Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Amount To Misconduct Under Service Rules: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that tweeting or publicly disseminating allegations of corruption against one's employer can amount to misconduct under applicable service rules.

Justice Sanjeev Narula observed,

“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 Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a public sector undertaking (PSU) employee challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against him for posting tweets alleging corruption within the organisation.

The disciplinary authority had found the employee guilty of misconduct and imposed the penalty of removal from service.

Upholding the findings of misconduct, the High Court observed that employees governed by service conduct rules are bound by a framework of discipline, and while they are not denuded of their fundamental right to free speech, such right is subject to reasonable restrictions inherent in service jurisprudence.

“Expression and peaceful articulation can fall within Article 19(1)(a) and (b), but it is also accepted that reasonable restrictions, particularly in services, can regulate the manner of expression. A public sector employee's speech rights are not extinguished, but they are mediated through conduct rules that insist on discipline, institutional propriety, and avoidance of conduct prejudicial to the employer's interests,” it said.

At the same time, the Court held that the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct proved.

“Where the extreme penalty of severance is imposed, one would expect the order to reflect some calibration as to why such a measure was considered necessary and why lesser major penalties were regarded as inadequate to maintain institutional discipline. 35. The impugned orders do not reflect such a calibrated exercise in their reasoning on penalty,” it said.

As such, the Court affirmed the findings of guilt recorded in the disciplinary proceedings but directed the employer to reconsider the quantum of punishment.

Appearance: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Ms. Saloni Mahajan, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Kunal Sharma, Ms. Swati Yadav, Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 187

Case no.: W.P.(C) 13377/2018

Click here to read order