Legal Provisions Involved: Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 – Rule 5(6), 5(26), 5(28) and 5(30) read with Rules 9, 10(b), 13, 21 and 25 and Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Constitution.
Judgment by: Delhi High Court.
Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula.
Facts
A senior employee of a public sector company posted and shared allegations of corruption against his employer on social media. Instead of using internal complaint channels, he also approached outside authorities. The company treated this as misconduct and started a departmental inquiry. After the inquiry found the charges proved, he was removed from service. He challenged this decision before the High Court.
Key Legal Provisions
Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 – Rule 5(6), 5(26), 5(28) and 5(30) read with Rules 9, 10(b), 13, 21 and 25
Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Indian Constitution
Issues Raised
Whether making corruption allegations publicly amounts to misconduct, and whether removal from service was too harsh a punishment.
Arguments of the case
The employee said he was only raising genuine concerns and that the inquiry was unfair. The employer argued that by going public and trying to involve outsiders, he damaged the organisation’s image and broke service rules.
Judgment
The High Court agreed that publicly making such allegations can amount to misconduct under service rules. However, it held that the punishment of removal was not properly justified. The Court said the penalty must match the seriousness of the misconduct. It set aside the removal order and asked the authority to reconsider the punishment.
Click here to VIEW the full judgment.
