Case: Manoj H.Mishra Vs. Union Of India

On 14th October, 1991, the appellant, who had studied upto 12th standard, was appointed as Tradesman/B Class III post at Kakarapar Atomic Power Project (KAPP) at Surat, Gujarat, a public sector enterprises. He was placed on probation for two years in accordance with the statutory rules. It is his case that on completion of the probation period, he is deemed to be confirmed w.e.f. 14th October, 1993. Thereafter, on 17th December, 1993, he was elected as General Secretary of the recognized Union of Class III and Class IV of KAPP, called Kakarapar Anumathak Karamchari Sangthan. It is the claim of the appellant that until his resignation from the primary membership of the aforesaid Union on 22nd September, 1995 at the instance of the Managing Director of the Nuclear Power Corporation (respondent No.2), he acted as the General Secretary of the Union. He was a popular Union leader who always won elections with more than 3/4th majority. On 3rd May, 1994, he was declared a protected workman along with others. He claims that as the General Secretary of the Union, he was very active and always made extra efforts to see that the genuine demands of the members of the Union are accepted by the respondents. As a representative of the Union, he was regularly in contact with the Station Director, KAPP (respondent No.4). As a consequence of the Union activities, the relationship of the appellant with respondent No.4 were sour. The appellant, however, maintained working relationship with the respondents. It is also the claim of the appellant that during the monsoon season, there was heavy rain during the night of 15th June, 1994 and water at Kakarapar Dam had risen beyond the danger level. As a result, the Dam authorities had to open the flood gates. In normal circumstances, Kakarapar lake would receive the Dam water through a canal which is an interlink. The water of the lake is used by theauthorities for power generation. However, on the night of 15th July, 1994, it was the flood water, which entered in the Kakarapar lake and within no time it had also entered into the plant. Before the next morning, more than 25 feet of the turbine which is adjacent to the Nuclear reactors was submerged under water. In fact, the entire record room and computer room were washed away. That apart, some of the barrels containing nuclear wastes were also washed away by the flood water. On 16th July, 1994, the respondent authorities declared an emergency, and started taking preventive measures.5. It is the claim of the appellant that questions were being raised by many people as to why and how the flood water could not be prevented from entering into the turbines and other areas of the plant. Therefore on 18th June, 1994, the appellant wrote a letter to the Editor, Gujarat Samachar, Surat narrating in the Gujarati language about the aforesaid incident. A translated copy of the letter has been placed at Annexure: P1 to the Special Leave Petition and reads as under18.06.1994To,The Editor,GujaratSamachar,Surat.In the Kankarapar on 16.06.94 there was water filled in, due to this reason about 25 to 30 feet water was filled in the Kankarapar, due to this reason the machines lying in the Atomic Centre shut down Unit No.1 several machines have moved back, and if this same unit No.1 was in the running condition then the situation would have been very grave, the Unit No.2 is not yet started. On 16.06.94 night there was water filled in the Pali Mahi Scheme, but some engineers in the department who were present at night in Pali they did not find it important to take any action due to this reason the water level went on rising slowly and the situation became so worse that there was emergency declared and the employees were sent away, the staff that was left behind there was no proper facility for food and water made, the employees leader Manojbhai Mishra says that all this is a result of grave corruptions. The department has incurred expenses worth lakhs of rupees and several big canals were made, but the same were not managed properly therefore due to ….illigible….field engineer section thousands of rupees were expended and in the building the situation was very grave and due to this reason although there were thousand crores rupees expended on motor, pump, piping all of which is drowned.The employees leader Manojbhai Mishra has stated that in the department there are no arrangements made for meeting with the natural calamities, and as a result of which this situation was created. Manojbhai Mishra has further stated that this is not any cloth mill, sugar mill or any paper mill but it is a valuable asset of the country of India and it is an atomic reactor. Manojbhai Mishra says that a high level committee inquiry should be immediately initiated in respect to the Kakarapar Atomic Centre and take strict action against the erring officer, so that in future no such accident may take place.Thanking you,Yours faithfully,Sd/-[Manojbhai Mishra]General SecretaryThe appellant points out that he did not disclose any official information which he could have received during his official duty. He claims that the facts narrated in the letter were of public knowledge and a matter of public concern. This is evident from the fact that every newspapers, politicians, members of legislative assembly and other citizens expressed their concern regarding the safety of the nuclear project and as to how the said incident could have happened. The appellant had narrated the facts relating to the water logging so that in future this type of incident may not occur. The appellant relies on a newspaper Anumukti dated 22nd June, 1994 entitledthe Price for Honesty andThis article points out that although mercifully no great disaster took place the event did highlight the lax attitude towards safety of the nuclear power plant authorities. The article points out some of the glaring irregularities. After pointing out the irregularities, the articlethis shows a criminal negligence on part of designers, operations and regulators of nuclear power in the country. And yet nobody is likely to suffer any adverse consequences at all. Nobody except Shri Manoj Mishra – the man who blew thera was immediately suspended from work for the crime of talking to the press and his suspension continues even today, five months after the event. While all those who displayed singular dereliction of duty continued merrily along, the one man who put the interest of the country above his own selfish interest has been made to suffer as an example to others that in the nuclear establishment the onlythat matter are leaks of authentic information.The appellant claims that it was only after the news was published on the 22nd June, 1994 that people outside and even the nuclear establishment in Bombay took cognizance of the event. The Station Superintendent made ato Surat and issued a statement along with the District Collector of Surat assuring all and sundry that all was well under control. The appellant claims that his honest approach was, however, not appreciated by the Management and in fact he was singled out for action, instead of taking action against erring officials on account of negligence. He had only performed his duty in alerting the authorities to the imminent danger to KAPP.8. As athe respondent authorities placed him under suspension by an order dated 5th July, 1994, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings for major penalty. On 4th August, 1994, the appellant was served with the following chargeI: That Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman/B in the Kakrapar Atomic Power Project, vide his letter on 18-6-1994 to the Editor, Gujarat Samachar newspaper, Surat, unauthorisedly communicated with the Press.Article II: That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman/B in the aforesaid project, in the letter dated 18-6-1994 written by him to the Editor, Gujarat Samachar made certain statement or expressed certain opinions, which amounted to criticism of the Project management or casting of aspersion on the integrity of its authorities.Article III: That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman/B in the aforesaid project, though his letter dated 18-6-1994, he wrote to the Editor of the Gujarat Samachar unauthorisedly communicated to the Press official information concerning the Kakrapar Atomic Power Project.Article IV: That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman/B in the aforesaid project established contact with a Press correspondent to feed information enabling the press to create news story about the Project containing inflammatory and misleading information causing embarrassment to, and damaging the reputation of the Project and the NPCIL.Article V: That the said Shri Manoj Mishra, while functioning as Tradesman/B in the aforesaid project, established contacts with the Press correspondent and fed him with vital information which has come into his possession in the course of his duty as Tradesman/B in the Project, enabling the press to create a news story about the Project creating embarrassment to the Project as swell as to the State authorities. Shri Manoj Mishra has thus committed breach of oath of secrecy which he took at the time of joining the Project.The appellant appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 20th December, 1995, when his Defence Assistant (for shortmade the following statement:-Shri Manoj Mishra met M.D. on 18.12.95 regarding the enquiry. He made appeal to M.D. on 22.9.95 and referring to this Shri Mishra enquired with M.D. As to what was his decision on his appeal. M.D. informed Shri Mishra that a lenient view will be taken, if he accepts the charge. I also met him today and he assured similarly to me also. In view of the above facts, Shri Mishra admits all the charges levelled against him and accordingly requests closure of the proceedings. We now request the I.O. also to take a lenient view of the case.Such admissions in the inquiry are not valid. Your meeting M.D. is an extraneous matter with which I am Inquiry Officer is not concerned. Further I also would not like you to admit the charges on reasons other than facts. I therefore, request you to categorically tell me whether on your own you admit the charges or not.I admit the charges. I request the inquiry to be closed.In view of the aforesaid admission, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry proceedings. The charges were held to be proved against the appellant. Acting on the aforesaid enquiry report by order dated 30th March, 1996, the Disciplinary Authority ordered the removal of the appellant from service of KAPP w.e.f. afternoon of 30th March, 1996. The appellant was informed that an appeal lies against the aforesaid order with the Station Director, KAPP within a period of 45 days from the date of the issue of the order. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant thereafter preferred a revision application before respondent No. 3, which was also dismissed.13. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order by way of a Special Civil Application No. 2115 of 1997. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge. The appellant preferred LPA No. 1041 of 2007 against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14th July, 2009. All these orders have been challenged before this Court in the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
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.