Blog

Case Title: V.P.Murugan vs Joint Director of Agriculture, Theni and Others

Case No: W.P.(MD). No.24785 of 2023 and WMP(MD). No.20972 of 2023

Decided on: 15^th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. VIJAYAKUMAR

 Facts of the Case

The petitioner is employed by the Tamil Nadu State Government Employees Association as a State Auditor. The problem started with a news story that appeared in August 2023 and suggested that agricultural property in the Theni District be turned into real estate. This was allegedly based on a certificate that the first respondent had provided. The petitioner, who was disturbed by the news, shared it with the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Ministerial Service Association through the TAMSA WhatsApp group.

The petitioner argues that the communication in the WhatsApp group did not breach the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules of 1973 because it was a verbatim sharing of the news. The petitioner asserts that since they have the right to voice their opinions, discussing association activities in a closed WhatsApp group shouldn’t result in disciplinary action.

The counterclaim asserts that petitioner’s conduct entailed spreading unfavourable information that infringed on the rights of third parties. Specifically, the petitioner mentioned harassing SC/ST employees without justification, which could have caused rifts among public employees. The counterargument posits that the messages were shared with other users in addition to the exclusive WhatsApp group. This led to the issuance of a charge note, and the authorities are now requesting authorization to move forward legally.

 Legal Provisions

In this case, the petitioner’s actions are bound by the legal provisions set forth in the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules of 1973, regulating the ethical and professional conduct expected from government employees.

 Issues

Can the lack of identification of the officer or specification of their position in the WhatsApp chats by the petitioner be the reason for the court’s dismissal of the writ petition, finding no merit in the case with the given facts?

Did the petitioner violate Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973?

 Courts analysis and decision

The court noted that the communications were not limited to the members of the exclusive WhatsApp group and did not only address the working conditions of the employees. Rather, they included claims of corruption against higher ranking authorities. The court noted that while every person, even a government employee, has the right to report corrupt practices to the government, this communication must take place via the appropriate channels. Spreading these kinds of communications among coworkers in a WhatsApp group or to specific employees without giving the accused officials a chance to explain themselves could be problematic.

The court acknowledged the right to vent, but it makes clear that this right may only be used in cases where communications about employees’ working conditions are exchanged or forwarded within a WhatsApp group. The court denied the attack on the charge memo, claiming that the person who issued it is the same one who was the target of the accusations in the WhatsApp group. The court observed that the petitioner had made accusations in the WhatsApp chats without identifying the officer or stating their position. As a result, the court dismisses the writ petition after finding no merit in it based on the facts that were offered.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement