Case: Manoj H.Mishra Vs. Union Of India

issues raised by the respondent. Therefore, it is not possible to hold the respondent guilty of violating the undertaking given to this Court.” 32. This Court upon meticulously taking note of the entire fact situation observed that the editorial written by the respondent was not intended to demean CESTAT as an institution or to scandalize its functioning. Rather, the object of the editorial was to highlight the irregularities in appointment, posting and transfer of members of CESTAT and instances of abuse of the quasi judicial powers. It was further observed that the editorial highlighted the unsatisfactory nature of the orders passed by the particular bench of Mr. T.K. Jayaraman was a member. The orders had been set aside by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala as well as by this Court. In these circumstances, this Court observed:- “38. It is not the appellants case that the facts narrated in the editorial regarding transfer and posting of the members of CESTAT are incorrect or that the respondent had highlighted the same with an oblique motive or that the orders passed by the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts to which reference has been made in the editorial were reversed by this Court. Therefore, it is not possible to record a finding that by writing the editorial in question, the respondent has tried to scandalise the functioning of CESTAT or made an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice.41. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behaviour or report it. There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behaviour, within an organisation, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and controlling organisation, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality. However, external whistleblowers report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the informations severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, State, or federal agencies.42. In our view, a person like the respondent can appropriately be described as a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution established for dealing with cases involving revenue of the State and there is no reason to silence such a person by invoking Articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution or the provisions of the Act.” 33. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations are of no avail to the appellant. It is a matter of record that the appellant is educated only upto 12th standard. He is neither an engineer, nor an expert on the functioning of the Atomic Energy Plants. Apart from being an insider, the appellant did not fulfill the criteria for being granted the status of a “whistle blower”. One of the basic requirements of a person being accepted as a “whistle blower” is that his primary motive for the activity should be in furtherance of public good. In other words, the activity has to be undertaken in public interest, exposing illegal activities of a public organization or authority. The conduct of the appellant, in our opinion, does not fall within the high moral and ethical standard that would be required of a bona fide “whistle blower”. 34. In our opinion, the appellant without any justification assumed the role of vigilante. We do not find that the submissions made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the appellant was merely seeking publicity are without any substance. The newspaper reports as well as the other publicity undoubtedly created a great deal of panic among the local population as well as throughout the State of Gujarat. Every informer can not automatically be said to be a bonafide “whistle blower”. A “whistle blower” would be a person who possesses the qualities of a crusader. His honesty, integrity and motivation should leave little or no room for doubt. It is not enough that such person is from the same organization and privy to some information, not available to the general public. The primary motivation for the action of a person to be called a “whistle blower” should be to cleanse an organization. It should not be incidental or byproduct for an action taken for some ulterior or selfish motive. 35. We are of the considered opinion that the action of the appellant herein was not merely to highlight the shortcomings in the organization. The appellant had indulged in making scandalous remarks by alleging that there was widespread corruption within the organization. Such allegations would clearly have a deleterious effect throughout the organization apart from casting shadows of doubts on the integrity of the entire project. It is for this reason that employees working within the highly sensitive atomic organization are sworn to secrecy and have to enter into a confidentiality agreement. In our opinion, the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of confidentiality and discretion which was required to be maintained. In the facts of this case, it is apparent that the appellant can take no advantage of the observations made by this Court in the case of Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association (supra). This now brings us to the reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Case (supra). In our opinion, the ratio in the aforesaid judgment would have no relevance in the case of the appellant. We are not satisfied that this is a case of ‘glaring injustice’. 36. In our opinion, the punishment imposed on the appellant is not ‘so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience’ of this Court. The observations of this Court in Ranjit Thakur (supra) are also of no avail to the appellant. No injustice much less any grave injustice has been done to the appellant. 37.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error in rejecting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not inclined to examine the issue that the actions of the appellant would not constitute a misconduct under the Rules. In view of the admissions made by the appellant, no evidence was adduced before the Enquiry Officer by either of the parties. Once the Enquiry Officer had declined to accept the conditional admissions made by the appellant, it was open to him to deny the charges. But he chose to make an unequivocal admission, instead of reiterating his earlier denial as recorded in preliminary hearing held on 26th December, 1994. The appellant cannot now be permitted to resile from the admission made before the Enquiry Officer. The plea to re-open the enquiry has been rejected by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority. Thereafter, it was not even argued before the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel had confined the submission to the quantum of punishment. In LPA, the Division Bench declined to reopen the issue. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 for reopening the entire issue at this stage. Such power is reserved to enable this Court to prevent grave miscarriage of justice. It is normally not exercised when the High Court has taken a view that is reasonably possible. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any perversity in the decisions rendered by the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the Highexamined the entire fact situation, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the appellant was acting as a. This Court in the case of Indirect TaxAssociation (supra) has observed asof the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behaviour or report it. There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behaviour, within an organisation, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and controlling organisation, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality. However, external whistleblowers report misconduct on outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the informations severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, State, or federalour view, a person like the respondent can appropriately be described as a whistleblower for the system who has tried to highlight the malfunctioning of an important institution established for dealing with cases involving revenue of the State and there is no reason to silence such a person by invoking Articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution or the provisions of theour opinion, the aforesaid observations are of no avail to the appellant. It is a matter of record that the appellant is educated only upto 12th standard. He is neither an engineer, nor an expert on the functioning of the Atomic Energy Plants. Apart from being an insider, the appellant did not fulfill the criteria for being granted the status of a. One of the basic requirements of a person being accepted as ais that his primary motive for the activity should be in furtherance of public good. In other words, the activity has to be undertaken in public interest, exposing illegal activities of a public organization or authority. The conduct of the appellant, in our opinion, does not fall within the high moral and ethical standard that would be required of a bona fiden our opinion, the appellant without any justification assumed the role of vigilante. We do not find that the submissions made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that the appellant was merely seeking publicity are without any substance. The newspaper reports as well as the other publicity undoubtedly created a great deal of panic among the local population as well as throughout the State of Gujarat. Every informer can not automatically be said to be a bonafidewould be a person who possesses the qualities of a crusader. His honesty, integrity and motivation should leave little or no room for doubt. It is not enough that such person is from the same organization and privy to some information, not available to the general public. The primary motivation for the action of a person to be called ald be to cleanse an organization. It should not be incidental or byproduct for an action taken for some ulterior or selfishare of the considered opinion that the action of the appellant herein was not merely to highlight the shortcomings in the organization. The appellant had indulged in making scandalous remarks by alleging that there was widespread corruption within the organization. Such allegations would clearly have a deleterious effect throughout the organization apart from casting shadows of doubts on the integrity of the entire project. It is for this reason that employees working within the highly sensitive atomic organization are sworn to secrecy and have to enter into a confidentiality agreement. In our opinion, the appellant had failed to maintain the standard of confidentiality and discretion which was required to be maintained. In the facts of this case, it is apparent that the appellant can take no advantage of the observations made by this Court in the case of Indirect TaxAssociation (supra). This now brings us to the reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Case (supra). In our opinion, the ratio in the aforesaid judgment would have no relevance in the case of the appellant. We are not satisfied that this is a case of ‘glaringour opinion, the punishment imposed on the appellant is not ‘so disproportionate to the offence as to shock theof this Court. The observations of this Court in Ranjit Thakur (supra) are also of no avail to the appellant. No injustice much less any grave injustice has been done to the appellant.