Disproportionate: Bombay High Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement Of TISS Professor Accused Of Running Placement Business Through WhatsApp
The Court found no evidence that the professor charged for placement services or derived personal gain from the WhatsApp group. It held that forming the group without institutional permission did not, in the circumstances, justify ending his career through compulsory retirement.
The Bombay High Court has held that disciplinary punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and that a disproportionate penalty violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Applying this principle, the Court quashed the compulsory retirement of a Tata Institute of Social Sciences professor accused of running a placement business through a WhatsApp group, and directed payment of 50% back wages up to his superannuation, with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the professor’s suspension, compulsory retirement and rejection of his departmental appeal following disciplinary proceedings concerning an allegedly unauthorised WhatsApp group. He sought reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and consequential benefits.
A Bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil, referring to Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), observed: “The Petitioner has correctly relied upon the judgment in the matter of Ranjeet Thakur Vs. Union Of India to contend that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case also, the punishment which is imposed, namely, that of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate.”
Advocate Jaiprakash Sawant appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Dhruva Gandhi appeared for the respondents.
Background
The petitioner worked as a professor in the institute’s School of Social Work. The institute alleged that he created a WhatsApp group for students and alumni without permission, used its official logo and operated parallel placement services for personal gain. It treated these activities as breaches of his service conditions and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
The professor was suspended and subjected to a disciplinary inquiry. He denied the charges and objected to the fairness of the proceedings. The disciplinary authority subsequently imposed compulsory retirement, and the departmental appellate authority rejected his appeal.
Before the High Court, the professor contended that sharing career opportunities in the group did not amount to conducting trade or business. He challenged the inquiry findings as perverse and argued that compulsory retirement at the age of 58 was disproportionate when his service conditions permitted him to continue until 65.
The institute maintained that due process had been followed and that the group amounted to parallel placement services. It relied on messages concerning job opportunities and fundraising, the absence of permission and the limited scope of judicial review of disciplinary decisions.
Court’s Observations
Examining the allegations under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Court found nothing in the WhatsApp communications indicating that the professor charged for placements. It noted that members shared career opportunities, that the platform was restricted to members of the institute’s community and that there was no finding that funds allegedly sought to be raised benefited the professor.
The Court also noted that the registered alumni association had neither complained nor participated in the proceedings, making the alleged prejudice difficult to understand. It found that the inquiry authority had not considered the professor’s explanation and that the institute’s logo, initially used in the group, had subsequently been removed.
The Court observed: “The finding that there was a parallel placement service is totally perverse. There is nothing to suggest that the placement services were offered for consideration and further the said consideration was diverted for the benefit of the Petitioner. As a matter of fact, the members of the WhatsApp group merely shared the placement offers in the industry on the WhatsApp Group.”
The Court acknowledged that there was no evidence of permission for forming the WhatsApp group. However, it held that this omission did not justify the punishment imposed, particularly when the finding of a placement business for personal benefit was unsupported.
The Court observed: “The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. The said punishment is so strikingly excessive that it cannot be allowed to be remained uncorrected while exercising the powers of judicial review. Merely starting a WhatsApp group by an employee without the permission of the organisation itself is not sufficient to put an end to long standing accomplished the career of a person.”
The Court also relied on Omsairam Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. v. State of Odisha (2024), which discussed proportionality by referring to Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. (2007). The cited discussion explained the balancing test for excessive penalties and the necessity test concerning the least restrictive alternative.
Addressing the institute’s reliance on the limits of judicial review, the Court found that Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. v. Ajit Kumar Singh (2023), cited by the respondents themselves, recognised circumstances permitting judicial intervention in disciplinary findings.
The Court observed: “The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation (supra) relied by the Respondents takes a view that if the conclusion or finding are of such a nature that no reasonable person would ever have reached the said findings and where, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, the findings are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record, the power of judicial review can be exercised.”
In determining the monetary relief, the Court considered that the professor had remained out of employment until reaching superannuation. It limited back wages to 50% after recording the position conveyed by his counsel on instructions.
The Court recorded: “Whilst we were pondering upon the extent to which the back wages could be given to the petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on instruction of his client fairly submitted that his client would be happy if 50% of the back wages would be granted.”
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the suspension order, the compulsory-retirement order and the appellate order rejecting the professor’s appeal.
It directed the institute and the concerned authorities to pay 50% back wages from the date of termination until superannuation, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. Retirement benefits must be recomputed accordingly, and any arrears must be paid within three months from the uploading of the order. There was no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Dr Swapan Garain v. Tata Institute of Social Sciences & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:37817-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Jaiprakash Sawant
Respondents: Advocates Dhruva Gandhi and Dheer Sampat, instructed by M. V. Kini & Co.