ORDER Dipak Misra, J. Between the personal ambition and the prescription mandated under the rules, there possibly can be no compromise, for the shadow of ambition though grows longer, yet the commands of the rule eclipse it with immense vigor not only to destroy the shadow but devour the personality that holds the ambition quite close to his heart. The obtaining factual matrix as is exposited in the petition and also discernible from the order would reflect with robust certitude that the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has pendulumed his political sensibility and the job responsibility precisely being unaware where to stop and when to stop, why not to get into the arena at all. Possibly he has forgotten that in a democratic body polity, it is the 'Rule of Law' is the master and all ambitions have to serve at its altar. We have begun with the aforesaid prelude as we are disposed to think that the appellant has conducted himself like a self projected 'Trishanku' neither here not there. As it appears the job profile did not bring satisfaction to him and the ambition, as perceived, was as tall as 'Mount Everest' but a significant one, the appellant did not realize that there could be an abysmal fall. While working in the post of Assistant Grade II at Branch Office, Satna under the Food Corporation of India, he submitted an application to contest the election of State Assembly. He sought permission from the Department to contest the aforesaid election. The employer by order dated 8-11-1993, Annexure P-2 informed him that before contesting election, he is required to submit resignation from the service. On receipt of the aforesaid information, he submitted a request for withdrawal of his name from the election to the District Election Officer, Rewa but as the misfortune would have it the time was not in his favour and with the passage of time, the date of withdrawal was over and his nomination form was accepted. He was allotted the election symbol and was not allowed to withdraw his name from the election and hence, he was in the fray of election. As there was violation of Regulation 35 of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1964 framed u/s 64 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, a charge-sheet was issued as per Annexure P-4 on 27-12-1995. He was allotted the election symbol and was not allowed to withdraw his name from the election and hence, he was in the fray of election. As there was violation of Regulation 35 of Food Corporation of India Staff Regulation, 1964 framed u/s 64 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, a charge-sheet was issued as per Annexure P-4 on 27-12-1995. As the facts were tell tale, he was found guilty in the disciplinary proceeding and eventually he was removed from service by order dated 27-12-1995. An appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority who concurred with the order of the disciplinary authority. A review application preferred by the appellant did not bring any fruitful result. The said orders came to be assailed in a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge taking stock of the facts analysing the anatomy of Regulation 35 and placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Prem Narain Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , dismissed the writ petition. We have heard Mr. Satish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Shailendra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. It is accepted at the bar that the facts are not in dispute. Hence we refrain ourselves from referring to the facts. What is urged by Mr. Satish Shrivastava is that the Regulation 35 could not have been taken aid of it to dispense the services of the appellant and further assuming the said regulation is applicable, the punishment is quite severe which is irrational and disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience. Mr. S.K. Rao, learned Senior Counsel supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge submitted that the regulation has been framed to curb this kind of proclivity and propensity so that the employee cannot behave as a rudderless person to abandon the job for sometime and contest in an election. He is required to chose between the two and the prior resignation is mandated and in a way before one gets into the arena of contest an election. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, it is appropriate to reproduce the Regulation 35, it reads as under : 35. He is required to chose between the two and the prior resignation is mandated and in a way before one gets into the arena of contest an election. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, it is appropriate to reproduce the Regulation 35, it reads as under : 35. Taking part in election : No employee shall canvass or otherwise interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority, provided that: (i) An employee qualified to vote at such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he does so, he shall give no indication of the matter in which he proposes to vote or has voted; (ii) An employee shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this paragraph by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force. Explanation : The display by an employee on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within meaning of this regulation. On a perusal of the language employed in the said regulation, it is quite vivid that it is couched in an absolute clear cut and unambiguous terms. It commences with the terms, 'Taking part in election'. It prohibits taking part in the election of any legislature or local authority. The appellant, as is evincible, had filed the nomination form and thereafter filed an application seeking resignation. The employer asked him to resign if he is intended to contest the election. As has been stated earlier he sought permission to withdraw his nomination. Because of efflux of time, his nomination was accepted. Ergo, he became a contesting candidate in the election. Undisputably, it is a misconduct and that has been proven. Once, a misconduct is proven, the punishment has to follow. In the case of Prem Narain Dubey (supra), it has been held as under: 10. The individual has the deepest desire to sher in a sense of high civility and motivate and inspire the people so that society atleast can march on the Utopian path. Once, a misconduct is proven, the punishment has to follow. In the case of Prem Narain Dubey (supra), it has been held as under: 10. The individual has the deepest desire to sher in a sense of high civility and motivate and inspire the people so that society atleast can march on the Utopian path. Occasions are not rare when an employee conceives the idea of perfection and swims with utmost enthusiasm to achieve the 'pink of perfection', to borrow a phrase from Oliver Goldsmith. Some may feel that politics does not require any preparation but there are people who have the real desire to dedicate themselves for the next generation and that is how a democracy remains in a sustained state and the discipline gets into the narrows of society. But while the social through and the inborn desire so permit yet when a person serves the State has to be guided by the Rules as long as rules are in force and not lanceted by any Court of law. On a studied scrutiny of the anatomy of Rule it is quite clear that government servant has been debarred to take part in politics. Mr. Pandey has impressed upon this Court to follow the ratio laid down in the case of Pravati Bastia (supra). But on a careful perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench rendered by the High Court of Orissa it is discernible that the Bench was dealing with a different set of rules altogether. The rule which was under consideration postulated that an employee should not be member of a political party or communal party and the petitioner therein contested in the election as an independent candidate. Hence, the facts of the case being different the decision is distinguishable, but it is worth noting in the said case in paragraph 10 the Division Bench speaking through A. Pasayat, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated thus : 10. The rule in question intends to regulate conduct of employees. It deals with disciplinary control. It is a form of service discipline. Before entering into Government service, character and antecedents of a candidate are considered. At that stage a candidate may not be disqualified because he subscribes to any politically belief or thought, unless such believe or thought is prohibited in any Law, the situation is different when a person enters into service. It is a form of service discipline. Before entering into Government service, character and antecedents of a candidate are considered. At that stage a candidate may not be disqualified because he subscribes to any politically belief or thought, unless such believe or thought is prohibited in any Law, the situation is different when a person enters into service. The employer has a right to regulate the conduct of its employee, and, therefore, the prohibition on membership of a political or communal party does not appear to be unreasonable. Communal harmony leads to integration of the country. Communalism is antithesis of secularism. If an employee is a member of a communal party so declared by the State or the Central Government, his thoughts, ideas may be non-secular, which will be against interest of the State or the nation. In this context, we may further add that an employee who serves in an organization may have a political philosophy of his own but as he is in employment, he is bound by the regulations and he cannot disobey the regulations and get into the political arena harbouring the imagination that in a democratic polity he has the liberty to contest election. Be it noted, contesting of an election is a statutory right. A person can have the statutory right but an employee who wants to have the benefit of statutory right to contest election must get himself freed from the obligations and fetters of employment, for that is the regulation of the employer. The employer has the liberty to frame such regulation as long as they do not contravene any provision of the constitution. Be it noted, the constitutional validity of the aforesaid regulation has not been challenged at any juncture. Once such prohibitory prescription holds the field, the appellant could not have participated in the election. He might have made an attempt to withdraw the nomination but the same had already been accepted. What could have been the effect of such withdrawal need not be dwelled upon because when the misconduct had already ripened and the concretized, there is no need to enter into the academic debate though Mr. Shrivastava would like us to deal with it. The next facet of submission of Mr. Shrivastava is that the punishment is harsh and hence, a lenient view should have been taken. Shrivastava would like us to deal with it. The next facet of submission of Mr. Shrivastava is that the punishment is harsh and hence, a lenient view should have been taken. We really fail to fathom how the concept of harassment of punishment to misconduct of this nature would be attracted. The reasonability of punishment stands on the test of rationality and all other ingredients of attached to the said very principle. The appellant who had put in 20 years of service was quite experienced in service life. He had misconducted when he entered into the fray of election. The misconduct, as we are inclined to think, is quite grave and, therefore, the concept of proportionality is not attracted. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct and there is no warrant of any interference in the same. The inevitable result is dismissal of the appeal which we direct. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed