When even prisoners have fundamental rights and it has been declared by the Apex Court that Part III of the Constitution does not stop at the prison gates, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the moment a person becomes a bank employee, he has to bid good-bye to Article 19(1)(a). The fundamental right insofar as it applies to the petitioner might have lost a bit of sheen but its core would remain with all vigor.
10.There is something called “right to vent”. Every employee or a member of an organization will have some issue or the other with the management. To nurture a sense of grievance is quite natural. It is in the interest of the organization that the complaints find expression and ventilation. It will have a cathartic effect. If in the process, the image of the organization is affected, then the management can step in but not till then.
11.Let us assume that a group of employees are having a chat in one of their homes. So long as it is a private chat, it cannot attract the regulatory frame work of the management. The common law principle is “everyman's home is his castle”. If bar room gossip is published, that would definitely attract contempt of Court. But then, so long as it remains private, cognizance cannot be taken. The world has become a global village. It is connected by digital technology. The principles applicable to a chat in a home can be applied to what takes place in an encrypted virtual platform that has restricted access. Such an approach alone will be in consonance with liberal democratic traditions. We are yet to enter into the worlds envisaged by AldousHuxley in “Brave New World” and George Orwell in “1984”. What the respondent proposes amounts to thought-policing.
It is well settled that a charge memo can be quashed if assuming that all the acts attributed to the delinquent are taken to be true, still, it would not be amount to act of misconduct. As already held, the petitioner is very much possessed of the right to vent. The opinion was not expressed publicly. It was shared among the members of a private WhatsApp group. The management has not disclosed as to how they became aware of the post. It has not been shown as to how the bank's interest has been affected. There are some political leaders who make statements that are in bad taste and yet refuse to apologize. When I indicated that while the petitioner can criticise the management, the language also matters, he readily apologized. In these circumstances, the act committed by the petitioner cannot amount to misconduct. The impugned charge memo is quashed. {Para 20}
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
W.P(MD)No.9754 of 2023
and
WMP(MD)No.8689 of 2023
A.Lakshminarayanan Vs. The Assistant General Manager
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Pronounced on : 08.08.2023.
Print Page