The Delhi High Court recently held that a public sector employee’s tweets or posts alleging corruption by their employer can constitute misconduct under service rules [Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited]..The Court made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by a senior manager at Central Electronics Limited who was removed from service after a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of posting tweets alleging corruption against the organisation.Justice Sanjeev Narula noted the employee amplified allegations against the organisation on social media, bypassed internal mechanisms and sought to generate external pressure.“Such conduct can attract the discipline contemplated by the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 and warrants a serious response,” the Court said..It added that though the Supreme Court has recognised expression and peaceful articulation as part of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, a public sector employee is bound by reasonable restrictions.“A public sector employee’s speech rights are not extinguished, but they are mediated through conduct rules that insist on discipline, institutional propriety, and avoidance of conduct prejudicial to the employer’s interests,” the Court observed.The Court added that the charges in the present case were not pitched as a prosecution for holding opinions or for approaching constitutional remedies. "The gravamen is the method and platform: the public amplification of allegations of corruption against the organisation, coupled with attempts to mobilise external authorities and media pressure, and a deliberate departure from the prescribed internal route for grievance redressal," it said..The petitioner, Madanjit Kumar, took to social media to post allegations of corruption and irregularities against the organisation. He said the same were also reflected in observations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).The public sector undertaking (PSU) then initiated action against him, accusing him of tarnishing its image, attempting to mobilise outside influence by approaching authorities and the media and bypassing internal channels.A departmental enquiry found the charges to be proved. The disciplinary authority first dismissed him from service. On appeal, however, the punishment was modified to "removal from service".He then approached the High Court..Kumar told the Court that the charges against him arose from tweeting and re-tweeting information that was already in the public domain and thus he could not be accused of misconduct. He added that after the organisation objected to the tweets, he deleted them and, therefore, no continuing cause of action survived.On the other hand, the organisation argued that Kumar’s conduct amounted to serious and gross misconduct. It contended that he was found guilty of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the organisation..Rejecting the argument that the employee’s intent was bona fide or in public interest, the Court noted that the service rules in question are concerned with the institutional and reputational harm.“The Petitioner’s professed intent does not alter the nature of the act. The conduct rules are concerned with the predictable reputational and institutional harm that may flow from public dissemination of allegations, particularly when undertaken by a senior officer in a public-facing role,” the Court said.The Court also held that deleting the tweets later would not wipe out the act of misconduct, though it could be considered while deciding the penalty..However, the Court opined that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate. “In these circumstances, this Court is persuaded that the penalty, as it presently stands, reflects a manifest imbalance between the misconduct proved and the consequence imposed. The interference is therefore confined strictly to the quantum of penalty and does not disturb the findings on misconduct,” the Court added.The Court thus set aside the petitioner's removal from service and directed the competent authority to reconsider the quantum of penalty within six weeks..Advocates Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Rishabh Kumar and Saloni Mahajan appeared for the petitioner.Advocates Kunal Sharma, Swati Yadav and Bhim Singh appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
