Delhi High Court
Shyam Singh Yadav vs National Rifle Association Of ... on 5 January, 2012
Author: Vipin Sanghi
11.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 05.01.2012
% W.P.(C) 6159/2011 & C.M. No. 16893/2011
SHYAM SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary with
Mr.Dheeraj Gupta and Mr. A. Das,
Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Preet Pal Singh
and Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advocates.
% W.P.(C) 1980/2011
SHYAM SINGH YADAV ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary with
Mr.Dheeraj Gupta and Mr. A. Das,
Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Preet Pal Singh
and Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advocates
for the respondent No. 1/NRAI.
Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC with
Mr. Khalid Arshad, Advocate, for
the respondent/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)
1. These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
have been preferred by the petitioner in relation to the action of the
respondent/National Rifle Association of India (NRAI) in removing him
from the post of Treasurer. The respondent-Association/NRAI is an
association, which is an autonomous body recognized by the Ministry
of Sports at the national level for the promotion and advancement of
the sport of shooting in India. It is the National Sports Federation duly
recognized and regulated by the Government of India. It receives
substantial grants from the Central Government. According to the
petitioner, it received grants of Rs. 22 Crores (approximately) between
2007 and July 2011.
2. The petitioner is a government officer serving under the
Government of Uttar Pradesh. He states that he is a PCS 1982 Batch
officer. He claims that he has special interest in the sport of shooting,
and is interested in advancement of the said sport in India. He has
been associated with the NRAI since 1996.
3. The petitioner states that on 14.08.2001, the Government, acting
through the Ministry of Sports (Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports),
notified and introduced the Sports Code for assistance to National
Sports Federations. The Government set priorities and detailed the
procedure to be followed by National Sports Federations for their
recognition and to avail sponsorship and assistance from the
Government.
4. In the year 2004, upon the demise of the erstwhile Treasurer, the
petitioner was co-opted as the Hon. Treasurer of the respondent-
Association. He continued in that position till 2005 when the elections,
inter alia, for the said post were held. The petitioner contested for the
said post of Hon. Treasurer in the respondent-Association, and was
elected to that position. On the expiry of the four-year term in the
year 2009, the elections for the said post were again held, and the
petitioner again offered his candidature for the said post. Once again
he was elected as the Hon. Treasurer of NRAI for a term of four years,
which will expire in 2013.
5. On 04.02.2010, the Government of India through the Ministry of
Youth Affairs & Sports, Department of Sports, issued a circular
addressed to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments and
Union Territories, and to Sports Secretaries of Governments of all State
Governments and Union Territories on the subject of adoption of norms
relating to obtaining of prior governmental sanction for contesting and
canvassing in elections to sport bodies. This circular took note of the
fact that a number of government servants of the State Governments
and the Union Territories Administration are holding posts in various
sports associations and bodies at the national level, state level and
district level. It pointed out that holding of elective office by
government servants by the Central Government is regulated by the
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 [CCS (Conduct) Rules]. In
terms of Rule 15(1) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, previous sanction of
the Central Government is required to hold an elective office in any
body. Under Rule 12 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, previous sanction of
the Government or the prescribed authority is also necessary for a
government servant, associating himself with raising of any funds or
other collections, in pursuance of any object whatsoever.
6. Pertinently, this circular also referred to instructions issued by
the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) contained in its O.M.
No. 11013/3/9/93-Estt.(A) dated 22.04.1994 which, inter alia, provides
that no government servant should be allowed to hold an elective
office in any Sports Association/Federation for a term of more than four
years, or for one term, whichever is less. The circular dated
04.02.2010 called upon the State Governments/Union Territories
Administrations to formulate, if not already so formulated, appropriate
rules/instructions for incorporating the above-referred provisions. The
Government also required the States/Union Territories to furnish a list
of names of officers, inter alia, belonging to the State Services holding
elective posts in Sports Federations/Associations, along with details of
their terms and tenure.
7. According to the petitioner, this Government circular dated
04.02.2010 was not ipso-facto applicable in the case of the petitioner
since the petitioner, as aforesaid, belongs to Uttar Pradesh State
Service and is not a Central Government servant. The petitioner
submits that the CCS (Conduct) Rules are not applicable to him. It is
also the petitioner's submission that the State of Uttar Pradesh has not
made any similar rules/instructions as referred to in the circular dated
04.02.2010 of the Government of India. In this regard, reliance is
placed by the petitioner on the communication dated 28.12.2010
issued by the Joint Secretary and Public Information Officer of the Uttar
Pradesh Government, in response to a query raised under the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act), wherein it is stated that no guidelines have
been issued by the Appointment Department, Uttar Pradesh, in
pursuance of Government of India circular dated 04.02.2010.
8. The petitioner submits that the NRAI, acting through its
President, issued a show cause notice dated 03.02.2011 to him. In this
notice, the respondent-NRAI sought to place reliance upon the
correspondence undertaken by it with the Ministry of Sports & Youth
Affairs vide its communication dated 20.12.2010 and the response
received from the said Ministry on 24.12.2010. The show cause notice
states that NRAI had sought a clarification and instructions from the
Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs with regard to the petitioner's
eligibility to continue as an office bearer in the post of Hon. Treasurer
or any other elected post in NRAI. It was also enquired whether the
petitioner had the required No Objection Certificate (NOC) from his
employer, i.e. the State of Uttar Pradesh, to continue as an office
bearer of NRAI. The show cause notice made reference to the
governmental response dated 24.12.2010, which advised the
Federation that, as a serving government servant, the petitioner may
not continue as the Hon. Treasurer, or be elected to any post in NRAI
for a period exceeding four years or one term, whichever is less.
9. The show cause notice also referred to a communication sent by
the NRAI to the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 21.12.2010
seeking instructions, as to whether or not the petitioner had taken
prior permission to contest the elections of NRAI or to continue as the
Hon. Treasurer, or to contest elections for any other post in the said
Association in future. It also made a reference to the response
received from the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide
his letter dated 31.12.2010, which states that the petitioner had not
been accorded any such permission by the Uttar Pradesh State
Government.
10. By this show cause notice the President, in exercise of his
constitutional duty and on the ground of maintaining transparency in
the functioning of the respondent-Federation, called upon the
petitioner to show cause as to why the Governing Body should not
consider his removal from the post of Hon. Treasurer of the Federation.
The President also sought to curtail the powers of the petitioner in the
interregnum by, firstly, constituting a three-member committee
headed by the petitioner to act as a Special Finance Committee to
oversee and discharge all the responsibilities of the Hon. Treasurer of
NRAI. The President also required the petitioner to interact with the
office staff through the Secretary only.
11. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said communication dated
03.02.2011 issued by the President of NRAI, preferred W.P.(C.) No.
1980/2011 to assail the same. It appears that the petitioner also
sought a restraint against consideration of the said show cause notice
in the proposed Governing Body Meeting of NRAI.
12. This writ petition was taken up by the Court on 25.03.2011. On
this date, the petitioner made a statement that he foregoes his right to
answer to the said show cause notice. The Court observed that the
pendency of the writ petition would not prevent the respondent NRAI
from proceeding to dispose of the show cause notice in accordance
with law, and in passing appropriate orders. The Court also rejected
the petitioner's application for stay, (which was not numbered, though
wrongly noted in the order as C.M. No. 4198/2011), whereby the
petitioner sought a restraint against the holding of the Governing Body
Meeting on 28.03.2011, on the ground that the petitioner had not
made out a prima-facie case for interim relief.
13. The Governing Body Meeting of respondent-Association was held
on 28.03.2011. The consideration of the show cause notice issued to
the petitioner was taken up by the Governing Body under Item 14(g).
The minutes of the said Governing Body Meeting have been placed on
record of W.P.(C.) No. 6159/2011. From the minutes, it appears that
the Governing Body after discussions adopted the proposal mooted by
the President that the petitioner be removed from the post of
Treasurer of NRAI. The Governing Body was conscious that for this
purpose the General Body should pass a resolution.
14. Thereafter the General Body Meeting was convened on
28.03.2011, where the General Body considered whether the petitioner
should continue as the Hon. Secretary of NRAI or not. The minutes of
the meeting of the General Body held on 28.03.2011 have been placed
on record by the respondent with their counter-affidavit.
15. The General Body had a total strength of 40. Out of 40 members,
two members left the house and were not present at the time of
voting. 31 out of 38 members voted in favour of the resolution and,
accordingly, the said resolution was passed by overwhelming majority.
Consequently, the petitioner stands removed from the post of Hon.
Treasurer of the NRAI.
16. As aforesaid, the primary submission of the petitioner is that the
circular dated 04.02.2010 is not applicable to the petitioner, as it has
been issued by the Central Government, whereas the petitioner is a
Government officer under the State of Uttar Pradesh and is not bound
by the CCS (Conduct) Rules. The second submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the State of Uttar Pradesh has not yet
adopted the said circular dated 04.02.2010 and there are no guidelines
laid down by the State of Uttar Pradesh for grant of sanction, to enable
the petitioner to continue to serve as the Hon. Secretary of NRAI. He
submits that since there are no rules or guidelines in this regard, the
petitioner, possibly, could not have obtained any prior permission from
the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thirdly, it is submitted that the election of
the petitioner as Hon. Treasurer had taken place in the year 2009,
whereas the said Government circular had come to be issued only on
04.02.2010. It is argued that this circular would, at best, be
prospective in its operation and cannot affect the right of the
petitioner, who is holding the position of Hon. Treasurer for a period of
four years from 2009 to 2013. The petitioner also submits that the
President of the NRAI has no authority to curb the powers of the Hon.
Treasurer, as done by him in the show cause notice dated 03.02.2011.
17. The petition is opposed by the respondent. The submission of
learned counsel for the respondent is that the issue of implementation
of tenure restrictions in National Sports Federations/Associations was
pending for a long time and was not implemented due to strong
opposition of the Indian Olympic Association and various National
Sports Federations. However, this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 7868/2005,
while dealing with the case of Indian Olympic Federation, in its order
dated 02.03.2010 observed that the Government guidelines governing
the National Sports Federations were valid, binding and enforceable
and that the tenure clause was not in violation of the International
Olympic Committee's (IOC) Charter. It was also held that the
Government of India was fully competent to make regulations of
National Sports Federations and Indian Olympic Association.
18. Learned counsel draws attention of the Court to the circular
dated 01.05.2010 issued by the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports to
the President of Indian Olympic Association, and all recognized Sports
Federations and to the Secretary General/Secretary of, inter alia, of
National Sports Federations, wherein the government, inter alia,
observes:
"Accordingly after taking into account the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, and the views expressed by the
Hon'ble Courts and Parliament, and the prevailing public
opinion on the matter, and with a view to encouraging
professional management, good government,
transparency, accountability, democratic elections, etc. in
NSFs, including IOA, the competent authority after
satisfying himself has set aside the orders keeping the
tenure clause in abeyance with immediate effect subject to
the following modifications in the existing tenure limit
provisions referred to in letter dated 20th September, 1975
..... ..... ..... .....
x x x x x x x x x x
ii. The Secretary (or by whatever other designation
such as Secretary General or General Secretary by which
he is referred to) and the Treasurer of any recognized
National Sports Federations, including the Indian Olympic
Association, may serve a maximum of two successive
terms of four years each after which a minimum cooling off
period of four years will apply to seek fresh election to
either post."
19. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the circular
dated 04.02.2010 issued by the Central Government makes reference
to DOPT instructions dated 22.04.1994 which, inter alia, provides that
no government servant should be allowed to hold an elective office in
any sports association/federation for a term of more than four years or
for one term, whichever is less. He submits that the State
Government/UT administrations are bound by the said circular, at least
in relation to National Sports Federations, since the National Sports
Federations are recognized and regulated by the Central Government
and receive aid and funds from the Central Government. The National
Sports Federations are bound by the Central Government guidelines
and no member or office bearer of National Sports Federation can
remain in office in breach of the guidelines laid down by the Central
Government. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is in
public interest that government servants, whether under the Central
Government or under a State Government/UT administration, should
not be involved in sports federations for an indefinite period of time in
an elected capacity, as it is bound to effect the discharge of their
primary responsibilities and duties as a government servant. It is for
this reason that Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules lays down various
prescriptions, and prohibits that the government servant shall not,
except with the previous sanction of the Government engage in trade
or business; undertake any other employment; hold an elective office,
or canvass for a candidate or candidates for an elective office, in any
body, whether incorporated or not etc. He also refers to the DOPT O.M
dated 22.04.1994, referred to in the circular dated 04.02.1010. This
DOPT O.M., inter alia, states :-
"---------It hardly needs to be emphasized that the
entire time of the Government servant, particularly a
senior officer, should be available to the
Government and no activities unconnected with his
official duties should be allowed to interfere with the
efficient discharge of such duties. The need for
curbing the tendency on the part of a Government
servant to seek elective office in sports
federations/associations at the National/State level
has been considered carefully and it has been
decided that the following principles should be
followed while considering requests from
Government servants for seeking election to or
holding elective offices in sports
federations/associations:-
(i) No government servant should be allowed to
hold elective office in any sports
association/federation for a term of more than
4 years, or for one term, whichever is less.
(ii) ......................................
(iii) ....................................
(iv) ..................................."
20. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent
has acted bona fide and upon the advice of the Central Government.
He has drawn my attention to the communication dated 20.12.2010
issued to the Government of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports,
bringing to its notice the fact that the petitioner had been holding an
elected office since 2005, and had been elected for the second time in
2009 to the post of Hon. Treasurer. The respondent had sought the
advice of the said Ministry as to whether the petitioner could continue
as the Hon. Secretary or contest elections for any other post in the
respondent- Association. The Central Government had responded vide
letter dated 24.12.2010, inter alia, stating:
"As per the extant guidelines on the subject matter, no
Government Servant can hold an elective post in any
sports association/federation for more than four years or
one term whichever is less. Further, he is required to
obtain prior sanction of the government before holding any
elective post.
Since Sh. Yadav has already completed 6 years as Hony.
Treasurer, he is not entitled to continue in the post nor can
he contest for any other elective post in the sports body. It
is also not known if he had taken prior sanction from the
Government for holding the post".
21. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the
petitioner did not even chose to respond to the show cause notice
dated 03.02.2011, as recorded in the order dated 25.03.2011 passed
in W.P(C) 1980/2011. He submits that since the office bearers of the
association are elected by the General Body, their removal has also to
be considered by the General Body. He submits that the petitioner has
been removed by the General Body in its meeting held on 28.03.2011.
He further submits that the petitioner has not even challenged the
resolution passed by the General Body by an overwhelming majority.
22. In his rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
his writ petition, being W.P(C) 1980/2011 ought to have been
considered as his reply to the show cause notice dated 03.02.2011.
Moreover, since the petitioner is an U.P State Government servant and
not a Central Government servant, the requirement of prior
permission/approval from the State Government is not applicable so
far as the petitioner is concerned, for holding the elective office of Hon.
Secretary of the respondent-Association for more than one term.
23. It is well settled that the Central government is entitled to lay
down guidelines to govern the National Sports Federations and such
guidelines are binding on and enforceable against the National Sports
Federations. The Central Government aids and funds the activities of
the NSFs and regulates them. The Central Government is also entitled
to lay down the tenure clause for the office bearers and members of
the National Sports Federations. By circular dated 01.05.2010, the
Central Government, in the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, has
laid down the tenure for, inter alia, the Hon. Treasurer of any
recognized National Sports Federation/Association as "a maximum of
two successive terms of four years each after which a minimum
cooling off period of four years will apply to seek fresh election".
However, it is important to note that this prescription of tenure is a
general prescription for all those who may hold the post of, inter alia,
the Hon. Treasurer of the National Sports Federation. This prescription
does not whittle down the effect of further restrictions placed by the
Central Government on the holding of an elective office in the National
Sports Federations by government servants. As early as on
22.04.1994, the DOPT has laid down that no Central Government
servant should be allowed to hold an elective office in any sports
association/federation for a term of more than four years or for one
term, whichever is less.
24. No doubt, the said prescription is in respect of Central
Government employees. However, the reason behind the said
prescription is what is more important to be taken note of than even
the prescription itself. As noted in the said office memorandum, the
entire time of the government servant, particularly a senior officer
should be available to the Government and no activities connected
with his official duties should be allowed to interfere with the efficient
discharge of such duties. The Government while issuing the said office
memorandum was conscious of the tendency on the part of the
government servant to seek elective offices in sports
federations/associations at the National/State level, and after taking
note thereof laid down, inter alia, the principle that no government
servant should be allowed to hold elective office in any sports
association/federation for a term of more than four years or for one
term, whichever is less. If it is true that a senior government servant
in the Central Government should be available to the Central
Government for rendering his services, and no activities unconnected
with his official duties should be allowed to interfere in the efficient
discharge of such duties, it is equally true for State Government
servants as well.
25. The submission of the petitioner that since the State of U.P has
not formulated prior rules/instructions for grant of permission to enable
the State Government servants to contest for elective posts in sports
federations, the petitioner is entitled to continue as the Hon. Secretary
has no merit. This is so because the petitioner, admittedly, has
already served for a full term of four years in an elective office i.e as
Hon. Treasurer of the respondent-Association from the year 2005 to
2009, and even thereafter till his removal from office by the General
Body of the respondent-Association on 28.03.2011. Beyond a period of
four years the State Government cannot grant permission to a State
Government servant to hold an elective office in a National Sports
Federation. Whatever may the position with regard to holding of an
elective office in a State/District Sports Federation by a State
Government servant, in relation to an elective post in a National Sports
Federation, the Government servant - to whichever service he belongs
(whether Central or State), must comply with the requirements set out
by the Central Government vide circular dated 04.02.2010. He cannot
defy and breach those conditions by merely contending that the State
Government of the State of U.P has not laid down appropriate
rules/instructions for grant of permission.
26. Even though it would be academic to say so, and is not relevant
for the purpose of this case, I may also observe that merely because
the State of U.P may not have laid down specific rules/instructions for
grant of appropriate permission, that did not preclude the petitioner
from applying for permission/sanction from the State Government.
Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied to the State of U.P for grant
of permission to hold, or continue to hold the elective post of Hon.
Secretary of the respondent-Association. In its communication dated
24.12.2010, as extracted above, the Central Government has
conveyed its decision that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the post
of Hon. Secretary any further. In the light of the aforesaid, the General
Body of the respondent -Association, by an overwhelming majority
removed the petitioner. That decision/resolution of the General Body,
which is supreme, has not been assailed in these proceedings. The
challenge to the Minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body
meeting held on 28.03.2011 is of no avail, as the Governing Body did
not take the decision to remove the petitioner from his position as the
elected, Hon. Treasurer of the respondent-Association. It only
considered the issue whether the petitioner's case for removal should
be placed before the General Body. It is the General Body of the
respondent-Association which could have, and which has infact
removed the petitioner from the post of Hon. Treasurer.
27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not intend to go into
the petitioner's submission with regard to the curtailment of his powers
as the Hon. Secretary by the President vide communication/show
cause notice dated 03.02.2011, as the said issue has become
academic in view of the petitioner's valid removal from his position as
the Hon. Treasurer by the General Body in its meeting held on
28.03.2011.
28. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these
petitions and dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their
respective costs.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
JANUARY 05, 2012
'BSR'/as
