Case Summary: Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited (2026) | Removal from Service Set Aside on Proportionality Grounds

The Delhi High Court in Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited delivered an important ruling concerning disciplinary action against a public sector employee for social media conduct and external communications alleging corruption within the organisation. The Court examined the interplay between service discipline rules and constitutional free speech rights, the scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, and the doctrine of proportionality in punishment.

While upholding the findings of misconduct, the Court interfered with the quantum of punishment, holding that removal from service was disproportionate and remitted the matter for reconsideration of the penalty.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Citation: W.P.(C) 13377/2018

Coram: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Decision Date: 10 February 2026

Factual Background

Service History

The petitioner, Madanjit Kumar, joined Central Electronics Limited (CEL) on 10 December 1993 as a Senior Technical Assistant. Over the years, he rose through the ranks and was promoted as Senior Manager (Public Relations) with effect from 1 January 2011.

His service record included prior disciplinary proceedings:

• In 2012, he faced suspension and charge-sheet proceedings, but the charges were not proved.
• In 2016, he was penalised for misuse of leave; however, the penalty was later set aside on appeal.
• In February 2017, he was issued another charge-sheet relating to transfer compliance and reporting obligations, resulting in minor penalties (not under challenge in this petition).

CAG Report and PIL

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had issued a report (2014–2016 period) noting administrative and financial irregularities in CEL. The petitioner claimed to have pursued these concerns internally.

On 20 January 2017, he filed a Public Interest Litigation (W.P.(C) 658/2017) before the Delhi High Court seeking an inquiry into CEL’s affairs based on the CAG report. Notice was issued in that PIL.

The 2017 Charge-Sheet

On 12 July 2017, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD) issued a charge-sheet under the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 (CAD Rules).

The allegations were broadly as follows:

Tarnishing the Image of the Organisation

The petitioner allegedly tweeted and circulated allegations of corruption, thereby acting prejudicially to CEL’s interests.

Influencing External Agencies and Media

He allegedly attempted to mobilise outside influence by approaching authorities and media outlets, directly and through his spouse.

Bypassing Official Channels

He made representations to higher authorities and external persons without following prescribed internal grievance procedures.

Telecom LIVE Publication

He was alleged to be instrumental in a February 2017 cover story in Telecom LIVE magazine regarding corruption in CEL.

Departmental Enquiry

The petitioner denied the charges. A departmental enquiry was conducted:

• The Presenting Officer filed written submissions.
• The petitioner submitted written defence arguments.
• On 9 June 2018, the Inquiry Officer held all Articles of Charge proved.

The petitioner filed his representation against the enquiry report on 25 July 2018.

Penalty Imposed

On 5 October 2018, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service, relying on Charges 1, 3, and 4. Notably, Charge 2 (Telecom LIVE publication) was not relied upon for awarding punishment.

The petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 11230/2018). The High Court disposed of it with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

On 28 November 2018, the Appellate Authority:

• Upheld the findings of misconduct.
• Modified the penalty from dismissal to removal from service (to avoid permanent debarment from government employment).

The present writ petition challenged both the disciplinary and appellate orders.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner raised multiple contentions:

1. Bias and Mala Fides

He argued that the proceedings were retaliatory since he had raised corruption allegations against management, including the CMD, who acted as the Disciplinary Authority. According to him, the proceedings were vitiated by bias and violation of natural justice.

2. Protected Speech

He contended:

• The tweets were based on material already in the public domain.
• He merely highlighted issues mentioned in the CAG report.
• Raising corruption concerns cannot amount to misconduct.
• Freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) protects such expression.

3. Deletion of Tweets

He argued that he deleted the tweets upon objection, and therefore, no continuing harm existed.

4. No “Outside Influence”

Communications to higher authorities or by his wife (an independent legal person) could not be attributed to him as misconduct.

5. Disproportionate Punishment

Even assuming misconduct, removal from service was grossly disproportionate, especially as no criminality or corruption was attributed to him.

Respondent’s Arguments

CEL argued:

1. Limited Scope of Judicial Review

A writ court cannot act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters. It can interfere only in cases of:

• Perversity
• No evidence
• Violation of natural justice
• Jurisdictional error

2. Serious Misconduct

The petitioner:

• Amplified defamatory allegations.
• Attempted to bring media and external pressure.
• Bypassed internal grievance channels.

Such conduct harmed the reputation of a commercial public sector entity.

3. Appellate Moderation Already Done

The Appellate Authority had already reduced the penalty from dismissal to removal, demonstrating fairness.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the proceedings were vitiated by bias or mala fides.
2. Whether findings on Charges 1, 3, and 4 were perverse or unsupported by evidence.
3. Whether the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate.

Court’s Analysis

I. Scope of Judicial Review

Justice Sanjeev Narula reiterated that writ courts do not re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary matters. Interference is justified only where:

• Findings are based on no evidence,
• There is patent illegality,
• Or conclusions are perverse.

II. Allegation of Bias

The Court rejected the plea of bias:

• Mala fides must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material.
• Merely criticising management or filing a PIL does not disqualify the Disciplinary Authority.
• The procedure followed standard steps: reply, enquiry, report, representation, reasoned order.
• The Appellate Authority independently examined the matter and modified the penalty.

Thus, no real likelihood of bias was established.

III. Freedom of Speech vs Service Discipline

The Court acknowledged that:

• Public sector employees retain free speech rights.
• However, these rights are subject to service discipline and conduct rules.

The charges were not about holding opinions but about:

• Public dissemination through social media,
• Mobilising external pressure,
• Bypassing internal procedures.

The Court emphasised that the mode and platform of expression matter in service law.

IV. Evidence Supporting Findings

The petitioner admitted:

• Making tweets and re-tweets.
• Addressing communications beyond internal channels.

The Court held:

• There was “some evidence” supporting findings.
• Findings were not perverse.
• Deletion of tweets is, at best, a mitigating factor.
• CAG report does not authorize violation of service discipline.
• Pendency of PIL does not immunise misconduct.

Thus, findings of misconduct were upheld.

Proportionality of Punishment

This became the decisive issue.

Principles Applied

The Court relied on the doctrine of proportionality:

• Punishment must not be excessive.
• There must be a rational evaluation of relevant considerations.
• Lesser penalties should be considered before imposing termination.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted:

• The penalty orders did not reflect calibrated reasoning.
• No discussion of why lesser major penalties were inadequate.
• The petitioner had long years of service.
• The misconduct involved public communication—not corruption, moral turpitude, or criminal conduct.

The Court found a “manifest imbalance” between misconduct and the extreme penalty of removal from service.

Final Decision

The Court:

• Upheld the findings of misconduct.
• Set aside the penalty of removal from service.
• Remitted the matter to the competent authority to reconsider penalty.
• Directed reconsideration within six weeks.
• The writ petition was partly allowed.

Conclusion

Madanjit Kumar v. Central Electronics Limited stands as an important precedent in Indian service jurisprudence concerning digital expression and disciplinary action. While the High Court declined to disturb factual findings of misconduct, it robustly applied the doctrine of proportionality to ensure that punishment remains just, reasoned, and calibrated.

The case reinforces that service discipline may regulate public conduct, but termination must always withstand constitutional scrutiny on proportionality grounds.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams