Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition challenging disciplinary action arising from social media posts and external communications alleging corruption within a public sector undertaking, the Single Judge Bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., held that, while findings of misconduct against an employee for publicly disseminating allegations and bypassing prescribed institutional channels were sustainable, the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate. Observing that judicial review does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence but permits scrutiny of punishment on proportionality grounds, the Court set aside the penalty to the limited extent of punishment and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Background
The petitioner joined Central Electronics Limited (CEL) in 1993 as a Senior Technical Assistant and was promoted over time to the post of Senior Manager (Public Relations) with effect from 1 January 2011. His service record reflected earlier disciplinary proceedings, including suspension and departmental inquiry in 2012, which ended in exoneration, and a subsequent minor penalty in 2016 which was later set aside in appeal.
During the period 2014—2016, observations were made by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) concerning administrative and financial irregularities in the respondent organisation. The petitioner asserted that he pursued these issues internally and thereafter instituted a public interest litigation (PIL) before the High Court seeking inquiry into the organisation’s functioning.
Subsequently, on 12 July 2017, a charge-sheet was issued under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976, alleging that the petitioner publicly circulated allegations of corruption through tweets and communication and attempted to bring outside influence by approaching authorities and media.
The inquiry officer held that all charges against the petitioner were proved. After considering the petitioner’s representation, the disciplinary authority imposed major penalty of dismissal from service on 5 October 2018, relying principally upon charges relating to reputational harm, external influence, and bypassing official hierarchy.
The petitioner’s statutory appeal succeeded only partially, as the appellate authority upheld findings of misconduct but modified the penalty to removal from service. The present writ petition challenged both orders.
Court’s Analysis
At the outset, the Court reiterated the principles governing judicial review in disciplinary matters. A writ court does not function as an appellate forum over departmental findings. Interference is confined to cases involving violation of natural justice, perversity, absence of evidence, or manifest procedural illegality. The Court relied on Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612, where it was held that re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of factual conclusions lies beyond writ jurisdiction.
On the allegation that the proceedings for corruption were mala fide, the Court held that such allegations must be supported by specific and cogent material. Mere prior criticism of management or the institution of PIL proceedings does not disqualify disciplinary authorities from acting against an employee. The record disclosed a structured disciplinary process consisting of a charge sheet, inquiry, representation, and reasoned orders. The Court observed that no material demonstrated a real likelihood of bias. Moreover, the independent scrutiny by the appellate authority, which modified the punishment, operated as an institutional safeguard against any inference of a predetermined outcome indicating mala fide or bias.
The Court also acknowledged that freedom of speech survives within public employment, but emphasised that service jurisprudence permits reasonable regulation through conduct rules. The Court referred to M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation, (1998) 3 SCC 732, and Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 30, wherein the Court observed that expression by Government or public sector undertaking (PSU) employees must conform to institutional discipline and organisational propriety. The Court noted that the disciplinary action was not founded on holding opinions or approaching courts but on method and manner of expression, that is, public amplification of corruption allegations, mobilisation of external pressure, and bypassing established internal mechanisms. The Court also noted that the disciplinary authority consciously excluded one charge relating to a media publication while awarding punishment, thereby demonstrating calibrated consideration rather than blanket acceptance of all allegations.
Since the petitioner admitted to posting tweets and communications, the enquiry’s conclusion that such acts violated the CDA Rules could not be termed perverse or unsupported by evidence. Deletion of tweets subsequently did not obliterate the misconduct but could only operate as a mitigating factor. Accordingly, findings of misconduct were upheld.
On the question of proportionality of punishment, the Court relied on Jai Bhagwan v. Commissioner of Police, (2013) 11 SCC 187; Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., (2003) 8 SCC 9; and Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669. The Court reiterated that judicial review extends to examining whether punishment shocks the conscience. The Court noted that the petitioner’s conduct warranted disciplinary action. However, the Court held that severance from service required demonstrable reasoning showing why lesser penalties were inadequate. The impugned orders broadly invoked reputational harm but failed to undertake a calibrated assessment explaining the necessity of the harshest penalty. The petitioner’s long tenure of service was also a relevant mitigating consideration. Consequently, the Court found a manifest imbalance between the misconduct proved and the punishment imposed.
Cumulatively, the Court held that disciplinary proceedings were not vitiated by bias or procedural illegality and findings of misconduct were supported by evidence and did not warrant interference. However, the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate. The impugned orders were therefore set aside only to the extent of punishment, and the matter was remitted to the competent authority for reconsideration of penalty within six weeks.
[Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Ltd., W.P.(C) 13377 of 2018, decided on 10-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Rishabh Kumar, Saloni Mahajan, Advocates
For the respondents: Kunal Sharma, Swati Yadav, Bhim Singh, Advocates