The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an officer of the Indian Revenue Services (IRS) challenging disciplinary action initiated against him after he publicly expressed support for Sri Lankan Tamils through a hunger strike and criticised the Indian government’s policies on the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord [B Balamurugan v The Secretary].
In a judgment passed on March 10, a bench of Justices VM Velumani and R Hemalatha said that the “Conduct Rules” prescribed for government servants clearly prohibited them from being members of any political party, or from “openly expressing” support or opposition to government policies.
Therefore, as a government servant, Balamurugan ought to have shown restraint, the Court said.
“The Conduct Rules of any Government servant clearly prohibit being a member of any political party or openly expressing support or opposing any Government Policies. It is true that the petitioner showed his empathy towards his fellow Srilankan Tamil crisis, but as a Government servant he ought to have restrained himself in expressing his personal opinion. He has not denied the misconduct,” the High Court said.
Balamurugan, an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, had gone on hunger strike for seven days in February 2009, and had also written to the President of the Indian National Congress criticising the party’s policies on the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord.
He was placed under suspension by the Revenue Department in February 2009 and was issued with a charge memo in June 2009.
He was charged on two counts – one for having been on unauthorised leave of absence in 2007 and the other for the hunger strike and his letter to the Congress President.
An inquiry was conducted and charges were framed against Balamurugan and he faced a reduction in pay as part of the proceedings. He applied for voluntary retirement in 2009 but the same was not granted. He went on to challenge the disciplinary action before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and in 2021, the Tribunal confirmed the order of reduction in pay.
Balamurugan then came to the High Court claiming that he was a victim of “witch hunt” and prayed that the CAT order be quashed.
The Central government’s counsel however, opposed Balamurgan’s plea saying that the petitioner as a Central government employee had contravened the Conduct Rules which automatically invited major penalty proceedings.
The government said that despite being a government servant, Balamurugan had taken part in politics, participated in demonstration, strike and also criticised government policies which could not be taken lightly.
The counsel further contended that there had been a “proper inquiry” and that the petitioner had been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
The Court agreed that the disciplinary action had been taken against Balamurugan in accordance with the law. It noted that Balamurugan had never denied the charges against him but that he was merely raising questions over the procedure followed.
The bench, therefore, dismissed the plea saying that Balamurugan had “erred” in claiming that there had been lapses in following procedure and that CAT had been “right in holding that the petitioner’s case had no merit.”
Balamurugan appeared as a party in person.
Senior Panel Counsel V Sundareswaran appeared for the Union government’s Revenue Department.