The Madras High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an Indian Revenue Services (IRS) officer challenging disciplinary measures taken against him after he went on hunger strike in solidarity of Sri Lankan Tamils.
A bench of Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha said that the “Conduct Rules” for government employees explicitly forbade them from belonging to any political party or “openly expressing” support or opposition to government policy.
Therefore, as a government servant , Balamurugan should have shown restraint, according to the bench.
“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 division bench stated.
In February 2009, Balamurugan, an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, went on a seven-day hunger strike and wrote to the President of the Indian National Congress, criticising the party’s positions on the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Agreement.
In February 2009, the Revenue Department suspended him, and in June 2009, he was issued a charge memo.
He was accused on two counts; one for taking an unlawful leave of absence in 2007, and the other for his hunger strike and letter to Congress President.
An investigation was launched, charges were filed against Balamurugan, and he faced a wage cut as part of the process. He requested for voluntary retirement in 2009, but it was denied. He then appealed the disciplinary proceeding to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which confirmed the decision of wage reduction in 2021.
Balamurugan subsequently petitioned the High Court, saying that he was the victim of a “witch hunt,” and requesting that the CAT ruling be overturned.
The Central government’s counsel, Senior Panel Counsel V Sundareswaran opposed Balamurgan’s plea, claiming that the petitioner had violated the Conduct Guidelines, which automatically triggered substantial penalty actions.
Advocate Sundareswaran stated that despite being a government employee, Balamurugan had engaged in politics, participated in demonstrations and strikes, and also criticised government policy, which could not be regarded lightly.
The bench decided that the disciplinary proceedings against Balamurugan had been carried out in conformity with the law. It was also highlighted that Balamurugan had never contested the accusations against him, but was instead voicing concerns about the method used.
Hence, the bench dismissed the plea, stating that Balamurugan had “erred” in asserting that there had been irregularities in the process and that CAT had been “correct in holding that the petitioner’s appeal had no substance.”
