Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Govt. Employee Who Forwarded Objectionable Political Message In Employees' WhatsApp Group

Present Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner after he was aggrieved by the order of suspension by Commissioner, Indore solely on the ground that he forwarded an objectionable political message in the WhatsApp group of employees.

The suspension was ordered after his apology and explanation in reply to the show cause notice that his six year old daughter was operating with the mobile and she forwarded the message to the group and it was not intentional and a bona fide mistake was not found satisfactory.

Advocate Abhishek Sharda, appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Sudhanshu Vyas, appeared for the Respondent.

Petitioner also challenged the charge-sheet issued to him under Rule 3 of Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (''Rules of 1965'') on the ground that he has not made any derogatory remarks in public and the present group is only confined to the members of the group.

He further contended that the forwarded message was only a message that came in his mobile from another group, and it was not his personal opinion.

After going through the relevant documents about the birth of the daughter, the Court concluded that Petitioner had not taken a false plea that his daughter forwarded the message by mistake.

The High Court further noted that the Government had not issued any circular or made statutory provision for Government employees/offices to create WhatsApp groups, therefore, as per the Court, any activity of Government employees in the group cannot be linked with serious disciplinary rules.

The High Court relied on the ruling of the Madras high Court in the case of A. Lakshminarayanan V/s Assistant General Manager [2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5314] wherein while dealing with the similar issues following observation was made:

“Not only individuals but even groups have privacy rights. Time has come to recognize the concept of "group privacy". So long as the activities of a group do not fall foul of law, their privacy must be respected. If the members of a WhatsApp group share child pornographic content, it is a crime and a punishable activity. If the members conspire to commit any unlawful act, then again, the regulatory framework will step in. But when the members of a WhatsApp group are merely discussing among them, matters of common interest, that cannot be a target of attack.”

Consequently, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition while quashing the order of suspension and chargesheet.