'Employees WhatsApp Groups Are Private, Forwarded Message Not Personal Opinion': MP High Court Quashes Suspension Of Govt Employee
Noting that messages sent in a private group of employees have nothing to do with the office work of the government, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a suspension order and chargesheet against an employee who allegedly forwarded an objectionable political message to the group.The single judge bench of Justice Vivek Rusia held that forwarding a message in the WhatsApp group does not...
Noting that messages sent in a private group of employees have nothing to do with the office work of the government, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a suspension order and chargesheet against an employee who allegedly forwarded an objectionable political message to the group.
The single judge bench of Justice Vivek Rusia held that forwarding a message in the WhatsApp group does not come within the purview of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 applicable to the petitioner.
“…If any member forwards a message in the Whatsapp group which does not mean that it is his personal opinion. Any message in the form of text, photo or video sent in Whatsapp group is confined to the members of the said group. It cannot be said that message had been made public. The Whatsapp group is always formed by the friends and like-minded people amongst the contact list...”, the court observed that no third person can be added to such groups without prior permission.
Court further noted that the government has not passed any circular or a statutory provision for the formation of any WhatsApp Group for government employees. Moreover, it stated that a person is free to exit the group if he/she is no longer willing to continue. In such circumstances, it can be said that the activity of government employees in such groups cannot be linked with serious disciplinary rules, the bench sitting at Indore emphasised.
It was also held that forwarding a message would not imply the person possessed such personal opinions. It added:
If any member forwards a message in the Whatsapp group which does not mean that it is his personal opinion. Any message in the form of text, photo or video sent in Whatsapp group is confined to the members of the said group. It cannot be said that message had been made public.
Referring to the Madras High Court judgment in A. Lakshminarayanan v. Assistant General Manager 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 226, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the suspension order passed by Commissioner (Indore) on 06.02.2023.
In A.Lakshminarayanan, the High Court observed that an employee has the right to vent and the management cannot take disciplinary action for messages sent in a private WhatsApp Group as long as they are within the legal bounds.
Background
In the present case, a government employee in Alirajpur was charge-sheeted under Rule 3 of Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 for forwarding the objectionable message to the OPS Union WhatsApp group.
It was stated that before the chargesheet was issued by the Commissioner, the petitioner had sent a reply to the initial show cause notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Ali Rajpur Zila Panchayath. As per his reply, it was submitted that his six-year-old daughter, who was playing with the phone at the relevant time, inadvertently pressed a button and sent the message to the WhatsApp Group in question, and apologised for the same.
Additionally, the petitioner submitted that the message was not his personal opinion; it was merely a message that reached his mobile phone from another WhatsApp Group. According to him, there was never an intention to defame any political party or person or religion. On the other hand, the respondent authorities argued that the employee should have shown absolute integrity to the government, and in its absence, the disciplinary action was justified.
Though the respondents argued that there is no indication of the existence of the petitioner's daughter in his service book, the court later concluded that the employee had not resorted to a false pleading in this regard.
Justice Rusia found out that the name and date of birth are mentioned in the employee's online service book as well as on the birth certificate of his daughter. The daughter is also included in the Family Samagra ID of the petitioner, the court added.
Advocate Abhishek Sharda appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas represented the respondents as the panel lawyer.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 49
Case Title: I.D. Makrani v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 8370 of 2023