copy of the enquiry report. When the disciplinary Authority was not enjoined to issue a show cause notice, non-furnishing copy of the report if any would not vitiate the finding. If issuance of second show cause notice was obligatory then non-furnishing of a copy of the report would have a different consequence. ( 13 ) NEXTLY it was contended that appellate order not being a speaking order cannot be sustained in law. On perusal of the order, it was noticed that board of Directors have assigned sufficient and valid reasons for not interfering with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Learned Counsel submitted that the Managing Director who was the disciplinary Authority, had also participated in the proceedings of the Board at the time of deciding the appeal thereby the order of the appellate authority was vitiated. In the absence of any material on record to show that Managing Director participated in the meeting when Board decided the appeal, it was not possible to accept that plea. ( 14 ) LASTLY, it was contended that the punishment imposed was excessive. The Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the gravity of the charge and defence taken to establish the contents of memorandum as correct has opined that dismissal was the only punishment that could be imposed. This assessment cannot be characterised as perverse or illegal. There is no merit in any one of these contentions. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 250. 00. Rule discharged. --- *** --- .