Delhi High Court Addresses Social Media Allegations Against Employers
The Delhi High Court has provided crucial clarification on whether employees can face termination for posting allegations against their employers on social media platforms. In a significant ruling, the court examined the case of a public sector employee who was removed from service after tweeting corruption allegations.
Case Background and Court Observations
Justice Sanjeev Narula was hearing the plea of Madanjit Kumar, who had been employed with Central Electronics Limited (CEL) and challenged his removal following disciplinary proceedings initiated between 2017 and 2018. The court noted that while disciplinary action against such conduct is warranted, the extreme penalty of dismissal requires careful consideration.
The petitioner had publicly amplified allegations against the organization through tweets and retweets, pursued representations beyond internal frameworks, and was found to have attempted to mobilize external pressure. Justice Narula observed that such conduct can attract disciplinary measures and warrants a serious institutional response.
Detailed Chronology of Events
Madanjit Kumar joined CEL as a senior technical assistant and was promoted to senior manager (public relations) in January 2011. However, he faced multiple disciplinary proceedings in 2012, 2016, and 2017. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) had made observations concerning administrative and financial irregularities in the organization during 2014-2016.
In January 2017, Kumar filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an inquiry into the organization's affairs in light of the CAG report. Subsequently, in July 2017, the chairman-cum-managing director issued a chargesheet and show-cause notice containing various allegations against him. Following disciplinary proceedings, Kumar was dismissed from service in October 2018.
After his initial plea was dismissed in 2018, Kumar filed a statutory appeal in November 2018. The appellate authority upheld the misconduct findings but modified the penalty from "dismissal from service" to "removal from service."
Court's Analysis of Penalty Proportionality
The Delhi High Court extensively examined whether the penalty imposed was proportionate to the misconduct proved. The court emphasized that where extreme penalties like removal or dismissal are imposed, the disciplinary order must reflect why such measures were considered necessary and why lesser major penalties were inadequate.
The court noted that the orders of dismissal, later modified to removal, stood on reputational harm and institutional threat but failed to articulate why penalties short of termination would not sufficiently serve disciplinary objectives.
Justice Narula highlighted that Kumar had provided long service to the organization, which remains a legitimate factor in determining appropriate penalties. While this circumstance doesn't excuse misconduct, it should be considered when deciding whether the harshest consequence is warranted.
Examination of Disciplinary Proceedings
The court thoroughly reviewed the disciplinary process and found that proceedings followed standard procedure: a reply, enquiry, written submissions, enquiry report, representation to the report, and reasoned disciplinary order. The court observed that the mere fact that Kumar had raised complaints or instituted a PIL doesn't establish that the disciplinary process was colourable.
A disciplinary authority doesn't lose its power or become disqualified just because an employee has criticized management, the court clarified. The appellate authority had independently examined the record, upheld guilt findings, and modified the penalty.
The court also addressed Kumar's argument that his tweets were in public interest, stating that this doesn't change the nature of the act. His subsequent deletion of tweets could only be considered as a mitigating circumstance during penalty determination, not as eliminating the misconduct.
Arguments from Both Sides
Advocate Avadh Bihari Kaushik, representing Kumar, presented several key arguments:
- Tweeting matters of public concern falls within fundamental rights to freedom of speech
- Communications to higher authorities shouldn't be treated as bringing "outside influence"
- The penalty of dismissal or removal is disproportionate for allegations not involving corruption or criminal offences
- Letters from Kumar's wife shouldn't be attributed to him as misconduct
- The charges essentially arose from tweeting information already in public domain
Representing the employer, advocate Kunal Sharma countered:
- Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited without jurisdictional error or perversity
- Kumar received full opportunity to defend himself in proceedings
- His conduct amounted to serious misconduct prejudicial to organizational interests
- As an employee, Kumar was bound by organizational rules prohibiting such communications
- The tweets directly harmed the organization's reputation and business interests
Court's Final Ruling and Directions
The Delhi High Court found an imbalance between the proved misconduct and the penalty imposed. The court's interference was strictly confined to the quantum of penalty without disturbing the misconduct findings.
The previous orders were set aside to the limited extent that they imposed the penalty of removal from service. The matter has been remitted to the competent authority to reconsider the penalty afresh, taking into account all relevant circumstances including Kumar's long service and the nature of his misconduct.
This ruling establishes important precedent regarding the proportionality of penalties in cases involving social media communications by employees against their employers, particularly in public sector organizations.
