Tweeting Corruption Allegations Is Misconduct, But Removal Too Harsh: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside the penalty of removal from service imposed on a senior officer of Central Electronics Limited (CEL) over tweets and public allegations of corruption, holding that while the findings of misconduct could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, the punishment imposed was disproportionate and required reconsideration.

Justice Sanjeev Narula partly allowed the writ petition filed by Madanjit Kumar, a Senior Manager (Public Relations) at CEL, who had challenged both the disciplinary order dated October 5, 2018 and the appellate order dated November 28, 2018. The appellate authority had modified the original penalty of dismissal to removal from service, while upholding the findings of guilt.

Kumar was represented by Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, along with Mr. Rishabh Kumar and Ms. Saloni Mahajan. CEL was represented by Mr. Kunal Sharma, Ms. Swati Yadav and Mr. Bhim Singh.

The charges stemmed from tweets and re-tweets made by Kumar alleging corruption and financial irregularities in the organisation. The charge-sheet accused him of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company, attempting to bring outside influence by approaching authorities and the media, including through his spouse, and bypassing prescribed official channels under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976.

Kumar contended that he had merely shared information already in the public domain, including observations made in a Comptroller and Auditor General report, and that he had also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court. He argued that tweeting on matters of public concern was protected under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. He further claimed the proceedings were vitiated by bias, as the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, against whom allegations had been raised, acted as the disciplinary authority.

Rejecting the plea of mala fides, the court held that allegations of bias must be supported by clear and cogent material. “A plea of mala fides must be founded on clear particulars and supported by cogent material,” the judgment observed, noting that the disciplinary process followed the prescribed procedure and that the appellate authority independently examined the record.

On the scope of judicial review, the court reiterated that a writ court does not sit in appeal over departmental findings. Interference is warranted only where there is procedural illegality, perversity or absence of evidence. Since Kumar admitted to having made the tweets and communications forming the basis of the charges, the court found that the departmental conclusions could not be characterised as being based on “no evidence”.

The court also clarified that while public sector employees do not lose their speech rights, such rights are “mediated through conduct rules that insist on discipline, institutional propriety, and avoidance of conduct prejudicial to the employer’s interests.” The case, it said, was not about prosecuting opinions, but about the method and platform adopted for airing grievances.

However, the bench drew a distinction between sustaining findings of misconduct and endorsing the ultimate penalty. Emphasising the doctrine of proportionality, the court held that punishment must not be excessive to the legitimate objective sought to be achieved. The impugned orders, it noted, did not reflect a calibrated analysis as to why a lesser major penalty would not suffice.

The court also took note of Kumar’s long years of service, observing that while length of service does not excuse misconduct, it remains a relevant factor in assessing penalty.

“In these circumstances, this Court is persuaded that the penalty, as it presently stands, reflects a manifest imbalance between the misconduct proved and the consequence imposed,” the judgment held.

Accordingly, the court set aside the orders to the limited extent they imposed the penalty of removal from service and remitted the matter to the competent authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment afresh within six weeks. The findings of misconduct were left undisturbed.

Case Title: Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited

Date of Judgment: February 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula