Alleging Corruption Against Employer On Social Media Can Attract Disciplinary Action; Penalty Must Satisfy Proportionality Test: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that an employee who publicly amplified corruption allegations against his employer through social media and external representations exposed himself to disciplinary action under service rules. At the same time, punishment imposed for such misconduct must withstand the constitutional test of proportionality.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that publicly alleging corruption against an employer through tweets, retweets, and external communications, while bypassing internal grievance mechanisms, can constitute actionable misconduct under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976.
However, the Court clarified that even where misconduct is established, the penalty imposed must bear a rational nexus to the gravity of the conduct and satisfy the principle of proportionality.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a senior employee of a public sector undertaking challenging disciplinary and appellate orders that culminated in his removal from service following a departmental inquiry into allegations that he publicly circulated corruption accusations and attempted to mobilise external pressure.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed: “…the Petitioner publicly amplified allegations against the organisation through tweets and re-tweets, pursued representations beyond the internal framework, and was found to have attempted to mobilise external pressure. Such conduct can attract the discipline contemplated by the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 and warrants a serious response”.
The Bench, however, cautioned that “…the Supreme Court has recognised that the principle of proportionality requires the authority to demonstrate that the penalty rests on a rational evaluation of relevant considerations and exclusion of irrelevant ones, while also satisfying a requirement of necessity.”
Background
The employee raised allegations concerning administrative irregularities within the organisation and subsequently communicated these accusations through social media platforms and representations to external authorities. A charge-sheet was issued alleging that such conduct prejudiced the organisation’s interests, violated prescribed communication channels, and amounted to bringing outside influence to bear on internal matters.
A departmental inquiry followed, in which documentary material, written responses, and admissions regarding the impugned communications were considered. The inquiry officer found the charges proved. The disciplinary authority then imposed dismissal, which was later modified in appeal to removal from service. The employee approached the High Court challenging both the findings and the penalty.
Court’s Observations
The Court first addressed the employee’s allegation of bias, observing that claims of mala fides must be supported by credible material demonstrating a real likelihood of prejudice. The inquiry record reflected adherence to procedural safeguards, including issuance of a charge-sheet, opportunity to respond, and reasoned findings. The Court found no basis to infer institutional bias.
Turning to the merits, the Court noted that the employee did not dispute authoring or disseminating the impugned social media content and external representations. The central question was whether such conduct violated service discipline. The Court observed that while employees retain freedom of expression, that right operates within the framework of organisational discipline and confidentiality obligations.
The Bench held that public amplification of corruption allegations, particularly by a senior officer, may legitimately attract disciplinary scrutiny where internal mechanisms exist for redress. Subsequent deletion of posts or reliance on audit materials did not negate the fact of misconduct. The inquiry findings were supported by evidence and could not be characterised as perverse.
However, the Court found that the disciplinary and appellate authorities did not sufficiently articulate why the extreme penalty of severance from service was necessary. The doctrine of proportionality requires calibrated consideration of the employee’s service record, the nature of misconduct, and the availability of lesser penalties.
“Such must not be excessive to the legitimate objective sought to be achieved; if a lesser penalty would sufficiently serve that objective, imposition of a harsher sanction invites scrutiny on proportionality”, the Bench reiterated.
Conclusion
While upholding the findings of misconduct, the High Court set aside the penalty of removal from service on proportionality grounds and remitted the matter to the competent authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment.
The writ petition was partly allowed to this extent.
Cause Title: Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1123)
Appearances
Petitioner: Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Rishabh Kumar, and Saloni Mahajan, Advocates.
Respondent: Kunal Sharma, Swati Yadav, and Bhim Singh, Advocates.
