Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Public Servant For Commenting On CM's Plea To Govt Officers To Donate 1-Month Salary For Flood Relief

The employee who was an outlet manager of SupplyCo at the time posted in the WhatsApp group of SupplyCo Employees of Kasargod the picture of Chief Minister's appeal with the caption that "Malayalees will happily donate their one-month salary but you have to reduce the expenditure".

The petitioner was booked under IPC Sections 166 (public servant disobeying law with the intent to cause injury to any person) and Sections 167 (Public servant framing an incorrect document with the intent to cause injury). He approached the High Court to quash the proceedings of the case.

Justice G Girish in his order said, "It is also pertinent to note that the comment posted by the petitioner quoting the appeal of the Chief Minister to donate one month's salary to the Flood Relief Fund, is not one exhorting others to refrain from contributing their monthly salary as requested by the Chief Minister. On the other hand, the opening words of that comment itself show that the people of Kerala would wholeheartedly give their monthly salary for the land, but there shall be austerity measures on the part of the Government to reduce the expenditure. Thus, it is not possible to say that a person reading the above comment would be motivated to avoid payment of his monthly salary to the Flood Relief Fund. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the act of the petitioner making the above post in the whatsapp group of the employees of SupplyCo in Kasaragod, was intended to cause injury to any of the beneficiaries of the Flood Relief Scheme".

With respect to application of Section 166 a person must be a public servant, should have disobeyed any direction of law and the disobedience is to done with the intention of causing injury to any person. At this stage the Public Prosecutor submitted that the conduct applicable to Government employees prohibits open criticism to the policy and decision of the Government and hence petitioner knowingly disobeyed the the above direction of law.

The court however said that while it is true that the service discipline to be followed by every Government employee requires them to avoid open and public criticism of the policies and decisions of the Government. So in that sense it could be said that the petitioner had disobeyed the direction of law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as a public servant.

However the court said that there was "absolutely no material available on record" to show that this disobedience on the petitioner's part was with the intention to cause injury to any person, or with the knowledge that such disobedience is likely to cause injury to any person.

"As per the averment in the final report, the petitioner committed the aforesaid disobedience with the intention to cause harm to the Government. However, it is not possible to say that the word 'person' embodied in Section 166 I.P.C would take in its ambit Government as well. Going by the inclusive definition of person in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, the term 'person' includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Having regard to the scheme and the context in which the word 'Government' is used in Indian Penal Code, it is not possible to say that the term 'person' envisaged under the various provisions of Indian Penal Code includes Government," the court said concluding that Section 166 is not attracted in the present case.

The Court then said that Section 167 applies only to public servants who are responsible for the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record and the same is not applicable to the petitioner.

"The facts and circumstances of this case are no way related to the preparation or translation of any such document or electronic record by the petitioner, as part of his official duty, in a manner to be incorrect, with the intention to cause injury to any person...In the light of the discussion made in the aforesaid paragraphs, it has to be stated that the offences under Sections 166 and 167 I.P.C are prima facie not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case," the court said while allowing the plea and quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates S. Rajeev, K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan, V. Vinay, D. Feroze, K. Anand, Sarath K. P.

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Sangeetharaj N. R. (Public Prosecutor)

Case No: Crl.MC 2022 of 2019

Case Title: Jamal v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 811